Burns Chronicles No 13 – Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life”

Burns Chronicles No 13
Ambush – Part 2
“We Feared for Somebody’s Life”

body shots

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 14, 2016

Just over 246 years ago, on March 5, 1770, eight British Soldiers shot and killed four colonists.  They and their Captain stood trial, even though they were the property of the King.  All stood trial, even though only two were found guilty of manslaughter.  The people, in a jury trial, determined who was innocent, and who was not.  That is the judicial system we were supposed to have inherited from our British ancestors.  The Revolutionary War may have started even earlier, had not these simple rules of justice been applied — had the King decided that his forces would be judged by the King, or his appointee, rather than by the people.

An overview of the events that led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum was presented in a previous article, “Ambush“.  However, as a result of a press conference given in Bend, Oregon, on March 8, 2016, we have more detail to fill in some gaps in that previous article.  It is worthy of note that the detail is provided by Shawna Cox, one of the victims (Shawna Cox’s video synchronized with aerial footage, complete).  This article will address primarily the information given out at that press conference.

As we continue, you will note the extent of preparation for the event that was planned, probably as much as a week before the date of execution.

The Press Conference begins, after showing synchronized footage from Shawna Cox’s camera and the previously shown aerial footage.  The only words spoken in the first 3 minutes are those of LaVoy Finicum, Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp, and Ryan Bundy.  LaVoy says, at least 7 times, five of them loudly and directed at the then unidentified armed, battle-geared, agents who have taken Mark McConnell, Brian Cavalier, Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Payne, captive.  He says that he is going to go to John Day to meet the Sheriff.

As explained in “Ambush“, Mark McConnell was told that these thugs were FBI-HRT (Hostage Rescue Team – who have yet to rescue any hostage, though have killed a number of people who were neither hostages or hostage takers), while in response to LaVoy’s query, they are Oregon State Police (OSP).  So, who is in charge?  Surely, the excuse of plausible deniability is already built in to the structure, though whether FBI had any legal jurisdiction in the matter has yet to be answered.

However, the speaker states that, “The truck was stopped to arrest Finicum, Payne, Bundy, and Cox, on federal felony charges, based on criminal acts, arising from the “armed occupation” of the Malheur County [sic] National Wildlife Refuge.”

He points out that they are appropriately attired, though we have to question whether battle gear, armor, Kevlar helmets, automatic short barrel rifles, flash bangs grenades, non-lethal projectiles, and classic ambush roadblocks are now the appropriate law enforcement “attire”, and still, why the FBI had to back up the OSP?

However, the speaker then suggests, “the occupants of the truck had an agreement to elude the police in a vehicle.”  He then points out that this would be a Class III Felony.  However, how can you possibly be eluding the police when you invite the police to go with you to another law enforcement officer, the Sheriff of Grant County?

While it appears to be implied that the desire to “elude” was the only thing on the mind of the occupants of the truck, the government has skillfully omitted that fact that a shot had been fired, shortly before, resulting in the arrest of Ryan Payne.  So, let us ask ourselves, if someone had already shot at us, they have demonstrated both a desire and willingness to take our lives.  Are we wrong, then, in wanting to get to another law enforcement officer, to provide for our own safety?  If not, then what, of “Life, Liberty, and Property” is still retained by the people?

So, after about four minutes expended in an effort to secure passage to whom they considered a reliable law enforcement officer, and failing to obtain a willingness that should, under the described circumstances, been willingly acquiesced to, the occupants agreed that it was worth risk to life to, not elude, rather, to seek the protection of, law enforcement.

Now, at this point in time, only one identifiable shot had been fired at the occupants, though those of us who have been under fire recognize that the immediate world changes, drastically, once shots are fired with an obvious intent to kill those who are being shot at.

A normal response is to take cover and return fire.  The only means of assuring that he doesn’t take your life is to take his, before he takes yours.  However, as law-abiding citizens, that decision was made not to return fire, rather, to seek the protection of law enforcement.

So, the possible targets of a plot to murder (don’t laugh, just yet.), proceed at high speed for about another mile.  Forensic and the video indicate a speed of about 70 mph.  He explains that the OSP SWAT van had no trouble stopping before it reached the barricaded roadway, suggesting that LaVoy could have done the same.  However, the OSP SWAT van probably had driven the road, either the night before when the ambush was set up by clearing tree branches, or at least early in the day of the ambush.  But, we gotta make it look like LaVoy was a bad guy and had every intention of busting through, like Clyde Barrow.

But, they do admit that an OSP officer had taken three shots at LaVoy’s truck as it approached the barricade, “in an attempt to stop it.”  So, when was the last time that three bullets, probably from an AR-15, were able to stop an 8,500 lb, vehicle travelling at 50 mph?

So, anyway, the truck barreling down on the barricade, and probably seeing the spike strips in the road, caused LaVoy to swerve into the packed snow on the left side of the road.  He then swerved, just a bit more, to avoid hitting an idiot FBI-HRT officer who had jumped into the  path of LaVoy’s truck, and would have been severely injured, if not killed, absent the quick reflexes of LaVoy.  Had he not swerved, to save the life mentioned above, he may have had the momentum to pass the barricade, return to the paved roadway, and continue on to the safety he anticipated would be found in John Day, Grant County, just fifty more miles up the road.  Instead, he got high-centered in the snow, leaving the drive wheel still spinning.  More on this, shortly, but we will have to make a truck disappear to hold up the government line.

So, now, there have been four shots fired, striking the truck.  Like David Koresh, in February 1993, standing in the open doorway, saying that there were women and children inside, then being fired upon, dozens of bullets hitting the door, and one striking David in the side, how to you relinquish the expectation of survival and submit to arrest, hoping that they will not simply kill you?

Before we move on to the final actions that resulted in the murder of LaVoy Finicum, we need to address some major spin, attempting to shift responsibility on to the victim, and redeem the alleged righteousness of the murderers.  And, here is where the real magic begins.  From the aerial imagery that we have seen so many times, we know that the barricade was a classic safe for the shooters and lethal for the victim arrangement.  Had the intended target stopped at the spike-strips, or even rammed the blockading vehicles, he would have been left in a free-fire zone, where there was no crossfire between assailants, and only the victims were within the kill zone.  Yet, we are led to believe that this was simply a traffic stop, or a felony arrest stop, though arrests were not completed, according to the warrant, until the following day, January 27, and the arrests made by the FBI, not the OSP.

If we look at the exhibits that show the scene at the shooting location, first, we have one diagram that shows the location of the shooter and LaVoy’s truck when three shots are fired by an OSP officer located behind the vehicle in the right lane, as LaVoy approaches the barricade.  The first shot strikes the left side of the truck, the next hits the front-center and goes into the engine compartment, and the third hits the right front (hood), as described at the conference.  There is a fourth shot, a magic bullet, so to speak, that hit the roof of the truck, fired in a downward trajectory.  Without further explanation, we are left to speculate, and in so doing, I can come up with nothing less than a sniper attempting from an elevated position, to the right and rear of the truck, to kill the driver of the vehicle by penetrating the roof, as the angle and location of the bullet damage to the vehicle can leave no other conclusion.

Note, also, that this diagram shows three vehicles.  One in the center of the road, one in the right lane, and at an angle, and LaVoy’s truck in its final resting location.  The significance of this will be addressed, shortly.

Next, we have an exhibit from a larger package, documentation, comprised of 360 pages, though all we are interested in is a sketch (page 123) of the shooting location and evidence secured at the scene.  Note that, here, too, only three vehicles are shown — the same three, including LaVoy’s truck.  We will discuss the evidence found, shortly.

Then, horror of horrors, we are told that, “as you will see, Mr. Finicum almost struck an FBI HRT operator.”  Now, this begins to get interesting, so pay close attention.  We are told that:

Under Oregon law, Mr. Finicum was using his truck as a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon is defined as “any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”An Oregon officer is justified in using deadly physical force when it is “necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force.”

Any person is justified in using deadly physical force when they reasonably believe that another person is “using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.

“Deadly physical force” means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

When Mr. Finicum drove his truck at a high rate of speed toward a roadblock where law enforcement were present, the Oregon State Police trooper was reasonable in believing that Mr. Finicum planned to crash through or otherwise evade the roadblock in a manner that would injure or kill law enforcement at the roadblock. In this case, after interviewing the Oregon State Police trooper, that is, in fact, what he believed. Under these circumstances, these three shots into Mr. Finicum’s truck are justified.

So, the speaker has given his take on the perspective of the officer that was fearful that LaVoy was going “to crash through the roadblock or otherwise evade the roadblock”.  Obviously, evading the roadblock would put no sane person at risk, and when you consider the design of the roadblock, nobody, except perhaps the people in LaVoy’s truck faced any risk of injury.  The roadblock was comprised of three vehicles.  The center vehicle was in the center of the road.  The other two vehicles were diagonal, facing toward the center of the road.  To hit the center vehicle, LaVoy would have to impact one or both of the other vehicles, which would dissipate the energy of his momentum, directing it outward, as it pushed a diagonal vehicle away from the center.  If he even got past the diagonal vehicle, there would be no energy left to cause more than minimal damage to the center vehicle, hence the specific design of the roadblock/barricade.  But, trying to stop that vehicle with a few bullets, well, that reminds me of the mouse looking at the elephant, with rape on his mind.

But, what of LaVoy and those in the truck?  They were fired on at the first stop, resulting in Ryan Payne exiting the truck and getting arrested.  And, they were simply wanting to go to another law enforcement officer, the Sheriff on Grant County, to provide for their already threatened safety.

It seems that they found themselves in the situation described by the statement, above, which says that, “Any person is justified in using deadly physical force when they reasonably believe that another person is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.”  So, under the laws cited, they were justified in using deadly force, as deadly force had already been used against them, though they had made no threat, nor done any act, that would suggest that they sought that legal remedy of self-defense.

As they traveled towards John Day, they were, again, fired upon by an OSP officer that had some absurd fear that his shooting the driver of a speeding truck was less dangerous than the speeding truck, itself — ignoring the officer safety aspect of the roadblock.

In fact, the only act of LaVoy that might be considered one in which there was a risk to the life of any officer or other person is when he swerved to avoid hitting an officer who had left the safety of the barricade and jumped into the path of the 4 tons worth of metal.

SAC (Special Agent in Charge) Bretzing tells us, that the FBI HRT agent that jumped in front of LaVoy’s truck had to react in a split second.  This, he suggests, explains why he “jumped” into the path of LaVoy’s truck.  However, the configuration of the blockade, as explained above, provided safety zones in the triangles created by the center vehicle and the angled vehicles.  However, with the exception of the visual of the original aerial footage, this is the first recognition of the third government vehicle.  So, their concern for preservation of the crime scene seems to have gone out the window, since the sketches made based upon the designated crime scene investigator make no reference, in either of the diagrams mentioned above, of this third vehicle — that being the closest to the shooting, itself.  Is this because that vehicle may have some indication that would, well, dispute the story that has just been presented?

With regard to the shooting, there is one more necessary observation.  Admittedly, there were six shots fired by OSP, three striking the vehicle as it approached the roadblock, and three that struck and killed LaVoy Finicum.  There is an admission that at least a few other shots were fired by FBI agents, though the investigation into the lies and cover-up is still “under investigation”, so no information is available.

Now, we have just a few shots, nothing that would cause serious concern on the part of LaVoy, are so it would seem.  That is the part of the process of this sort of press conference.  It sets the pace, it provides no time to think, and it omits that which might just raise a question about what really happened — what might have occurred that had a lot to do with the state of mind of LaVoy Finicum, and the others in the truck with him.

The evidence sketch, motioned above, is in another report.  It mentions 20 items identified by numerals and 6 items, five of which are identified as objects relating to LaVoy, these being identified by letters.  Item “E” is a “mushroomed rifle bullet”, and I doubt that it belonged to LaVoy, but it is conspicuously lost in the listings, and was not mentioned in the press conference.

We also have the twenty items that were identified and recovered, being: 3 40 mm rubber bullets; 1 grenade; 2 grenade pins; and, 13 40 mm casings.  From those first shots fired as LaVoy left the vehicle, and for the next 3 or 4 minutes, non-lethal 40 mm bullets, tear gas, and other objects are barraging the truck and those inside.  It is almost as if the OSP and the FBI were trying to create such fear in those remaining in the truck to cause them to fight for their lives, providing justification to kill all who remained.  As those inside, yelled, “Stop”, a number of times, it did not cease until those outside realized that they were not going to be able to force a confrontation, and could not be justified in simply shooting lethal bullets through the truck doors, killing those who remained.

Some additional thoughts:

  • During the conference, we were told that the people inside of the Refuge were conducting “an armed occupation”, though we find that no such charge exists.
  • We were told that they had advised that they were law enforcement and that everyone was under arrest (first stop), though there is no indication that the cause for arrest was ever articulated.
  • During the entire period of the occupation, those inside were never advised of what “crime” they had committed, only that what they had done was “illegal”, and that came from Sheriff Ward.

So, the Oregon State Police have gracefully transferred any responsibility for the death of LaVoy Finicum to, well, who else but LaVoy Finicum.  Though they saw him reach to his left side with his hands, on three occasions, they restrained themselves and did not fire.  During that time, LaVoy had been fully visible to them.  However, when his back was to the shooters, and clearly visible to the officer with the tazer, who could easily have yelled “gun”, had LaVoy drawn one, the shooters, all of a sudden, through some mystical abilities, realized that what they couldn’t see now justified three rapid-fire shots, into the BACK of the victim.

Should there be any remaining doubt as to responsibility, they have a pending investigation going regarding the perhaps illegal, and definite lying during the investigation, by between 2 and 5 FBI agents, which will take time, and, eventually, just get lost along with so many other misdeeds by the FBI (Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.).

Perhaps the most ludicrous statement of the entire conference came from SAC Bretzing, when he said:

“Hundreds and hundreds of FBI employees have traveled to Burns with the sole purpose of bringing this situation to a peaceful solution.  Working together with our partners, we have been able to do just that.”


Have you ever wondered what the colonists might have done,
had the soldiers not stood trial in front of a jury of the people, back in Boston?



  1. soveregin bastard says:

    In your above article you wrote, “We also have the twenty items that were identified and recovered, being: 3 40 mm rubber bullets; 1 grenade; 2 grenade pins; and, 13 40 mm casings. From those first shots fired as LaVoy left the vehicle, and for the next 3 or 4 minutes, ——NON-LETHAL——- 40 mm bullets, tear gas, and other objects are barraging the truck and those inside.”

    I would make the observation that 40mm bullets, tear gas and other objects are LESS-LETHAL, compared to NON-LETHAL. I think it is a fair point and helps to not dilute the seriousness of their circumstance. ( I would add that I am not trying to say that the author is trying to dilute the seriousness of the situation in any respect.)

    I am a bit worn down with the idea that we need to work within the system to find this ever elusive justice. STOP LOOKING THERE ! The system, very cleverly, has been designed to be unbeatable through the normal course of working within the system. The similarities between the government and a casino are striking in this regard. The system is designed for the house to always win in the long run. Winning here or there only provides for the illusion that the system is working, it is not. It is the occasional bone thrown to shut the dog up.

    On one hand it does not surprise me that blatant premeditated murder by coward order followers has not upset the masses into a knee jerk reaction of substance. We have been so well indoctrinated, infiltrated, dominated, and enslaved that it is nearly impossible for the average, modern “American” to understand what the 4th branch of government presents to them on their indoctrination tubes.

    Now on the other hand, I know that logic, honor, critical thinking and cans chock full of bad assery still exist in the republic. So where in the hell is the appropriate response to such PUBLIC government evil and cowardice ? Where are all the fucking heads on pikes. The armed masses standing up in strict defiance of this criminal leviathan ? I mean, I see a whole bunch of angry, pissed off people at Trump rallies, but all that energy is directed into divide and conquer among the masses, rather than being focused at the actual problem, THE GOVERNMENT. Then again, this is all by design.

    The clock has just about ran out for successful self defense. This is not an isolated incident. This issue affects, EVERYONE. Do we continue to be slave to government or do we crack heads and burn this mother fucker down ? All in righteous self defense of course !

    • ghunt says:

      “Righteous self defense”? Or, Defense of out Constitution, Nation, and way of life, by aggression?

      The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

      • sovereign bastard says:

        I would say that self defense, up to and including lethal force is very aggressive. Taking a stand on the moral and righteous rock of self defense against the initiation of violence, coercion, extortion, kidnapping, ETC.. is paramount to the individual. The constitution, nation or presumably the American way of life does not give the natural living man his rights. They are god given, born with, inherited through the creation of life. I find it important to note that it is the individual that has the right and the individual that must stand up for the right. The declaration of independence may have created the nation, but the constitution created the government. Neither granted the individual with these precious rights we all seem to be so passionate about. I like to focus the idea of our freedom on the terms of the individual not the nation. Of course the nation is created by numbers of individuals, but it sure seems to me that the majority of the nation is indoctrinated into an incorrect narrative of their rights. I will note that the constitution is a humdinger of a document, but it has allowed the state we live in today. (of course the government is also composed of individuals as well.) Ultimately it is the individuals that make up this republic that have allowed the tyrannical state we live in today, myself included.

        Thank you for providing a link to the plan for restoration of constitutional government. I was unaware of it and I can sense I will enjoy reading it soon !

        Here are a couple of thoughts if I may be so bold. Lets take the Montana state constitution for example. I am under the impression that any law created that is in conflict with the federal constitution is null and void. Not just the one particular offending part of the legislation but the entire document as a whole. With this idea in mind, it seems clear to me that this would make the Montana state constitution dead on arrival, still born if you will. For example. article II, section 12 states…….. “Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”

        Now I present the federal constitution regarding the right to bear arms. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        To keep means to own or be in possession of. To bear means to keep on your person. All of it shall not be infringed. The Montana constitution clearly infringes on the right to bear those arms, or in the words of the Montana constitution, calls into question the right to bear the arms concealed. This means it is null and void, and the entire document with it null and void.

        The logical fallacies of the Montana state constitution are blatant and in many ways comical. Article II, section 2 of the Montana state constitution state that, “Self-government. The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state. They may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary.”

        Then, when we jump to article II, section 30, it states that, ” Treason and descent of estates. Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on his confession in open court; no person shall be attainted of treason or felony by the legislature; no conviction shall cause the loss of property to the relatives or heirs of the convicted. The estates of suicides shall descend or vest as in cases of natural death.”

        One might argue that, to abolish the government, a right the people seem to have would violate article II, section 30 of the very same constitution. I understand that varying degrees of the actions that can be taken to abolish the government, but I have no doubt that no matter the avenue taken, the government would consider all of it treason. Again, it’s comical in a very deadly way.

        Another thought, the Montana state constitution strays far from the rights it is supposed to defend and blatantly calls at least one of them a privilege. Here is the offending section. Article II, section 19, “Habeas corpus. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended.” I say we ask a certain tri corner hat wearing fisher if his contempt of court violated that little privilege ? Of course a privilege is not a right, yet this State constitution is filled with major issues. Life and death issues. My point is clear, a judge gets to accuse, try, and sentence an individual for A. not committing any crime and B. all in violation of the writ of Habeas Corpus. Maybe that is why it was written as a privilege not a right ?

        Article II, section 35 states, ” Servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans. The people declare that Montana servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans may be given special considerations determined by the legislature.” This is an abomination. I thought we were all supposed to be equal under the law ? Nobody is giving me and my family special considerations.

        I think that I have demonstrated just a few points that should be discussed in the larger community of individuals. What exactly are we wanting ? What do we want to fight for ? There might be some issues here and there with what we are fighting for, but maybe we can all agree that we all want our individual rights, liberty and property ? Without the individual the nation does not exist.

        I want to say that I consider myself an Allie and friend of liberty and private property. It can be easy to argue among ourselves over what the right document, idea, Etc.. is to rally around or the right course to follow to achieve that goal. ( as evidenced very clearly in the latest patriot debacle.) Talking about these important documents is always a good reason for a conversation and following courses to achieve our rightful liberty, sovereignty and private property is always a good idea as well.

        Thank you to Mr. Hunt for allowing me a place to express some thoughts on the critical topic of liberty !

        • ghunt says:

          So much to respond to, though I will endeavor to keep the separate items separate, for clarification.
          Self-defense is either a unique situation, as defense against an unlawful or illegal intrusion, or a last stand, with regard to the perspective of what is happening to this country, today. Self-defense my save your life and property. It will not save your country.
          I do hope you like reading, as I have already, in other articles addressed some of your concerns. Why should Montana have a Constitution? Your presumption is that we only need the federal Constitution, or, if we have two constitutions, do I get to pick and choose which one I prefer. Think back historically. The colonies, now states, had gained independence from and imperialistic government. They were concern, when creating the federal government under the Constitution, of granting too much power to a national government. Eleven of the colonies had already created their own constitutions (two retained revised charters). Were they to subordinate what they had already determined to be their own choice of form of government to the federal Constitution? Absolutely not. They federal Constitution grants certain (only) powers and authorities to the federal government (Art. I, §§ 8 & 9), and set some restrictions on states (Art. I, § 10). Subsequently the Bill of Rights established even more limitations on the federal government. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and Arts. 9 & 10:
          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.
          9th Amendment
          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
          10th Amendment
          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
          If you want to read further on the subject, try:
          “Which Constitution am I Protected By?” which addresses the issue of the Second Amendment https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=768
          Or, for a much more intensive understanding, try “Habeas Corpus – Guardian of Liberty” (You can skip the historical information on Habeas Corpus and jump to th beginning of the Court decisions and other aspects that discuss the relationship between the people, their state, and the federal government – Baron v. Baltimore): http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm
          Regarding “treason” and “abolishing” in Montana, though I haven’t studied the subject, might best be understood that there are means of abolishing that might be less than warfare. However, if it was a resort to warfare, it would be the victor that would determine if treason were applicable. We can find the some apparent disparity between the Declaration and the Constitution. How does “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” comport with the Treason provision of the Constitution? At what point does the more extreme remedy replace the less extreme? Perhaps that is best answered by repeating Jefferson’s words, “But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism”.
          So, just where are we, today? We are trying to abide by a Constitution that the government refuses to abide by. Why are we bound, when the government is not? Do circumstances warrant a consideration of the former (abolish) as the only solution t the problem? Or, are we compelled, by some unseen force, to abide by the latter, and to our ultimate destruction as a nation?
          So, let’s return to Habeas Corpus, specifically. What is a privilege verses a right? A right cannot be suspended, where a privilege can be suspended. and, what qualifies for suspension is clearly laid out in Art. I, § 9, clause 2, “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” However, as I have learned, it has been suspended, for all intents and purposes. See “Habeas Corpus Removed from the Constitution” http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/HC06.htm
          With regard to servicemen having special privileges, that was done away with when the Order of Cincinnatus was done away with, after the Revolutionary War. However, government has created by legislation, not with an amendment, something referred to as civil Rights. The only right in the Constitution that puts a burden on others is the right to a trial by jury. The others stand alone, however, jury trials do work (when properly applied) to justice reciprocally.
          Civil Rights, however, are granted by government. And, there is no civil right that can be given to one without taking from (or forcing upon) another. There is no constitutional provision that would give the government the power to grant such rights.
          However, if you do read through Habeas Corpus – Guardian of Liberty, you will see what began happening in 1936 and was compound with the admitted creation of the Fourth Branch of Government in 1946.
          Now, it is easy to point on problems. I do so, quite often. However, being old school, I point out the problem and tender a solution. The desire is to resolve problems, which cannot be done without solutions proposed.
          As far as a forum to discuss such matters, it appears that you have found one, though it is quite small, and limited in its reach. If you can find a better forum, I would be pleased to participate.

  2. jakeandcrew says:

    Regarding the mushroomed bullet – on page 45/360 of the released reports, Officer #2, who reportedly shot LaVoy once, notes that after the shooting, “…I also noticed when they were providing first aid, that a bullet had mushroomwd as we were lifting — not me — as they were lifting his shirt up kind of fell out onto the snow, and I remember thinking it looked like a 5.56 round. It perfectly mushroomed, and it was on the snow underneath Mr. Finicum, and it was pointed out to other guys there.”

  3. sovereign bastard says:

    Thank you for your generous response ! Much to look over and dive into. I readily admit that I am an anarchist in nature, but this does not have much in the way of remedy. (the problem/solution factor you mentioned earlier.) When it comes to remedy, I can support constitutional restoration as a consolation to our current state. I will read the articles that you linked and will make my responses to those specific threads.
    Instead of a steady list of problems, abuses, Etc.. I have found an easy way to explain the root issue. When it comes to the long list of abuses, these are merely symptoms of a larger, malignant disease. When people and groups give themselves rights that the rest of us do not have, that makes us slave and them master. Pure and simple. I will say that the politicians have a fair amount of responsibility with all of our problems, but it is not obama, bush or clinton pulling you over, pointing guns at you, kciking down your doors, threatening or extorting you under threat of force, color of law, all immoral and evil, NO, it’s the order follower. It’s the police in conjunction with the district attorneys and judges that are the root of our problems. They have “rights” that the rest of us seem not to.
    I say, let congress and the president prance and make edicts on high all day. None of it means jack if the ORDER FOLLOWERS, did not do their evil bidding interjecting themselves with immunity into our daily, individual lives. The disease is the mentality that we do not own ourselves, and that some have rights the rest of us do not. This is clearly pushed through and swallowed through the school system, the television, the entire political system. You all must submit to the authority of the government, for its authority is sovereign and you all are tenants on the kings land. (fun side note, for all those folks who claim their property is actually theirs and private, look at the deed to your property. your name is under tenant, the state is owner. Same as your vehicle. There is no allodial status when you do not have the rights to begin with under these documents that seem more like legal, constructive fraud then defense of liberty. )

    I would like to add a link to a couple of videos that help illustrate my points of order followers, and self ownership.

    The Philosophy of Liberty


    Order Followers


    Before we can act, we must understand what the actual problem is.

  4. sovereign bastard says:

    So, with all that out of the way, back to the substance of your article. The “lawful” case that the state has against Lavoy is imaginary. This is a simple case of pre-mediated murder, with a planned ambush. If the state wanted to take Lavoy in, they could have peacefully taken him in when he was speaking with the state on numerous occasions. Like your article points out, he was on his way again to talk with the state, could have arrested him there for the crime of………………(sound of crickets.)

    The level of malice, corruption and evil levied against those patriotic few that day is obvious and clear cut. Where are all the honest judges, law enforcement, and district attorneys ? You know, the good apples in the batch ? Simple, they don’t exist.

    Having reviewed the updated video of the inside of the truck Lavoy was driving is a hard pill to swallow. The prayers of the innocent, non violent few as the state continued to attack. If this was not a Lexington Greene, i don’t know what the fuck is. The reason it was not, of course, is that this was the boogey man. These people were the bad people, the so called terrorist. (another fun side note, the origination of the word terrorist was used to describe the government against the people, not bands of people our individuals. Isn’t that funny how that flipped a 180 ? Just like most wrong truths we all seem to believe.)

    “Terrorism” comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reign of Terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terrere (e, terreo) meaning “to frighten”.The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BCE that the Jacobins cited as a precedent when imposing the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[6][7] After the Jacobins lost power, the word “terrorist” became a term of abuse.”

    It’s clear to me that the terrorist are the government, and the victims were minding their business on their way to have a peaceful chat. I guess the media is not helping advance our cause…EH ?

  5. cathy says:

    Did you notice that (on the audio recording) when slowed down You can hear 2 SHOTS fired at the point where Lavoy Just exists the truck,while he is standing between the truck cab & Passenger door?After those shots were fired (which I think accounts for the 1 bullet mark on the roof) the other a miss, then Lavoy sprints/charges forward his reaction to get out of the way of those shots. After that as he is yelling and pointing towards the truck (in raw footage video) referring possibly that they were trying to kill him, “you just going to shoot me”. Could one of those shot have hit him in the shoulder?

    • ghunt says:

      There are many possibilities, though we don’t have anything sufficient to challenge what the government says.
      However. as I believe I have demonstrated, the government can twist (spin) what they want. If we look at other possibilities that are ot in conflict with the presented facts, then we can see that it probably didn’t happen JUST as the government says that it happened.

  6. […] Chronicles No. 11: What are the III%? Burns Chronicles No. 12: Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury Burns Chronicles No. 13: Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” Burns Chronicles No. 14: Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg? Burns Chronicles No. 15: So, […]

  7. […] XIII. Ambush, Part II – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” [3/14/16] […]

  8. […] XIII. Ambush, Part II – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” [3/14/16] […]

  9. […] Burns Chronicles No 13 – Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” […]

Leave a Reply to Citizens for Constitutional Freedom | cindyloulife