Freedom of the Press #7
“Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny
Outpost of Freedom
February 20, 2017
Let’s review this whole situation from the beginning. After all, it has taken a month and a half to get to this point, so perhaps a refresher is in order.
On January 5, 2017, I was hand served a “Cease and Desist Letter” by an FBI agent. Since the service was disclosed on Facebook, I wrote a “Statement with regard to the Freedom of the Press“, on January 6. That was followed with a series entitled “Freedom of the Press“, beginning on January 7 entitled Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI. The following day, January 8, I explained the Cease and Desist Letter with Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist.
These events were preceded by a number of articles that I had written in the “Burns Chronicles” series. In those articles, I exposed FBI informants associated with the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Oregon. The information used to identify and expose the informants was derived from some Discovery documents I had obtained.
The original Protective Order, dated March 24, 2016, lays out the restrictions placed upon certain described individuals. Those prohibited from “disseminating” information contained in the Discovery are described in that Protective Order:
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.
Upon my indicating to the FBI agent that hand-delivered the Cease and Desist Letter, that it was not applicable to me, the government filed a Motion to Enforce Protective Order (Expedited Consideration Requested), dated January 6, 2017. That Motion states:
Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby moves this Court for an order enforcing the Protective Order against a third party illegally in possession of protected sensitive discovery materials in this case.
Now, the wording of the Protective Order says nothing about a third party, nor does it say anything about the possession of the material is illegal. If it were illegal, it would be against the law. However, you can only be in violation of a Protective Order if you are among those to which the Order applies.
The government makes a rather interesting statement in that Motion, “This Court has jurisdiction to enjoin a non-party from disseminating confidential documents produced in reliance upon and subject to this Court’s Protective Order.” However, they cite a Second Circuit Court decision, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gottstein, 617 F.3d 186, which I addressed in a subsequent article. It does not corroborate their claim, to the contrary, it supports the limited jurisdiction that I had already stated exists.
The Motion is supported by an Affidavit, of the same date. That Affidavit refers to some of my articles. In so doing, they have entered those articles, which would include the entire series, into the Court’s record. Those specifically mentioned were from “Burns Chronicles”, to include #40, #41, and #49. Also quoted is my statement regarding the “prohibited material” taken from #40. That statement serves as prima facie evidence of my intent. But, the government is insistent upon twisting the truth, in order to create a wholly different characterization of my actions. This would allow them to charge culpability on my part.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter. To do so, I will be referring to FBI documents that I have obtained. They are marked, at the bottom left comer, “Dissemination Limited by Court Order”. So, let me make this perfectly clear- I have no intention of “disseminating” the documents, nor am I bound by any “Court Order”. I am writing about a Public Trial, which was held in September and October 2016
I had been working on a response to that Affidavit and its erroneous presumptions, though I never completed it (maybe I will, when time allows), when the government came back with a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order, dated January 10, 2017. That Motion has a rather interesting statement made when they refer to the Affidavit filed in support of the Motion. It states:
In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”
On January 6, 2017, another individual posted a question on that same page asking “Who is Gary Hunt?” That same day, the message “He is working with our lawyers” was posted in reply from defendant Duane EHMER’s Facebook account. Sarah Redd-Buck and Duane EHMER’s Facebook accounts are not private and can be viewed by anyone accessing Facebook.
So, the Motion states, “He is working with our Lawyers” is a response to the question, “Who is Gary Hunt?”
On the other hand, the Affidavit states “a question on that same page asking, “Who is Gary Hunt?”. Then states, “He is working with our lawyers” were posted in reply from defendant Duane EHMER’s Facebook account.”
Now, there is a subtle difference between the two, however, the Affidavit is more accurate than the statement made on the Motion. Perhaps we should go to the source and see what was really said (this image is taken from the Affidavit):
Well, son of a gun, the question was actually asked a full 17 minutes after it was answered. Who would believe that the FBI (Ronnie Walker) and the US Shyster (See Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux) would attempt to mislead the Judge? This sequence begs a question, just to whom is Ehmer referring to by “He”?