Posts tagged ‘Bundy’

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’ »

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?’ »

Burns Chronicles No 57 – Collusion or Conspiracy?

Burns Chronicles No 57
Collusion or Conspiracy?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 4, 2017

On October 27, 2016, shortly after the very just verdict of “Not Guilty” was announced in the Ammon Bundy, et al, Group 1 trial, a meeting was held in the Mark O. Hatfield Federal District Courthouse.  The 12 jurors, Judge Anna Brown, and a court reporter, attended the meeting.  It lasted about one and a half hours.

It is my understanding that such a meeting is not unusual.  However, circumstances surrounding this particular meeting are, to say the least, quite unusual, considering context.  That is exactly what we are going to do.

The first irregularity occurred when the Prosecutor moved to have the trial declared “complex”, which allowed the Court to circumvent the right to a speedy trial and to break the defendants up into two groups.  The first Group (mostly leaders) was tried in September and October 2016, and the second Group to be tried beginning in February 2017.  While the delayed trial date was agreeable, as the Defendants needed the additional time to prepare their defense, one drawback is that many of the Defendants were held in custody until the verdict was reached, in the first trial.  The latter trial date made the government’s case easier, as they had smaller groups to try, and it gave time to elicit plea bargains, thereby reducing the number who would be prosecuted at trial.

Next, during the pre-trial “paper chase”, with hundreds of motions filed, answered, and finally ruled on, there is no doubt that bias existed on the part of Judge Anna Brown.  Behind the scenes, many of us followed this legal maneuvering for months.  It seemed that even when the arguments presented by the defense were well supported, Judge Brown would still rule against the defense and in favor the Prosecution.

During the trial, there were rather strict rules imposed on the defense, especially when they sought to call additional witnesses to testify.  Judge Brown ruled that to allow that would be “repetitive”.  However, the prosecution showed a 1-minute video of approximately twenty of the occupiers firing across a canal.  The fact that the Prosecution showed that footage four times, however, was not considered “repetitive”.

Finally, and here we get to the meeting, Judge Brown called all of the participating jurors into the meeting, after dismissing the alternate jurors.  In that meeting, she explained that she would answer their questions, if they had any.  She also asks some questions, and explained that the answers would help the prosecution and the defense.  So, just how could it help the defense?  The Defense prevailed.  It could only help the Prosecution gain insight into the jurors’ minds in order to determine what they would need to overcome to obtain guilty verdicts in the Group 2 trial.

Some jurors indicated that had the charges been less serious, like simple “misdemeanor trespass”, it would have been much easier to render a guilty verdict.

Let me interrupt, for a moment, and point out that the Judge holds office under Article III (Judicial Branch of Government), and is, in essence, an impartial referee.  Her job is to “administer law in a court of justice”, “to control the proceedings”, and to make “decisions of questions of law or discretion”.  Her job is not to favor one side over the other, but rather to stand aside, interjecting only to the extent necessary to assure a fair trial.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 57 – Collusion or Conspiracy?’ »

The Bundy Affair #20 – The Invisible Witness

The Bundy Affair #20
The Invisible Witness

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2017

I have been so busy writing about the goings on in Oregon that I haven’t had much opportunity to consider the situation in Nevada.  As I have told those that I been working with regarding the Group 1 trial in Oregon, who have all started concentrating their efforts in Nevada.  I told those who I had been working with in Oregon, “You all get to work down where it is warm and sunny, while I’m still stuck up here where there is snow on the ground, and it is cold.”  Seriously, however, I am in Northern California, about halfway between the two.  But, I was spending my time primarily on the Oregon, Ammon Bundy, et al, case.

Then, the government filed a Motion.  Upon reading the Motion, I found that the US Attorney has decided to invite me down to Nevada, an offer I couldn’t refuse.

On January 27, 2017, the government filed “Government’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Undercover Employee“.  It is their effort to hide from the defense the identification of an Undercover Employee (UCE).

The invitation is found, beginning on page 9 of that Motion, to wit:

Events subsequently in the courtroom and in the United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al. case in Oregon have shown that the danger to the lone UCE witness in the government’s case is particularly great. Although the discovery information in United States v. Bundy was restricted due to a protective order, an associate of the defendants (including some of the seven common defendants in the Nevada case), Gary Hunt, posted discovery material to “out” confidential human sources to his webpage. Litigation is ongoing in the District of Oregon to remove the information from the web. See, e.g., Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, United States v. Bundy, Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2017).

Now, some might think that this doesn’t look like an invitation, but, after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I see that the United States Government Railroad (USGRR) is in full operation, and flying down the tracks at breakneck speed.

So, getting started in catching up with the USGRR, you will note that they imply a threat when they state that the events in Oregon “have shown that the danger to the lone UCE witness in the government’s case is particularly great.”  On the contrary, they have shown that there is no risk, at all, to the informants in the Oregon occupation — unless you consider that most of the informants have abandoned their old phone numbers, and are not accessible by phone, anymore.

Let’s look at some facts about this alleged “danger”.  On September 21, 2016, AUSA Gabriel, in questioning OSP officer Jeremiah Beckert, asked, “And did you have information about whether the driver [Mark McConnell] was cooperating with the Government?”  Beckert answered in the affirmative, and of its own volition, the government hung one of its informants out to face, what, serious bodily harm?  Death?  Well, that did not happen.  And, the government put this informant at risk.  That very act disputes the government’s entire argument regarding the potential threat to any of the informants.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #20 – The Invisible Witness’ »

Burns Chronicles No 56 – Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?

Burns Chronicles No 56
Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 29, 2017

Perhaps we should start with Article VI, clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now, that is easy to follow and understand.  First, “This Constitution“, and, next, “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof“, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”

Article V of the Constitution states that when an Amendment is ratified, it “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”  “Shall” is mandatory.  It is imposed, without recourse, and must be obeyed.  The requirement that any “Laws… which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” precludes any enactment, statute, or rule, to be in violation of the intent of the Constitution and the Laws made Pursuant to it

In a previous article, “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments were discussed.  Now, let’s go to the top, the Constitution itself, and see what it says.  This led to the more descriptive wording in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments.  This case has to do with misdemeanor charges of trespass, tampering with vehicles or equipment and destruction of property.  This is the Article that established the Judicial Branch, Article III, § 2, clause three:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…

The subsequent Amendments set no limit on criminal charges and a minimum of twenty dollars in civil actions, each requiring a jury trial.  The Amendments made clear, without ambiguity, that any case tried in a court of the United States must fall within those two described areas.  There are no exceptions.

However, this Court, appearing to be inquisitorial rather than just, has opted to circumvent those limitations imposed upon judiciary, by the very document that created the judiciary.  It has put in place, by two methods, a means of deception, whereby the Court can circumvent the Law of the Land.  Chicanery, defined as “deception or trickery, especially by the clever manipulation of language”, is certainly involved in this current circumvention and “inquisition”.

First, chicanery is often used in the “case law method”, where higher court decisions are based upon previous decisions, not necessarily in accordance with the Constitution.  This method began being applied in 1872, shortly after the Civil War.  Harvard University set forth the “method”.  It has since become what appears to be the primary foundation for decisions, most often, without regard to the Constitution.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 56 – Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?’ »

Burns Chronicles No 55 – Marshall Spring & Ben

Burns Chronicles No 55
Marshall Spring & Ben

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 23, 2017

Marshall Sawyer Spring served as a Marine in Iraq with one of the defendants. He received a Purple Heart, but his honor stopped there. His and Ben’s betrayal, of patriots and fellow Marines, as informants includes not only informing, but goes well beyond, as you will see.

Spring and his partner, known only as “Ben”, live in Loveland, Colorado. Spring is a “Marshal” appointed such by Bruce Doucette, self-appointed “United States Superior Court Judge”. This would, according to the “appointment”, make Spring’s title “Marshal Marshall Spring”.  Doucette arranged to meet Spring and “Ben” in Burns, to set up a Common Law Grand Jury. Spring and Ben’s visit to Burns coincides with the two FBI form 1023 (CHS Reporting Document) reports, and it is quite apparent that the reports are tracking Doucette as much as they are the events in Burns.

Doucette, on January 14, 2017, confronted Spring with the information I had. Of course, Spring denied that he was an informant, however, even though a subsequent meeting was scheduled, it seems that Spring has given up his phone, as it is no longer in service.

Efforts to contact “Ben” have been futile, and even his last name is unknown. He had red hair and was around the Refuge by January 12 until, at least, January 15, 2016. He was about 5′ 7″ or 5′ 8″ and weighed about 175 pounds. He sported a Fu Manchu goatee and moustache.

Whether Spring or Ben filed the respective reports is unknown. However, by some of the information contained within the reports, it appears that Spring is CHS #12.

January 12, 2016

[heavily redacted]

Later in the day, Doucette met other individuals involved with the standoff including Pete Santillli and Joseph O’Shaughnessy aka “Captain O”. O’Shaughnessy claims to be part of a militia group from Arizona and part of the Pacific Patriot Network. O’Shaughnessy is attempting to get a helicopter to come to the area to conduct counter surveillance. O’Shaughnessy does not like how the holding of the refuge compound is being handled. He believes that a very limited number of Federal Agents could take back the refuge.

Doucette also met with individuals that claim to be part of the press covering the standoff named Mike LNU of the TVOI News Network, Vicki Davis, Chuck Greenwood, telephone: [omitted] and Tim Davis. Mike LNU says they have a “brother” in the Sheriff’s Department and if this comes to a fire fight it will be between the cops.

Doucette’s plan in Burns is to convene two common law grand juries in the area. A common law grand jury consists of 25 jurors and 1 Grand Jury administrator. It takes 25 jurors to indict and 12 to decide on a presented case. The starting point of forming a grand jury will be to discuss the idea with the Safety Committee [Harney County Committee of Safety] on Friday at a party that is planned to take place in town. Roger with the Grand Jury in Florida is assisting remotely with writing all of Bruce Doucette’s decisions and indictments.

Doucette believes that if Bundy gets what he wants (return of the land to the ranchers) that in 6 months it will be taken back by the Federal Government. Accordingly, Doucette stated that, “we can’t leave here until a new Sheriff has been appointed and a new government is installed.” Doucette believes that a sheriff can be appointed because the current sheriff, his department and local government are all corrupt.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 55 – Marshall Spring & Ben’ »

Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”

Freedom of the Press #3
“Contemptuous Postings”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 11, 2017.

Well, even though there were many interruptions, I was working on a response to SA Ronnie Walker’s first Affidavit.  Then, on January 9, 2017, Judge Brown, in a Minute Order (See “Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You“), told the US Attorney that what they had filed with the Court was insufficient, and they had to go back and “do over”, to justify what they were asking the Court to do.

I will assume that they were up late, as they did make the deadline of providing a Memorandum, supported by an Affidavit, in Response to Judge Brown’s Order.  So, let’s look into the minds of these well-paid defenders of justice (just kidding).  We will deal with the Memorandum, though it will refer to, in one instance, the Affidavit.  There is no need to address the Affidavit.  It is simply a review of recent events with regard to this matter, but does provides a smidgen of hearsay supported by another smidgen of hearsay.  When one is desperate, one digs deep.

Now to the Memorandum; I will include all pertinent text, I will underline and address the more significant parts..

The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, Craig J. Gabriel, and Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby submits this supplemental memorandum in support of the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order.

On January 6, 2017, the government filed a Motion to Enforce Protective Order seeking an order from this Court enjoining third party Gary Hunt from further dissemination of discovery materials subject to this Court’s March 4, 2016, Protective Order. The Motion was supported by the Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker.  On January 9, 2017, this Court directed the government to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the following issues:

Well, I suppose they could be, at once, be paying attention and not paying attention.  The Cease and Desist letter stated, “dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material“.

To which I responded in “Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist“, when I wrote, “Holsinger has added a new twist by separating ‘dissemination’ from ‘publication of any excerpts’ with an ‘and’, making them separate and distinct elements.  However, the Order only addresses dissemination.”

So, we are back to dissemination.  Readers will recall that I have consistently stated that I was “excerpting, not disseminating“.  Of course, I first drew that distinction back on October 15, 2016, in “Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“.  So, are there two elements, each different from the other, as in the Letter, or, only one element, as in the Protective Order?  Again, we must look at the letter of the law, and not what some government attorney wants it to be, at any given moment.

This is what Judge Brown has ordered the US Attorney to address.

1. The Court’s authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order and without advanced notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard;

2. The Court’s jurisdiction to compel an individual who is not present within the district of Oregon to respond to the government’s arguments raised in the Motion via an order to show cause or other form of order; and

3. Whether the Court should amend the existing Protective Order in any respect to address the issues raised in the government’s Motion.

Now, these three items were deficient in this latest attempt to intimidate me into acquiescing to their unlawful demands.  Thankfully, Judge Brown saw through their charade and held their feet to the fire.

Now, let’s be clear that I don’t disagree with the title of this next section.  I think that it is easily understood that any Court has the authority to enforce its own lawful orders.  As an example, Mexico has the right to enforce its own lawful orders, within its own jurisdiction.  Come to think of it, so does California.  Even the Ninth Circuit Court can enforce its own awful orders, within its jurisdiction.  Now, the Ninth Circuit, coincidentally, includes both Oregon and California.  However, the Oregon District, while fully able to enforce its lawful orders within its own jurisdiction, it is not able to enforce in another jurisdiction, such as Mexico, or California.

Let’s see what the legal eagles in Portland have to say.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”’ »

Burns Chronicles No 51 – William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk)

Burns Chronicles No 51
William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 28, 2016

Jon Ritzheimer had put out a call for more people to come to the Refuge, shortly after the occupation on January 2, 2016.  Many people who supported the effort being made by Ammon Bundy and the others resent that message.

On January 3, Will Kullman contacted Maureen Peltier (SSG Moe).  Peltier was one of those who had passed the message on.  His first contact with Peltier shows that he was from Lake Stevens, Washington and that he was Founder of “Kullman Combat Organization”.  Some of the text messages indicate his desire to help:

“I wanna come down to Oregon to help.  What do I need to bring and when is the best time to come?”

Is there an armed militia that is doing security like we did at Sugar Pine and Bundy?  Just wondering if I should bring a weapon.

He then stated that he “had a team ready to go…”  And, then asked for a contact for when he got there.  However, when he arrived in Burns, he was alone.

He knew that Ritzheimer was a Marine, so he sent the message:

“I will be there to help him.  Tell him a fellow Marine is on his way to help him.  Tell him I said “Semper Fi.”

On January 6, as he entered Harney County, he relayed messages through Peltier, announcing his approaching the Refuge.  At 8:33 PM, he was driving in fog about 16 miles out from the Refuge.  Then, at 10:56 pm, he reported to Peltier that he had arrived and that he “just met up with Ryan.”  (Not sure if it was Payne or Bundy, as both were present at the time.)

“Semper fi”, short for “semper fidelis”, is the Marine Corps motto, Always faithful — that Marines will always be faithful to the Corps and other Marines.  Both Ritzheimer and Kullman were Marines, though Kullman was more than willing to turn against his fellow Marine.

January 7, the day after Kullman arrived, he texted:

“You know there’s only maximum 40 of us here…  Not as many as before.  Get the word out.  They are cutting power to the Refuge.”

Peltier questioned his going public with that sort of information and told Kullman that such information should only come out from the leadership.  Peltier was beginning to have questions about Kullman’s assertiveness and assuming the authority to speak for the Refuge.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 51 – William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk)’ »

Burns Chronicles No 49 – Thomas S. Dyman (Tom Dyman)

Burns Chronicles No 49
Thomas S. Dyman (Tom Dyman)

Tom Dyman at 2011 hearing

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 22, 2016

Thomas S. Dyman was considered for a Second Tier position in Operation Mutual Defense (OMD).  The structure of OMD had three tiers.  The First Tier is the Advisory Board.  The Second Tier is those who could assist in research; webpage management, specialty skills, or other capabilities that would work with the Advisory Board.  The Third Tier would be those recruited by the Second tier to assist them, though they would not be under the Advisory Board.

Being recommended by Ryan Payne, he had to fill out an application.  In the application, he admits that he had a criminal record and refers to a background check.  OMD never received the background check.

A search resulted in finding at least one criminal charge against Dyman.  He was arrested in 2011 for having taken his children from his first wife, back in 1995.  The children had become adults, and apparently the charges were dropped.

Dyman now lives in Williston, North Dakota and has a contracting business, Dyman Construction, LLC.

Dyman’s application was submitted to OMD on November 1, 2015, though the application is signed and dated on 10/29/16.  We have to wonder what his intentions were in responding to Payne’s request, since his first report as an informant (CS) was dated November 3, 2015.

That report was dated November 3, 2015 and began with a copy of an article on the Hammonds that had been posted on bundyranchblogspot.  Then, he began reporting on Payne’s plans.

xxxx Payne told multiple CHS’s that he and Ammon Bundy were meeting on the morning of 11/4/2015 and driving to Oregon to meet directly with the Hammonds.  The purpose of the trip was to convince the Hammonds to take a stand against the federal government, and accept OMD and militia-related assistance in preventing their incarceration. Payne indicated he and Ammon Bundy were traveling largely at the insistence of Cliven Bundy, who has been pushing Payne to take additional militia-related actions like the one he led in Bunkerville in 2014. Payne and Ammon Bundy also plan on meeting with the local Sheriff in an attempt to convince him to support their resistance and aid in the effort. They may meet with other local officials, such as County Commissioners as well.

Payne stated that he felt obligated to act in defense of the Hammonds even if they do not request OMD’s assistance. Payne compared the situation to preventing a suicidal man from killing himself. Payne has suggested that if the Hammonds refuse to make a stand at their ranch, OMD should lead a “dynamic action” against the facility receiving them (presumably a prison or U.S. Marshals Service facility) to make it impossible for the Hammonds to turn themselves in.

It should be noted that OMD has recorded all of its Advisory Board meetings where the Hammond situation has been discussed. Payne xxxx and Ammon Bundy intend to record their meeting with the Hammonds, as well as an OMD meeting regarding the matter on Thursday November 5.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 49 – Thomas S. Dyman (Tom Dyman)’ »

Burns Chronicles No 46 – Words from the Poor Losers #2

Burns Chronicles No 46
Words from the Poor Losers #2

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 13, 2016

Shortly after the verdict in the first Oregon Conspiracy trial, I wrote Words from the Poor Losers.  It was based upon statements made by government ‘officials’ who were upset over the verdicts of not guilty on all but one count one of the defendants.

That article laid out the government’s response to the verdict from the United States Attorney’s Office, Oregon Governor Kate Brown, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

On December 6, 2016, Defendant Jason Patrick filed “DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT – PREJUDICIAL EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS” and his “MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT“.  On the same day, Jason also filed another motion and memorandum, though the government has yet to respond.  That second motion, then, will be addressed when the government decides to answer it.

Rather surprisingly, as far as the first motion, the government filed their “GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT” just six days later, on December 12.

So, first, let’s look at what Jason said in his motion.  He “moves the Court for an Order dismissing the Superseding Indictment herein by and for the grounds that the United States Government by and through The United States Attorney, and other Executive Agencies have made public statements disparaging the jury’s acquittal of the first seven defendants tried herein while a second trial of the remaining defendants was pending.”

In his Memorandum, he cites:

United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, Billy J. Williams, October 27, 2016:
“While we had hoped for a different outcome, we respect the verdict of the jury and thank them for their dedicated service during this long and difficult trial.”

The suggestion of “hope” seems to go beyond the pursuit of justice.  If there was to be “hope”, it should be that the outcome of the trial would serve justice, not their hopes or desires.  Then, they condescend with their “respect” and thanks.

Greg Bretzing, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oregon, October 27, 2016.
“We believe now – as we did then – that protecting and defending this nation through rigorous obedience to the U.S. Constitution is our most important responsibility.  Although we are extremely disappointed in the verdict, we respect the court and the role of the jury in the American judicial system.”

If “rigorous obedience” to the Constitution is what Bretzing means, then should he respect the verdict of the jury as being a “rigorous obedience” to that Constitution?  If so, why should he be “disappointed in the verdict”?  Shouldn’t he be pleased that justice has been served?

Tweet from U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, October 28, 2016.
Respect the court, but deeply disappointed in Malheur verdicts.  Safety of employees remains the top priority.  S J.

Now, Sally Jewell doesn’t seem to respect the jury, only the “court”.  And we have seen just how that Court, under the rule of Judge Anna Brown, has done all within her power to obstruct the defense while favoring the prosecution.  It seems that there is no respect for the jury, because it would be difficult to respect someone who had “disappointed” you.

So, we see that the federal officials who have voiced their displeasure seem to view the entire judicial process as a personal vendetta against those they choose to prosecute.  It is no longer a matter of justice, because the vindictiveness of those officials shows through like a sore thumb, or, rather, a poor loser.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 46 – Words from the Poor Losers #2’ »