Statement by Gary Hunt Regarding the Freedom of the Press – Show Cause Hearing of August 23, 2017

Statement by Gary Hunt
Regarding the Freedom of the Press;
Show Cause Hearing of August 23, 2017

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 26, 2017

I intended to write an article about the Freedom of the Press hearing in Portland, Oregon.  However, since I had decided to testify, I had mentally prepared to answer cross-examination questions, should they be asked.  My problem in writing this is that the answers given and the answers not given are mingled together in my mind, I can’t quite sort them out and be sure of the accuracy of what I say.  As to discussing other matters that were brought up, as well as examination and cross-examination of the government’s two witnesses, FBI SA Jason Kruger and FBI SA Matthew Catalano, are also mingled in my mind, as well as much that was presented by both the prosecuting attorney and my able counsel, Michael Rose.

Therefore, I will, at this time, simply give an overview, from my perspective, of what occurred.

AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney) Pamala Holsinger opened by telling us how damaging my exposing the informants was.  She then called FBI SA Jason Kruger to the stand.  Kruger must have listened to many hours of various internet radio shows I did, as well as reading, perhaps, all that I have written in both the “Burns Chronicles” and “Freedom of the Press” series.  I would say that he was accurate in his quoting from both, but often the words, without inflection and out of context, tell a story that is, at best, just close.  However, his testimony, until cross-examination, simply painted a picture of me saying that what I had written would help the defendants.

However, in cross-examination, he was referred to what he had written in his 302 reports and it was pointed out that I had said that my purpose in doing the outing was to shed light on the “Misdeeds of Government”, a phrase that I has been used for decades in describing my writing.

Next came Catalano.  Matthew is a nice guy and we got along well, in our two meetings.  However, his examination followed the same course.  Well, until cross-examination, where Mr. Rose elicited some more positive aspects of our meetings, as well as the fact that from the beginning, I had told Catalano that I didn’t believe that I was subject to a Protective Order, especially one issued out of  Oregon, and me not being among those to whom the Protective Order was addressed.

Now, the dilemma is that given what they had presented, both the positive and the negative were nothing more than words.  Very little about my motivation to investigate the identities and then write about the informants is addressed in the articles, themselves.  And, the radio shows, well, when you speak to an audience, you are not under oath, and you may tend to not present certain statements with sufficient explanation to put a proper context on what is said.  Kind of like a politician seeking election, but not telling you all that he believes.

Absent my testimony, where I could present the motivation, it would simply be a coin-toss as to whether the negative or positive would be used by Judge Anna Brown to make her ruling on the matter.

Interestingly, those who wish to ridicule me on the Internet reported that my attorney told me to “shut up”.  Well, that is very far from the truth.  The day before the Hearing, when I arrived in Portland, I met with him to discuss the hearing.  He asked if I had any witnesses to call, and I told him that I keep all but my articles to myself — that nobody could really speak to what my motivation was — except me.  He advised me of the dangers of taking the stand, though I already understood what those were.  It was clear that I could not speculate on the source, which was a comfort to me, as I simply had to tell the truth, that I didn’t know who sent me the Discovery information that was the evidence I used to identify the informants.  He said that he felt comfortable that I could take the stand, so it was decided that I would.

As my turn to take the stand arrived, Judge Brown asked whether I was properly advised of the potential risk, if I took the stand.  Mr. Rose explained that we had discussed that, and that I was aware of the necessity that I do so.  So, I took the stand and testified.

. Continue reading ‘Statement by Gary Hunt Regarding the Freedom of the Press – Show Cause Hearing of August 23, 2017’ »

Freedom of the Press #18 – The Big Guns

Freedom of the Press #18
The Big Guns

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 10, 2017

August 8, 2017, was the date set for the government to file their response.  They did so in the Government’s Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt.  That will be the subject of this article, however the recent background, since the May 9, 2017, Jurisdiction Hearing.

As a result of that Hearing, the government first filed the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (June 12, 2017).  That was the subject “Freedom of the Press #16 – Jurisdiction Hearing“.  It appears that since January, when the government sought to have me held in Contempt of Court, they have yet to come up with a case citation that supports their position.

My response was filed as Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (July 21, 2017).  This Memorandum increases the burden on the government, separating articles published before the “Supplemental Protective Order” and the one article published after that Order.  The government has yet to meet any standard of proof with regard to their legal responsibility to do so.

So, the current government Reply endeavors to regurgitate some of the same arguments that the government has relied upon, through the course of this ordeal.  For example, they have, from the beginning, relied upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), when they state, “The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established.”  Where they fail in Roviaro, is that the protection is afforded by allowing the government to protect the identity of the informant.  In the words of the Roviaro decision, “What is usually referred to as the informer’s privilege is, in reality, the Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons…”  What it does not do is to extend any criminal liability to those that disclose an informant’s identity.  It simply gives the government the right to try to protect the identity.

In the current matter, that was done to the extent that the law allows, the Protective Order that sanctioned those who were given certain information from disclosing that information.  It is only that person, whether a defendant, defendant’s counsel, or even government employee, was subject to the Court’s order not to divulge the identity of the informants.

The government did so even prior to the Discovery being given to the defendants, when they redacted what they believed to be any information that would tend to expose the informants.  The informant’s names were redacted as where many hundreds of words that the government felt would identify the informants.  The government keeping that information away from the defendants (the identification of informants) was their exercise of the protection of the informants, as per Roviaro.

The government continues to persist in stating, rightfully, “this Court had the authority to issue the orders and that it continues to have the authority to enforce the orders.”  However, they have yet to address the relevant aspect of jurisdiction.  To put this in context, if a judge in Mexico issues an order, he has such authority.  He also has the right to enforce that order.  However, does he have the jurisdiction to first, apply that order to someone not within his jurisdiction?  And, second, the authority to enforce the order against someone not within his jurisdiction?

The government wants to spin the context of what I said into a confession that is very, very far from my belief and honest admission as to the authority of the judge.

As the government continues, they make this rather curious assertion:

“When Hunt complains that this Court’s orders “prohibit” him from publishing “certain investigative pieces,” his factual premise is simply inaccurate.  Second, the justification for the original Protective Order continues because there is an ongoing need to protect cooperating witnesses regardless of the status of the trial.”

So, let’s break this down.  I have never complained about anything, except the fact that I was arrested by the government, similar to this current contempt situation, wrongfully applying a statute that did not apply to me, resulting in my spending a week in the Sacramento County Jail.  It would have been substantially longer had not Judge Brown seen through the deceitful tactic of the government in attempting to punish me, by simply lying to have a warrant issued for my arrest.  See Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?

Then, the government shysters endeavored to make a point:

“We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case — or even the informants — we only want him to observe this Court’s Order, which means that he cannot publish the discovery material subject to the Court’s Order.”

How nice of them to say that they don’t have a problem with me writing “about the case — or even the informants.”  How gracious.  However, these shysters are supposed to present facts.  My reputation as a journalist (not a blogger) is based on presenting facts.  Let’s suppose that I wrote about the informants, but failed to justify my conclusions without facts to back up those conclusions.  Well, then, I might just be a blogger.  However, as facts are a requisite in our judicial system, they are also a matter of principle to a good journalist.  To make accusations without presenting the facts makes a mockery of journalism, as it would of the judicial system.

Besides, such accusations are prolific in the patriot community.  They tend to lack any substance and are often made over a simple disagreement between two people.  Should some rely upon simply my word that so and so is an informant, the informant would simply accuse the accuser of being an informant.  And, the louder voice would probably prevail.  Surely, the government shysters would love to see an expansion of the “he said; she said” sort of rhetoric in the community.

As we continue through the Reply, we find this rather subjective statement of ‘facts’:

“[T]he government’s interests far outweigh any First Amendment interest Hunt may assert.  First, we need to protect our confidential sources for all of the valid reasons identified in Roviaro.  Second, the Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Orders.  Without enforcement, Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.”

Now, the first point has already been addressed, with regard to the government’s right to endeavor to protect their sources — which they did by denying the defendants the right to call the witnesses against them (6th Amendment).  Second, the Court wrote the Protective Order and subjected those identified as subject to that Protective Order.  Daniel Ellsberg was the criminal in the “Pentagon Papers”.  The New York Times was not.  Finally, and the most laughable, is that the government feels that the exchange of discovery might be undermined.  Well, there is little doubt that the shysters want to keep as many secrets as they can from the defense.  However, in an effort to attempt to maintain their unscrupulous cadre of spies amongst us, they would willingly subvert the Constitution.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #18 – The Big Guns’ »

The Bundy Affair #21 – Batson Challenge – in the Name of Injustice

The Bundy Affair #21
Batson Challenge – in the Name of Injustice

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 31, 2017

Introduction

In “Liberty or Laws?  – Justice or Despotism?“, I discussed how the case law method provides the government, through judicial proceedings, to move, a decision at a time, away from the intent of the Constitution.  In recent events in the second Tier 3 trial, only two-thirds of the trial was declared a “mistrial”, while the other third was not declared a mistrial.  I say this because the first trial, by the government’s design, included six defendants, all of whom were accused of wielding firearms on April 12, 2014, when the Bureau of Land Management returned the surviving captured cattle to their rightful owner.  Two defendants were found guilty of some of the charges.  The remaining four were not found guilty of any of the charges, though they were also not found not guilty.  So, there was no mistrial on the two, but there was a mistrial in the same singular trial of the other four.

Now comes the second trial, and the subject of this article.  Jury selection occupied the first two days of the trial and much of the third day.  Now, in jury selection, each side, Prosecution and Defense, may challenge a juror for cause.  Each side also has what are called “peremptory challenges”.  This is the definition of peremptory challenges found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Peremptory challenge.  A request from a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror to be a member of the jury.  No reason or “cause” need be stated for this type of challenge.  The number of peremptory challenges afforded each party is normally set by statute or court rule.

However, on the third day of trial, the government, apparently butt-hurt over the Defendant’s Peremptory Challenges, brought up what is known as a “Batson Challenge”, historically exercised by the defense, not by the prosecution.  They allege that the peremptory challenges were intentionally applied (state of mind) to exclude certain potential jurors.  Well, it appears that the Defendants cannot have a state of mind presented in Court as to why they went from their homes to Bunkerville, but they can be held accountable for their state of mind when it comes to jury selection.

Background of the Batson Challenge

The Batson Challenge is based upon a 1986 United States Supreme Court decision in Batson v Kentucky 476 US 79.  It deals with the Defendant’s right to challenge a jury makeup if the government’s peremptory challenges create a gender or racial bias in the jury.  First, a little background based upon earlier decisions.  In reviewing these cases, you will see that the original protection afforded to the people by the Constitution is slowly being chipped away.  In this current trial, the right protected for the people is now being used to afford the government the opportunity to claim a right that was intended to be a prohibition against the government.

As early as 1879, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the right of the defendant, with regard to the use by the prosecution of Peremptory Challenges, to stack the jury.  The case was Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303.  Based upon the 14th Amendment, the decision stated, “that a State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded.”  [Quoted portion cited from Batson v. Kentucky.]

Strauder goes on to say that “A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race.  However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors.  By denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror.”  [Quoted portion cited from Batson v. Kentucky.]

Interestingly, that underlined portion from Batson, “By denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror “, presumes that the juror has a right to sit on the jury, nearly equal to the right of the defendant.  This appears to be a very early example of Civil Rights (See Liberty or Laws? – Natural Rights versus Civil Rights), whereby the government grants a civil right at the expense of one who previously enjoyed a natural right.

However, note that since the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment, guarantees the people the right to a trial by jury, it does not grant that right to the jury.  If anything, the jury has no right to refuse jury service, unless they are otherwise exempted.  The Bill of Rights was to protect us from the government.  It was never intended to provide the government the means to remove our protection from the actions of that government.

What the Batson decision does not provide, however, is the background of Strauder.  Strauder was indicted for murder.  He was an ex-slave, and the indictment was tried in a West Virginia Circuit Court and found guilty.  His case then went to the West Virginia Supreme Court, where they upheld the lower court’s verdict.  It then went to the United States Supreme Court on a Writ of Error.  So, taking from the Strauder decision, we find what led to the composition of the jury in the Circuit Court trial, to wit:

In the Circuit Court of the State, before the trial of the indictment was commenced, the defendant presented his petition, verified by his oath, praying for a removal of the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States, assigning, as ground for the removal, that ‘by virtue of the laws of the State of West Virginia no colored man was eligible to be a member of the grand jury or to serve on a petit jury in the State; that white men are so eligible, and that by reason of his being a colored man and having been a slave, he had reason to believe, and did believe, he could not have the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings in the State of West Virginia for the security of his person as is enjoyed by white citizens, and that he had less chance of enforcing in the courts of the State his rights on the prosecution, as a citizen of the United States, and that the probabilities of a denial of them to him as such citizen on every trial which might take place on the indictment in the courts of the State were much more enhanced than if he was a white man.’

This led to West Virginia, not a seceding state that would have been required to rewrite its constitution, to revise its laws on jury makeup.  This, of course, was a consequence of the due process provision of the 14th Amendment.

As I have said in the past, the presumption of innocence was based upon the fact that the Indictment (the alleged story of events) was on trial, not the defendant.  However, we have lost sight of that concept and now perceive the guilt of the defendant (the focus) as the purpose of the trial, not the validity of the Indictment.  Subtle, but still effective.

The Batson decision also provides the following:

[T]he Kentucky Supreme Court observed that recently, in another case, it had relied on Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, and had held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the venire.

So, in this citation, the defendant has the burden of proving that the prosecution has not used “systematic exclusion” in their use of their peremptory challenges.  However, as we will see, in the current case, that burden will be transferred to the prosecution, and the defendant is accused of “systematic exclusion”.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #21 – Batson Challenge – in the Name of Injustice’ »

Liberty or Laws – Justice or Despotism

Liberty or Laws?

Justice or Despotism?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 10, 2017

When the colonies severed their allegiance to England, in 1776, through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, they had to have some form of law upon which to deal with matters, both criminal and civil.  To do so, they adopted the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776.  This, then, became the foundation of laws upon which both the federal government and state governments began the process of developing their judicial systems.

What is important to understand is that the laws that they adopted were concerned with Justice.  For example, though Webster’s 1828 dictionary has no definition of “judicial”, an adjective, it does have one for that body that is responsible for that function of government, the Judiciary:

JUDI’CIARY, n.  That branch of government which is concerned in the trial and determination of controversies between parties, and of criminal prosecutions; the system of courts of justice in a government.  An independent judiciary is the firmest bulwark of freedom.

Through our history, there have been legal scholars who stand well above the current lot, in that their concern for justice was paramount in their considerations, and the subject of much of their scholarly writings.

Perhaps the best known of these legal scholars was Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), and his seminal “Blackstone’s Commentaries.  From Book 1 of those Commentaries, we find some familiar phraseology:

“[A] subordinate right of every Englishman is that of applying to the courts of justice for redress of injuriesSince the law is in England the supreme arbiter of every man’s life, liberty, and property, courts of justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein.”

“And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property.”

Of course, personal security is best defined as “life”, as without it, we have nothing.  And, Blackstone used the common term, “property”, as did most of the declarations of independence that predate Jefferson’s more poetic version.

What else did Sir Blackstone tells us about justice that was of extreme importance then, and should be equally so, now.  When he discusses Felony Guilt, he states his understanding and then refers to another scholar, Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), from Book 4:

“Presumptive Evidence of Felony.  All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.  Sir Matthew Hale lays down two rules: (1) Never to convict a man for stealing the goods of a person unknown, merely because he will not account how he came by them; unless an actual felony be proved of such goods.  (2) Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter, till at least the body be found dead.”

This subject can easily be set aside by the government simply stating that “times have changed”, since Blackstone wrote the Commentaries in the 1760s.  However, that discounts the fact that justice cannot change, only the misapplication of justice can change.  That latter is quite simply defined as injustice.

The Constitution provided two means by which the constitutionality of a law could be challenged.  The first, found in Article I, § 9, clause 2:

. Continue reading ‘Liberty or Laws – Justice or Despotism’ »

Independence Day 2017

Independence Day 2017

Fourth day of July, in the Year of our Lord 2017
and of Our Independence, 241

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, 2017 – Independence Day

Many, now, seek to re-declare our Independence, though they have yet to explain from who or what we are declaring Independence.  Instead, perhaps, we need to address a declaration of dependence on the Constitution.

To do so, we must first acknowledge the failure by the current government, instituted under that Constitution, to fulfill the provisions and obligations that brought that government into existence — by and under the Constitution.

The grievances we have bear similarities to those expressed in the “Glorious” Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.

Based upon the concepts of John Locke (1632-1704), the same concept of dissolution of government recognized by the Founders is applicable today.  Locke explained that we had no right to dissolve the government, though the government by deviating from its intended purpose, in that failure, dissolves itself.  It is only for us to recognize that failure to recognize that dissolution.  (See Sons of Liberty #14)

To assure obedience to the Constitution, twelve articles were submitted to the States for ratification as amendments to the Constitution.  When Congress submitted those articles to the States, they prefaced that submission with a preamble, to set forth the purpose thereto:

THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

* * *

We must ask ourselves whether that confidence continues, as was intended, or if that government has failed in its purpose by misconstruction or abuse of its powers.

The North Carolina Supreme Court properly expressed the solution to this failure of the government to abide by the constraints even before the federal Constitution was submitted to the States.

In Bayard v. Singleton [1 N.C. 42; 1787], the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on a case where the legislature had enacted a law contrary to the North Carolina Constitution.  In overturning that law, that Court stated:

“But that it was clear that no act they [the legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

In light of the above concepts, those same held by the Founders, let us reconsider the approach that is consistent with our creation as a nation, and submit the facts “to a candid world”.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Declaration of Dissolution of Government

When a government, properly instituted under the authority of the People, by virtue of the Constitution for the United States of America, has abrogated its responsibility under said Constitution, and has removed itself from responsibilities imposed upon it by said Constitution, and, when those People choose to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to recognize such Dissolution of Government.

. Continue reading ‘Independence Day 2017’ »

The Cause – What To Do?

The Cause – What To Do?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2017

I have been writing about the Bundy Affair since April 12, 2014 and the Burns Chronicles since February 2, 2016.  Both evolved out of a common grievance, Public Lands, and the rights that are inherent in them.  There are other commonalities, such as some of the players involved in both events and the fact that both had left behind the concept of Civil Disobedience and had entered the realm of Civil Defiance.  Those players, unlike most other patriots, had moved along “The Other (not so) Thin Line” to a point where their actions were intended to speak louder than their words.

The first event, in Nevada, the Bundy Affair, was an evolution from an event back in 1993 when Cliven Bundy, supported by hundreds of patriots who went to his ranch to side with him, defied the federal government and first stood for his right to continue both grazing and water permits necessary to continue his ranching business.  Cliven Bundy’s right to his historical use of the public lands culminated on April 12, 2014, or so we thought, in the “Unrustling” of the cattle that had been rustled by agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

In 2015, in Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond had been “resentenced” for a “crime”, though they had already served their time.  Their “crime” was the use of controlled burn and backfire to do what ranchers and the BLM have done for over a century.  The first is to destroy unwanted vegetation, the second, to control an existing fire in order to protect property.

This was not the beginning of their ordeal with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).  Their ordeal began almost a decade before Cliven Bundy’s first confrontation with an out of control federal government.  The FWS had been trying to restrict the Hammond’s ranching by cutting of water supply, fencing public corridors, and requiring annual licensing for what were perpetual rights to Public Land Usage.  “The Harassment of the Hammonds” dates back to October 1986.

For all intents, the Hammonds were tried, sentenced, served their time, and left prison as free men.  The government waited until all of this was done before filing an appeal to the Appellate Court, contending that they should have been sentenced according to the Sentencing Guidelines.  Funny, the word guidelines isn’t mandatory, simply a guide.  But, more on that in a future article.

The resentencing of the Hammonds raised the indignation of some of those players from the Bundy Affair, and others who had, possibly a result of what they witnessed in April 2014, moved further along that “Thin Line”.  Unable to convince the Hammonds that they should not turn themselves in for the additional 4+ years they would now have to serve, the objective changed to the FWS, the aggressors against the Hammonds.

There had been a planned demonstration in support of the Hammonds scheduled for January 2, 2016, just two days before they were to turn themselves over to the US Marshal Service to begin their second punishment for the first crime.  This demonstration, like many others, was Civil Disobedience.  However, behind the scenes, a plan of Civil Defiance had been hatched.  It was left to those who either went to Burns, Oregon, before or after the January 2 event to decide just how far along that “Thin Line” they had moved.  Unfortunately, many who claim that they are “fed up with the Feds” are not fully committed to action.  Instead, they chose to act big and criticize what was acted out by those who were more committed and chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), an FWS facility about thirty miles south of Burns, and the adversary of the Hammonds rights for three decades.

For nearly a month, the Civil Defiance brought attention to the country, and the world, that the historical rights of Public Land usage were being trampled upon by the government.  The government, possibly absent any legal standing to deal with the occupation of the MNWR, chose to ambush a two vehicle, eight-person convoy going to a public event in John Day, Grant County, north of Burns.

Lying to the Oregon State Police (OSP), the FBI claimed that they were making a “felony stop” (legally, to stop the completion of a felony) and/or to serve an arrest warrant.  The warrant, however, was not issued until after seven were arrested and one murdered, while in transit to the event in John Day.

. Continue reading ‘The Cause – What To Do?’ »

Memorial Day 2017

Memorial Day 2017

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 29, 2017 (Memorial Day)

 

Memorial Day began as a day of honoring and remembering those soldiers that died in the Civil War.  It was practiced beginning in the South in 1866 and the North in 1868.  It was a day in which the graves of those soldiers were decorated with flowers, in honor of their sacrifice, and was called Decoration Day.

Recognition as Memorial Day began as early as 1872, though it wasn’t commonly used until after World War II.  In 1967, it was officially changed to Memorial Day by the government.

It now honors all dead American Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen, who died in service to their country, including those who fought for the South.

So, what is a holiday; what does it mean?  Well, we can look at the Ten Commandments and get an idea of just what led our Judeo-Christian values to recognize a special day.  The Fourth Commandment says, “Thou shalt keep the Sabbath Day holy.”  That means that the designated day is above all other consideration, on the day so designated.

Whether you hold Saturday or Sunday as the Sabbath is a choice that each of us makes.  However, we commonly recognize the last Monday in May to be Memorial Day, and on that day we recognize of the sacrifice of those soldiers; it is to be held above all other considerations.

There is little doubt that those in power have moved our country away from the Constitution that created that government.  They have moved the government away from the very reason for those who served, and those who gave their lives for what was intended — and what we fought for.

There are two soldiers that I have particular memories of.  First is William “Billy” Prescott.  We went through nearly our entire schooling together.  Bill was quiet and intelligent, and perhaps the least likely to consider to be a soldier.  I found out about Billy’s death, Killed in Action, on my first and only visit to the Wall in Washington, D. C. One-hundred and twenty-six of us, the “Prodigy Vets”, went to see the Wall, most for the first time, in 1992.  Walking down, along the wall, to the apex, then back up the other side, was probably the most emotional event in my life.  The magnitude of waste of those lives was beyond my comprehension.  Considering that the Vietnam War was nothing that we should have been involved in, rather a consequence of our government gone astray from the principles upon which this country was founded.  However, we were naive, and simply did our Country’s bidding.

. Continue reading ‘Memorial Day 2017’ »

Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?

Freedom of the Press #17
Is This Legal?

Pamala R. Holsinger, (OregonLive)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 25, 2017

In a previous article, “Freedom of the Press #13 – Sojourn to Sacramento“, I explained that Federal Magistrate Brennan (Sacramento) intended for me to receive diesel therapy, and that I would provide insight into just why he chose that route.  It was an expected response based upon the information that he had been provided, regarding the Sealed Order Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt and Order Sealing Arrest Warrant (ECF #2017).

This Sealed Order was obviously prepared by the US Shyster’s Office.  Their intention was to punish me, as they have most of the others in the Oregon and Nevada indictments, based upon contrived accusations.

The most oft-repeated contrived accusations that we are all familiar with are:

  • To justify shooting someone, “I feared for my life and/or the life of a fellow officer”.
  • Though some have homes, family, and jobs, “They are a flight risk and should be detained in jail until trial”.

Well, now we get another one to add to the list.  I have been writing for 24 years.  I have never carried a firearm during that period.  Though my words may be inciteful, they are simply words (The Pen can be mightier than the Sword).  There is no reason to believe that I would avoid arrest, as I had continued the dialogue regarding Freedom of the Press for nearly three months, and met, willingly, with FBI Special Agent Catalano, whenever requested.  However, the wording in the Sealed Order states:

The Court, however, finds good cause to file under seal both this Order and the arrest warrant. Throughout this case and in the factually-related matters that took place in Bunkerville, Nevada, in April 2014 that are the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings in the District of Nevada, there have been instances of individuals avoiding the execution of court orders and/or arrest by engaging in armed confrontations with law enforcement. The Court issues under seal this Order and the warrant for Hunt’s arrest in an effort to permit the orderly execution of the arrest warrant.

Well, I wrote about Bunkerville (The Bundy Affair series), and I continue to do so.  However, I was not present at that armed, yet peaceful, protest of the government’s effort at the semi-legal rustling of cattle by the BLM, including their intended violation of numerous state and federal laws regarding branding and cattle health certifications.  I was at Burns for a few days.  However, I was there to get a story on the treatment of the Hammonds, prior to the fires (See “The Harassment of the Hammonds“), that got them imprisoned for five years.  There has been no effort on my part  to avoid arrest by engaging in an armed confrontation with law enforcement.  There was no arrest warrant in the possession of the FBI or the Oregon State Police during the stop, roadblock, and murder of LaVoy Finicum.  Finicum, as the government has admitted, expressed to those who had no warrant, that he was going to a law enforcement officer, Sherriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Oregon.

This fiction was probably simply glossed over by Judge Brown.  However, she “rubber-stamp” signed the Sealed Order and the Arrest Warrant.  This was the documentation that was presented to Eastern District of California Magistrate Brennan, who had to decide if I should be detained and diesel transported back to Oregon.  And, of course, with that as the only information that he had before him, the demonization of me was such that he curtly denied any alternative.

The case that Magistrate Brennan ruled on is United States of America v. Gary Hunt, Case No. 2:17-mj-00058.  The records transferred from California to the Oregon case, United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al, case, in Oregon (which my matter still falls within), and the Booking Report, list the only charge as a violation of 18 U. S. Code §3146, “failure to appear”.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?’ »

Freedom of the Press #16 – Jurisdiction Hearing

Freedom of the Press #16
Jurisdiction Hearing

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 15, 2017

To put proper perspective on recent ongoing events leading up to my jurisdiction hearing in Portland, Oregon, on May 9, 2017, we must go back to the Order (ECF #1901) to show cause why I should not be held in contempt of Court.  That Order demanded my appearance to answer the allegations made by the government.  It was specific to the show cause and had nothing to do with jurisdiction.  Had I appeared, it could easily be argued by the Court that my appearance was a submission to jurisdiction.  Now, as strange as it might seem, unless jurisdictional questions are raised at the outset, the Court can properly assume jurisdiction.  My research indicates that this was firmly established as early as 1856 (Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1856)).  Matters of jurisdiction were not the object of the hearing, and may not necessarily be heard.

The assumption of jurisdiction could be the possible outcome; the consideration of jurisdiction had to be established by other means.  I was not sure just how this could be achieved.  However, subsequent to my arrest, Judge Brown provided the opportune means in the telephonic hearing on April 6, 2017.  This is fully explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“.  Briefly, the matter of jurisdiction was brought up as a separate issue from the show cause, which at that time was the only subject on the table.

That Hearing resulted in the scheduling of the May 9 jurisdiction hearing, so the two issues, jurisdiction, and show cause (First Amendment – Freedom of the Press), were separate, and would be heard separately.  The jurisdiction would be heard in one hearing, the show cause in a subsequent hearing.

Well, this was a start.  However, it was rather discomforting.  If I were to win at the jurisdiction hearing, then there would be no show cause hearing.  And, I was pretty sure that I would win at jurisdiction, meaning that the Freedom of the Press issue would not have its day in court.

On the other hand, if I lost the jurisdiction hearing, then the Freedom of the press aspect would see the light of day.  Heck, I even contemplated losing the jurisdiction arguments, though it is nearly as important, so that the other, more important, show cause issue could be heard and ruled on.

Well, on May 9, Judge Brown dismissed the jurisdiction motion, with her “Order Denying Request to Dismiss Contempt Proceedings for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction” (ECF #2095).  The written Order was filed two days later, on May 11.  The pertinent parts follow:

In particular, the Court finds the government has made a sufficient preliminary showing that evidence exists to support its theory that Hunt intentionally or knowingly aided and abetted a party to this litigation in the violation of the Protective Order (#382). That preliminary showing requires this Court to proceed to litigate the combined jurisdictional and merits-related issues. See Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983)(When “the jurisdictional issue and the substantive issue are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial.”). See also Young v. United States, 769 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2014).

So, we can see that as the government has, in the past four months, filed no less than ten documents in pursuing the finding of contempt of court; they have only “made a sufficient preliminary showing that evidence exists to support its theory.”  It does not state that they made their case, only that they have made a rather poor showing of trying to make their case.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #16 – Jurisdiction Hearing’ »

Freedom of the Press #15 – The Long Arm of the Law; Or Not?

Freedom of the Press #15
The Long Arm of the Law, or Not?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 25, 2017

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Now, this sets the stage for Jurisdiction.  Any criminal proceedings must be in “the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”  Could it be any less for, say, a violation of a Court issued Protective Order?  Especially, if that Protective Order only subjects a few, fully described people, in its mandate?  The Order:

Here is the pertinent part of the “Protective Order” (#342):

ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense counsel may provide copies of discovery only to the following individuals:

(1) The defendants in this case;

(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and

(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall provide a copy of this Protective Order to any person above who receives copies of discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any person above who receives copies of discovery from defense counsel shall use the discovery only to assist the defense in the investigation and preparation of this case and shall not reproduce or disseminate the discovery material to any other person or entity.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Protective Order applies only to:

(1) Statements by witnesses and defendants to government officials;

(2) Sealed documents; and

(3) Evidence received from searches of electronic media.

So, you see by what is underlined, that the Protective Order does not apply to me.  If I had received it from “defense counsel”, he would have given me a copy of the Protective Order.  None of the defense attorneys gave me either the discovery or the Protective Order.

.The next question that arises is whether the Supplemental Protective Order is lawfully appropriate.  The Supplemental Protective Order is prefaced with an “Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order” (#1691).  The pertinent parts of this Order read:

To the knowledge of the government, Hunt is not a member of the staff of any defense counsel representing any Defendant in this case.

The Court issued the Protective Order in order to obviate “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery.” Order (#285) issued Mar. 9, 2016, at 2.

In order to make clear in the public record that the Protective Order prohibits even third parties from disseminating protected materials and information, the Court is filing a Supplement to the Protective Order together with this Order.

On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abetted the dissemination of materials covered by the Protective Order, and, therefore, the Court GRANTS in part the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order as follows:

1. The Court DIRECTS Hunt to remove all protected material and/or information derived from material covered by the Protective Order from his website(s) within 24 hours of the service of this Order;

2.The Court ENJOINS Hunt from further dissemination of material covered by the Protective Order or information derived therefrom to any person or entity.

3.The Court DIRECTS the government to serve Hunt personally with a copy of this Order together with a copy of the Protective Order (#342) and the Supplement (#1692) thereto as soon as possible and to file immediately in the record a certificate stating it has effectuated such personal service or otherwise ensured Hunt has personal knowledge of the contents thereof.

4.In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Note that the government acknowledges that the original Protective Order did not apply to me when they state.  “Hunt is not a member of the staff of any defense counsel representing any Defendant in this case“.

Then, an explanation of why the initial Protective Order was issued is given with, “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery“.  However, this is one of the government’s stock excuses, along with, “I feared for my life or the life of another”, “We were outgunned”, ” ‘X’ is a flight risk”, and a multitude of other phrases intended to simply justify an action against an individual, from extended incarceration to being shot to death, though unarmed.  Now, this gets interesting.  This Order tries to convert aiding and abetting into something that the statute does not.  “On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abetted the dissemination of materials“.  The statute and case law says that aiding and abetting in the performance of a criminal act.  This is about as absurd as arresting someone for resisting arrest, when there is no criminal charge for which they are making an arrest.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #15 – The Long Arm of the Law; Or Not?’ »