The Bundy Affair – #19 – Schuyler Barbeau Responds to Ryan Payne

The Bundy Affair – #19
Schuyler Barbeau Responds to Ryan Payne

Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 30, 2016

Schuyler Barbeau receives copies of my articles, via mail, while detained at SeaTac Federal Detention Center. After reading “Ryan Payne Explains Some of the Circumstances Surrounding the Bundy Affair in April 2014“, Schuyler sent me the following to post, in response to that article.

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

11/14/2016
FDC SeaTac

This is an open letter,

To those Patriots, their families, anyone affected by or involved with the indictment against Cliven Bundy and eighteen others, the Government, FBI, Federal Prosecutors, and anyone else concerned with the case,

This letter is my concurrence with an open letter written and published by Ryan Payne.

I, Schuyler P. Barbeau, was present before, during and after the “standoff” event that took place in Bunkerville, NV, near Cliven Bundy’s Ranch on April 12th, 2014.  I arrived at noon on Friday the 11th, and was invited to be a member of the Personal Security Detail that evening.  I then remained a member of the PSD [Personal Security Detail] for seven days.

Ryan Payne made five statements in his letter, that he made speculative, inaccurate, and/or fabricated statements before, during, and after the “standoff.”

“1) There were outcomes that I discussed with Mr. Bundy on the morning of April 8, 2014, upon first meeting him, which were desirable to him and his family.  These were then disseminated through conventional and alternative media outlets, in the belief that those who may decide to protest against the Sheriff’s apparent lack of involvement, and/or against the brutal and militarized actions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  This would give them more information to aid in making decisions for themselves and their actions.  There was never a plan to accomplish these objectives, in any way, shape, or form, nor was there any intent to support any such plan, by myself, the Bundy’s, or anyone else.  As there was presumed to be a large protest on April 12th, I discussed with numerous individuals, some particular things to be watch­ful for amongst the crowd, for the safety of all involved including law enforcement and federal employees.  However, none of these discussions concerned a plan to achieve any objectives.  This is true to my knowledge.”

.

I, Schuyler P. Barbeau, concur with Ryan Payne’s first statement, that it is true to my knowledge.

“2) There were no long range marksmen present before, during, or after the 12th, except those employed by the BLM, as confirmed via photographic evidence disseminated before the 12th.  There were no counter-sniper teams or positions, nor was there any such plan for such.  There were no qualified individuals or teams present to perform such a task, even if there had been a plan for it.  Again, there was no such plan, and no orders were ever given in relation to such positions or teams, nor could there have been orders given, as there was no command authority.  This is true to my knowledge.’

I, Schuyler P. Barbeau, concur with Ryan Payne’s second statement, that it is true to my knowledge.

“3) There was no “Tactical Superiority”: any intent to achieve “Tactical Superiority”: and there was no plan concerning achieving “Tactical Superiority,” at any time before, during, or after the 12th, relating to the events which took place in and around Bunkerville, Nevada.  There could be nothing other than speculation concerning any outcomes or circumstances pertaining to the 12th because there was neither a coordinated nor a centralized offensive entity, nor was there any intent to achieve or implement such.

Statements about what could or could not have happened if the BLM or Forrest Service Tactical Strike Force had opened fire on the innocent protesters they were aiming their AR-15 style rifles at, which included women and children, were, are, and could only ever be speculative and based on opinion, as there was no coordination nor planned response to that scenario.  This is true to my knowledge.”

I, Schuyler P. Barbeau, concur with Ryan Payne’s third statement, that it is true to my knowledge.

“4) There was no “command” authority, “on-the-ground commander,” or any agreement to give, to receive, or to follow orders from anyone in the Bundy family, nor myself, nor anyone present in Bunkerville, Nevada, before, or on the 12th of April, 2014.  Neither myself nor anyone else, gave orders or instructions regarding fortified positions, or gaining tactical superiority, to anyone present on the 12th.  There was certainly no agreement to commit a crime, or multiple crimes.  This is true to my knowledge.”

I, Schuyler P. Barbeau, concur with Ryan Payne’s fourth statement, that it is true to my Knowledge.

“5) As stated in (1) above, there was never a plan, nor was there any planning pertaining to the events which took place before and on the 12th of April, aside from being able to provide food and water to protesters.  This is true to my knowledge.”

I, Schuyler P. Barbeau, concur with Ryan Payne’s fifth statement, that it is true to my knowledge.

I will further add that I, having been present in the Bunkerville, NV area and at Cliven Bundy’s house and ranch before, on, and after the “standoff” events on April 12th, 2014:

1) Did not participate in any conspiracy, confederation, or agreement to commit any offenses against the “United States” with anyone else present before, on, or after the 12th, nor was there anyone else participating in any conspiracy, confederation, or agreement to commit any offenses against the “United States” with Cliven Bundy, nor anyone else.  There was no planning of anything to do anything.  This is true to my knowledge.

2) There were only three groups of people in Bunkerville or at the Bundy’s Ranch before, on, and after the events of April 12th, 2014.  There were protesters, people who supported the protesters and the security for Cliven and his family and everyone else.  The first protested the heavy handed tactics of the Government, the support group handled food, water, medical, etc needs of the protest and security groups, and the security made sure Cliven and his family and everyone else stayed safe, not only from unlawful acts by the Government, but also from anyone else.  No one who was there had any other purpose or intent then to exercise their/our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and other rights secured by the United States Constitution and Bill Of Rights.  This is true to my knowledge.

Where the Government came up with the idea of some big conspiracy to commit a bunch of crimes is beyond me, except that they speculated off of Ryan’s and other’s fabrications and false representations.  The whole point of protesting a Government’s actions is to stop those actions from continuing UNTIL there is redress.  Had all the protesters gone and stayed inside the “First Amendment Zones” they set up unconstitutionally, the BLM would have finished rounding up all of Cliven’s cattle, shipped them off, killed off even more than they did, packed up, and moved out of there and Cliven’s whole life would have been completely destroyed.  Is he supposed to, are WE supposed to, just let the Government destroy him completely and then try to hash it out in court after he’s lost everything?  He would have lost all his money, house, ranch, all his property, everything, and then you expect him to pay maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the big fight in court?  For years?  And probably never get redress or restored?  No, I say, you assemble and stop the Government destruction until there is redress and you absolutely bear arms to protect yourself and others from this kind of tyranny.  That’s exactly how our Founding Father did in the past and that’s exactly how our Founding Fathers wanted us to do it today.  We The People are not to ever let the Federal Government just walk all over us.  How come the Government can point their assault weapons at We The People and claim self-defense, but We The People can not point our guns at them in self-defense?  We are just citizens trying to defend ourselves from tyranny.  When I was in the Marine Corps (OOH RAH), we had to learn the four weapon safety rules.  One is: Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.  We also have Rules of Engagement.  Basically, we didn’t point our weapons at anybody unless they are an enemy combatant who has a weapon and is using it, or intends to use it against us.  Our Law Enforcement is trained the same way and learns the four weapon safety rules.  Does that mean that at the Bundy Ranch “standoff,” the BLM, Forrest Service, and whoever else was pointing their weapons at us were INTENDING to shoot us?  Were we citizens enemy combatants to them?  We were there to exercise our rights as citizens and people of this land.  It seems they had a conspiracy, confederation, or agreement to kill enemy combatants.

Sincerely, Your Defender,

/s/ Schuyler P. Barbeau

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

The letter can also be found at “Barbeau – a Voice from Prison #2“.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “The Bundy Affair – #19 – Schuyler Barbeau Responds to Ryan Payne”

  1. Constitutional Truth says:

    “Does that mean that at the Bundy Ranch “standoff,” the BLM, Forrest Service, and whoever else was pointing their weapons at us were INTENDING to shoot us? Were we citizens enemy combatants to them? We were there to exercise our rights as citizens and people of this land. It seems they had a conspiracy, confederation, or agreement to kill enemy combatants.”

    That so needs to be underlined, in bold, all caps, and italicized for emphasis…
    Schuyler is also very correct in that the Framers of our Constitution expected US to keep the federal government in check by all means available.

Leave a Reply