Comments on: The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here? https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823 when the government is pointing their guns in the wrong direction Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:56:04 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.4 By: Interpersonal Diplomacy: The Value of Keeping the Peace - The Last Bastille Blog https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-555782 Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:56:04 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-555782 […] alliances. All you have to do is peruse the examples of miscreants like Jim Stach, Rick Light, Jerry DeLemus, and Brandon Curtiss in order to understand that not adhering to the biblical golden rule of […]

]]>
By: CP https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-30085 Wed, 30 Apr 2014 05:09:35 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-30085 There is a saying, “We don’t have to like each other to get the job done, but we do have to be professional.”

]]>
By: Jester https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29984 Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:19:23 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29984 Look forward to it Gary

]]>
By: Gary Hunt https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29823 Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:30:09 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29823 In reply to Jester.

jester,
I am working on a paper titled “Organizational Plane for Militia Response”, which, when completed, will answer your questions. I will post it here, as a blog, to open it up for discussion.

]]>
By: Jester https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29813 Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:03:50 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29813 In reply to Gary Hunt.

Gary,
You tube deleted the video at the link you provided. I believe I watched a 10 minute vid of the referenced meeting on Blaine Cooper’s newest channel that he created today.

My observation of 4/12 was that while not considering themselves militia, the largely local gathering of friends and well wishers (many armed) who responded to Mr. Bundy’s call to move from the protest site to the BLM compound strongly resembled an unorganized irregular militia spurred into action by what they considered a lawful order given by a Citizen who was acting against a threat not addressed satisfactorily by their elected Sheriff. Meanwhile I saw the organized militia supported the effort as you described.

As far as my use of the phrase “point unit”, this was in reference to the unique situation where some organized militia was the first to respond to a citizen under threat, followed by other unrelated militia units, which I believe to be a first in our modern time. It may even have been that an isolated individual was the very first to present himself to Mr. Bundy as a willing defender who was immediately entrusted with some form of responsibility to oversee and organize any subsequent individuals or groups who aimed to assist in defense.

In either case, the individual first serving as de facto commander of the defensive forces either instituted the council of war shared command style, or ceded command to another who called for the council style.

I agree it best in such a situation that the landowner assent to allow the militia leader OR council to approach him through a liaison when they believe his input is needed. As far as war councils go, command by consensus is not always possible, which is why war councils are more or less advisory and morale building. A commander is rightly reluctant to move on an idea without gaining input from officers and majority support, but in case of urgency and non-consensus, officers MUST trust ONE man to weigh in the balance.

So back to my original thesis regarding this modern day unique situation of various militias with no settled interagency command structure coming to the rescue of some landowner under attack, the first commander on scene to be recognized by the landowner is on point. And of course his command style will be the arbiter as to whether subsequent arrivals stay or leave. If I were the landowner I would insist to briefly meet each group leader who arrived. If the point commander was doing an adequate job, and even went so far as to institute war council for leadership decisions, I would assent wholeheartedly on one condition. If a council meeting were proposed to discuss relieving the point commander of his final decision making (veto) power, I would insist I sit in to hear all that is discussed, in order to form an opinion of who is being nominated for that power and why. After all, the landowner might decide that the decision is not in his best interest and ultimately has veto power inherent in his land ownership. If I did not trust those who were suggesting (or resisting) command change, I might just thank them for their services and ask them to leave, retaining those I trusted.

J.

]]>
By: Gary Hunt https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29413 Tue, 29 Apr 2014 02:53:34 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29413 In reply to Jester.

jester,
It is a shared command, modeled after the Council of War utilized by Washington and in the Civil War. There is no point unit. Officers of each unit are members of the “Coalition” (as they chose to call it), each having a vote and the militia liaison also having a vote. Here is today’s meeting , filmed and demonstrative of an aspect of how they are working. There are other meetings that may not be considered “public” in nature. An “officer” can be removed by vote of the Coalition, just as you will see the baring of Oath Keeper leadership and those others who vacated their post In the video).
The landowner (host) is will communicate through the Militia Liaison. There are legitimate legal reasons for this (Law of Agency).The Liaison can be trusted to carry the intentions of the host, or he will be removed, unless, of course, those intentions create unnecessary risk or are tactically impractical.
Saturday was not a militia effort. Most of the militia were standing guard while a reserve company, ready to respond, was held back at the ranch area — about 4 miles away. The Unrustling was about 3-4 miles north on I-15, which warranted continued ranch security. Mr. Bundy and the supporters were not going on the land prohibited by the injunction contained in the Court Order. It was not militia, as most of those who went to the gate were either unarmed or had side arms.
You said
“I think those with brand names saw this. I think the militia men with no ulterior motives want to prevent such a potential asset offered by a new ally in Mr Bundy from being exploited by those they see as potentially compromised by purposes not germane to the current priority of securing the safety of the Bundy’s and their property and establishing the command structure and logistics to achieve that simple end, Thank you for hosting this blog and the opportunity to discuss this with you.”
In this, you are absolutely correct.

]]>
By: Jester https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29320 Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:18:03 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29320 In reply to Gary Hunt.

Gary,

I assume the official liaison would be either the commander of the point unit, or someone he delegates from his unit or an assisting unit. Regarding a change of overall command to someone different than the Land/Homeowner originally vested with that authority, a simple notification from the Liaison would suffice if the decision was made deliberately and voluntarily by the original commander. Yet if the occasion is a challenge to that command, it seems that the landowner might reserve the right to be more than informed after the fact but notified prior to the final decision and be present to hear the reasons as to why the person he vested his trust into might be relieved of that office. The other option is he could waive that right and remain aloof from implication in agency, in which case he would lose all input into the decision making process regarding change of command and be satisfied with being cordially informed of such changes by the liaison, regardless of how they come about.

The degree the landowner wishes to be involved and a candid discussion of the implications should be the first order of business before a verbal agreement is contracted when militias arrive like the calvary to assist the oppressed.

I witnessed Mr Bundy directing the actions of what amounted to a local unorganized irregular militia on April 12 when the BLM was challenged. While the handful of non-local militia contingents and non-local independent operators spontaneously responded to his direction in the role of overseeing the overall security of that local militia as best they could. In the days leading to that event, it may be that Mr Bundy and the non-local leaders created strategies around the various possible outcomes of the coming days, including the Sheriff standing with them. Mr Bundy did seem to have thought through his demands, as he did not recognize the Sheriff’s announcement and concessions as adequate and something to work with, but immediately made demands that no reasonable person would expect could be made, with the Sheriff making no indication that he would seriously move to the BLM with those demands. An hour later, Mr Bundy followed up with decisive action as if he expected those demands to be refused and directed his militia forward.

After the successful cooperation between all groups that day to achieve the stated goal of reclaiming the cattle including Bundy’s son’s demand via the Sheriff’s deputy that the BLM vacate the land, the scenario changed to a purely defensive operation at Bundy’s ranch, and had the potential of developing into a standing base to organize local militia, and more, in the near future.

I think those with brand names saw this. I think the militia men with no ulterior motives want to prevent such a potential asset offered by a new ally in Mr Bundy from being exploited by those they see as potentially compromised by purposes not germane to the current priority of securing the safety of the Bundy’s and their property and establishing the command structure and logistics to achieve that simple end, while relegating any consideration for other uses of Bundy property to a time when the Bundy’s are free of stress and duress in order to secure their considered input and blessings.

Thank you for hosting this blog and the opportunity to discuss this with you.

]]>
By: Gary Hunt https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29149 Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:19:33 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-29149 In reply to Jester.

Jester,
A very good analysis.
I must, however, correct one assumption, that being participation by Mr. Bundy in any decisions regarding the militia. Under what is know as the “law of agency”, the principal would be Mr. Bundy. He, then, would be responsible for those who acted under the presumption of being agents of the principal.
So, c criminal action by a militia member, whether stupidity, unintentional, or, perhaps, intentional., would place the principal as a responsible party.
That is why the Militia Liaison is an interface to the two (Bundy and militia), and leaves the responsibility, absent any agency, on the individual in the militia who might commit such act.

]]>
By: Jester https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-28893 Mon, 28 Apr 2014 04:56:28 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-28893 The scenario at the Bundy Ranch was seminal and represented uncharted waters. But certain principles can be applied under all conditions. In anticipation of spontaneous need, no unified command structure had been established between disparate irregular militia or patriot cell type groups across state lines not to mention groups like the Oathkeepers who as a whole do not train together, though there may be some subsets who do on their own.

So whoever was the first group who Mr Bundy took into confidence was on point and their leader the de facto commander on scene. As each new individual or group arrived they were to report to Mr Bundy and the commander from the first group.

Considering the unique circumstance and likelihood of not knowing one another, each incoming group leader had the responsibility to present his credentials as well as the prerogative to ask the credentials of the current commander. Upon discovery of a significant difference in capability and capacity to command, if the current commander did not offer to step down, that newcomer might be moved to suggest that he relieve the current commander. If the current commander refused, at least the attempt was made, and the one who made the attempt could keep a mental checklist of the performance of the current commander. Upon noting serious incompetence, he could request a meeting with the current commander, Mr. Bundy, and perhaps another group leader, in order to air the perceived problem and seek a solution. There is no need for overbearing exertion of control or underhandedness if the common goal is service to the cause of liberty and justice.

Judging from the reports of conflict serious enough to be mentioned, including the climate where passionate volunteers felt put off enough to turn away and return home, and other dubious decisions, all occurring as a result of the change of command structure after the incredible successful early actions, indicate that a common sense approach was not taken to minimize such conflicts. Though it is heartening to hear that things are now smoothed over, perhaps whoever finds themselves on point in a similar action in the future and proves to be successful in the early stages will not be so quick to give up command to new arrivals until thoroughly vetted. After all, if success is already there, where is the urgency to cede command? And if the newcomer is indeed significantly more suitable, they would have the patience and ability to prove it convincingly without haste or coercive pressure.

]]>
By: Gary Hunt https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-28649 Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:19:49 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=823#comment-28649 I understand, from the militia liaison, that the problem has been resolved, and the Jerry DeLemus has become cooperative and agreed to a shared command — working well with others.

I am pleased that this turned out the way that it did, and I Applaud Jerry for his change of tactic and realizing that the responsibility, and command, must be shared by those able to demonstrate their abilities to participate, together, to achieve the objective.

As difficult as this troublesome as this subject has become, it was a discussion that had to take place. We may not have time to address this at the next event, so with this now openly on the table, we have an example of cooperation that will serve to avoid the same, in the future.

So, again, my applause to Jerry and to all of the others who participated in finding a solution to a problem, that could have, in the future, been very destructive.

Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom

]]>