Archive for June, 2016

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 6 – Feb. 25, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004

Monday, June 20th, 2016

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act II – Decade of the Nineties
Scene 6 – Feb. 25, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004

Hammond-family

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 20, 2016

This series is not about the two fires and subsequent conviction of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  It is about the abuse, by government agencies, in the two decades prior to the first fire.

Note: Numbers shown thus, {nn} refer to PDF page numbers in the “Hammond Legal Trailing File Part II” pdf file.

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

On February 25, 1998, Steven Hammond wrote a letter to the Oregon State Police regarding trespass and hunting in a no hunting area {351-352}. It appears that the OSP had stopped issuing citations to violators after speaking to Refuge personnel. This led to a follow up letter to Dick Munoz, FWS, Portland, addressing the concern and the failure of Malheur FWS to enforce the hunting regulations {353-354}.

On May 12, 1998, Dave Stanbrough faxes Munoz telling him he will draft a response to Steven Hammond’s letter {356}. Munoz implies that the decision not to prosecute the trespassing hunters was in the hands of the OSP, not the Refuge {357-358}.

July 6, 1999, the Bureau of Land Management in Hines, in a letter to Dwight Hammond, advises him that, in response to Dwight’s request of June 9, 1999 (No copy of the request in the obtained documents), they are denying him permission to use his own fencing to control cattle crossing Bridge Creek to get to the Mud Creek Allotment {359-360}. Dave Ward, “Rangeland Management Specialist” in this correspondence.

[Note: This is not the David Ward, Sheriff of Harney County.]

In an undated memo, from Anne Sittauer, MNWR, to Dave Stanborough, a third party report of a meeting on site between Dave Ward and Steven Hammond was supposed to have resulted in a written report by Ward {361-362}.  Steven never received the report but was told that he could not be allowed to trail his cattle to get to the “next allotment”.  Steven did agreed to give 24 hours notice of trailing, but refused to sign any request to trail. (more…)

Liberty or Laws? – The First Line of Defense

Friday, June 17th, 2016

Liberty or Laws?
The First Line of Defense

2ndAmendment

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 17, 2016

As much as many disagree with the Founder’s intent of the Second Amendment, there is little doubt that there were two primary purposes.  The first, of course, was be able to respond if, should the need arise, as had then recently occurred, the government had begun taking their rights.  It was to assure that the People would have an adequate means of defending against those encroachments and complying with the duty set out in the Declaration of Independence:

“But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

There was a second intent that is, in this day, perhaps a bit more obscure.  However, there was a constant threat, especially in the fringes of the American civilization, of attack by Indians, and on occasion, by foreigners such as the French.  Though most often, fighting such battles was conducted by militia units, armed and equipped by the local government, those who of necessity, to protect life and property, were operating within the capacity of the intent when they acted, as individuals or small groups without the organized structure, were no less militia than the units, or even the standing military force.  There was never a consideration that individuals must rely on the government to afford them and their property protection.

Even during the expansion of the country, especially after the Civil War, military forts were few and far between.  The first line of defense had to be the armed citizenry.  It could be days, weeks, or there might never be a response by the military when there were attacks made on the People.

As the West was settled, the need for the militia and the armed citizenry was diminished.  Since that time, that historical necessity had all but gone away.  By 1903, with the passage of an Act “To promote the efficiency of the militia“, also known as the “Dick Act”, the militias was redefined as the National Guard and the Reserve Militia.  Within that Act, only the National Guard could be called to national service.

That Act did not deny the existence of any right secured by the Second Amendment.  However, it did mandate (shall) that:

“That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or, District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.”

There you have it: every able-bodied male citizen, is either exempt, in the National Guard, or the Reserve Militia.  The only exclusions were certain government employees and those excluded by the respective state laws.  There is no subsequent mention of the “Reserve Militia”, therefore, it includes those described and only excludes those so described. (more…)

Barbeau Qued in Seattle – The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II – In Schuyler’s Own Words

Tuesday, June 7th, 2016

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II
In Schuyler’s Own Words

Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 7, 2016

Schuyler Barbeau was arrested in a setup, participated in by his best friend, Oliver Murphy, on December 6, 2015. Until just a few days ago, what happened to Schuyler was unknown, except that he ended up in jail. The only story that could be told, at that time, was from Allen Aenk, who was present in the car when the minions of government, in complete battle dress, descended on the two of them. What Allen Aenk was able to observe is described in The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau.

Schuyler has now come forward with his description of the events of that day, including a transcription of the interrogation that was conducted prior to him being finally settled in the King County Jail.

The following account is transcribed from a handwritten report by Schuyler. The interrogation dialogue was copied from a copy provide to Schuyler by the government, as part of Discovery. That transcript was redacted with “XXXXX” in place of a name. However, the name is placed, in context, as the informant working with the FBI is known as a result of our previous investigation, and is used in place of the “XXXXX”.  Schuyler’s comments with regard to the interrogation dialogue are included (in parenthesis).

[Note: I have been informed, through friends of Schuyler Barbeau, that this was not a transcription, rather, a recollection of the interview.  I, foolishly, assumed that since he had used the “XXXXX” in places that it was transcribed (copied).  I have been advised that in keeping in compliance with the Court’s effort to make public only what they want to be public, Schuyler used the “XXXXX” to avoid violating the Court’s prohibition on divulging Discovery information.  6/24/16 gh]

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

Allen and I were pulling off Highway 18 where it intersects Interstate 90 to enter the non-operational weigh-station.  As we rolled through the long parking lot, I spotted my best friend, Oliver Murphy’s, Ford Explorer, sitting by the small weigh-station building.  The hood was up as Oliver had told me that the car was overheating.  Now, the purpose of my meeting him was to pick up cash for a sale he did for me.  As we approached, I said aloud, “Well, there is his SUV, but I don’t see him.”  We parked next to the Explorer and as we did, I took notice of the stickers all over the rear and window, confirming in my mind that this was in fact the right vehicle, because I recognized the stickers, even the pro-2nd Amendment one.

I stepped out of the car, grabbed the dog’s [Note: a dog that had just been picked up by TeamRescue for training – opf] leash and waited for it to climb out of the backseat into the front seat and then out of the car.  Just then, as she jumped out, I heard a whole bunch of shouting to my 11 o’clock position.  I looked up and over the top of the hood of the Explorer (which they closed as they came around) and saw the military (it actually turned out just to be the FBI) come pouring out of the building and around the Explorer with their pistols and M4s pointed at my face.  Now, there was no difference in dress and appearance between these guys (FBI) and some Delta Force operators from the Army.  About 15 to 20 agents total.  They had their multi-cam clothing, full kit, plate carrier, body armor, and helmets, along with other gear.  “Operators” are carrying, and using all their high-speed weapons.  This overwhelming display of “tactic-cool” is a true testament of the militarization of law enforcement. (more…)

Liberty or Laws? – “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”

Sunday, June 5th, 2016

Liberty or Laws?

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself”

Does the Fifth Amendment Stop at Miranda?

Miranda wordingGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 6, 2016

The principle element in this discussion is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The provision that is of concern is, “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  And, we must begin by understanding that, as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says,

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.

Clearly, the Fifth Amendment, then, is a prohibition against the government, “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the federal government’s] powers

To understand the role of the Supreme Court, at least for nearly the past century, we need to review what Justice Brandeis explained in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), in which he explained the “rules” that the Court had adopted to avoid “passing upon a large part of all constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision.”  (See About Ashwander v. TVA)

The pertinent rules from that decision are:

2.  The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it… ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless necessary to a decision of the case

3.  The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied….

4.  The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.

7.  ‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided

To summarize the pertinent rules:

  • The Court will not decide on the constitutionality, unless absolutely necessary – rules 2 & 4.
  • When the Court does rule on the constitutionality, that ruling will be as narrow as possible – rule 3.
  • The Court will, whenever possible, rule on statutory construction to avoid ruling on constitutionality – rule 7.

Now with this in mind, they won’t rule on the constitutionality, unless necessary, and if they do rule on constitutionality, they will make that ruling as narrow as possible.  We will look at a Supreme Court decision that we are all familiar with, Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

In Miranda, which requires that law enforcement officers notice the person being investigated for possible criminal activity be advised that he have the right to refuse to talk and to have an attorney present.  However, in keeping with Ashwander rule #7, the ruling deals only with those in custody.

So, the question arises, why would one’s right only apply to when one is in custody (they narrow ruling)?  If one the right to not incriminate oneself, “to be a witness against himself”, would that not apply once suspicion was raised against him, or does it only apply after he is in custody?.  Wouldn’t it really be a prohibition against government, both before and after one was in custody?

If a law enforcement office, in uniform or plain clothes, with the intent of trying to elicit a confession, or information that would incriminate someone, while in custody, was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and confirmed by the Supreme Court, then why would we assume that that prohibition did not also extend to when one was under suspicion?  After all, when one is under suspicion, the law enforcers are just a small step away from putting someone in custody.  Why would that prohibition only come into play when the actual act of custody was implemented?  Is it possible that those who ratified the Amendment intended for that form of chicanery to be acceptable?  Or, was their intention to prohibit divisive means of acquiring incriminating evidence in apparent conflict with the wording of the Amendment?

Now, we need to visit a little historical background to carry the ramifications of the intent into an understanding of changes in practices between the Eighteenth Century and modern law enforcement, to put a proper perspective on how the intent of the Amendment is circumvented.

In the Eighteenth Century, spying, intelligence gathering, and other such undercover work was carried out in higher levels of government, only.  The consequence for being caught practicing such infamy was death.  Consequently, those willing to lay their lives on the line for the greater cause of national politics carried out such work.  The idea of spying on their own citizens was out of the question.  After all, it is the job of any decent government to protect its citizens, not to treat them as they would an enemy.  The idea that such practices could be used in the lower elements of society, in pursuit of criminals rather than state secrets or wartime intelligence, was not a practice, as honor was conscientiously upheld.  To deceive alleged criminals would be to stoop to the level of criminals. (more…)