Freedom of the Press #12
Fully Biased Instigators
Outpost of Freedom
March 13, 2017
When I was in the Army, I had to obey the orders that were given to me, by my superiors. That obligation ceased nearly fifty years ago.
Since that time, I have only taken “orders” from my employer or supervisor, though I have given “orders” to subordinates, as a part of my supervisory responsibilities in various positions I have held.
I have also given “orders” for food or other purchases, as I don’t expect waitresses or clerks to be mind readers.
In all of the above instances, there has been a relationship predicated on the fact that there was some implied obligation by virtue of the relationship, fiduciary or voluntary, between the “orderer” and the “orderee“. Yes, I made those two words up, but I suppose that all reading this will get the point being made.
This tribulation began when the U. S. Department of Justice “Demanded” that I Cease and Desist publishing a series of articles exposing informants, both inside and outside of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during the occupation by those seeking a “Redress of Grievances” (First Amendment). The Letter also wanted me to return information that I had obtained without any illegal act on my part. And, in a somewhat ridiculous (impossible) Demand, that I remove the articles from my website “and any other website”.
However, I have no more control over “any other website” than the Justice Department has over me.
An FBI agent delivered the Letter. I asked the agent what obliged me to recognize the authority of the Letter. He said that he did not know. (See Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI)
Since that time, the Court has “Ordered” me to do things that I didn’t want to do. I have refused service on two of them; the second (middle) one was never even offered to me to be refused. In each instance, I have asked for some law that I violated or how I came under the jurisdiction of the Court in Portland, Oregon. I have yet to receive a qualified answer thereto.
Now, I say “qualified answer”, in that the US Shysters have included case law in their Motions, though when I researched those cases submitted, I found that those cases really supported my position, not the government’s position.
The government is using the Court as a forum, while I cannot do so, since I would be submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction. So, my recourse is to use the “Court of Public Opinion”. The government has introduced articles from both the “Burns Chronicles” and “Freedom of the Press” series into the Court Record. As I have pointed out, one cannot submit a page of a book into the record without submitting the whole book. The articles are nothing less than pages of a book, and must be taken as a whole. This is especially true with “Freedom of the Press”, as it is chapters in an ongoing story — recorded as that story plays out.
The government has set forth arguments, made assertions, and have otherwise provided “papers” to the Court which represent that I am subject to jurisdiction. However, each of those assertions has been disproven in my responses. So, though they began by using my articles in an effort to defame me, and have selectively chosen what “evidence” they want in the Record, the government has been remarkably consistent in ignoring content that disputes those claims.
On Friday, March 10, 2017, the government filed “Government’s Status Report Regarding Order to Show Cause” (Report), asking that the Court “issue a warrant for his arrest to be served by the United States Marshal.” In support of that Report, they also filed the “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Jason P. Kruger in Support of Government’s Status Report Regarding Order to Show Cause” (Affidavit). This article is my response to which can only be seen as a demonstration of the incompetence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The first section of the Report is titled “The Government Has Established by Clear and Convincing Evidence That Gary Hunt Is Violating This Court’s Lawful and Direct Orders“. So, let’s look at some of that “clear and convincing evidence”. (Emphasis, mine.)