Freedom of the Press #5 – “Tilting at Windmills”

Freedom of the Press #5
“Tilting at Windmills”


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 31, 2017

Well, it has been almost three weeks since the government’s most recent effort to suppress Freedom of the Press.  Not really surprising, since they have nothing to go on; they just think that they do.  However, Billy J. Williams (aka Don Quixote) and Pamala R. Holsinger (aka Sancho Panza) have spent a bunch of taxpayer’s money on “Tilting at Windmills”.  They just do not seem to believe that the Constitution is the very document that created them, and the government that they represent.  Well, it didn’t really create them, but it did create the positions that they hold.

Back on January 10, 2017, the government filed the “Government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1689)“.  This was discussed in Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, published on January 11.  That same day, just hours before #3 was published, the Court filed an “Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1691)“.  This, of course, led to my response, on January 12, with Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order.  Rather a hectic pace, for three days.

Apparently, the government had some heavy homework, for it wasn’t until January 30 that they made their next move.  They filed “Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1788)“, and, not to be out done, they filed an “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1789)“.  The Motion (1788) is only 6 pages, but the Affidavit (1789) is 14 pages, 8 of which are actually entering my Article #4 into the record.  I sure like it when they expand my readership.  Thank you, Don and Sancho.

So, let’s look at the Affidavit (1789), first.  The first three paragraphs are explanations of Ronnie Walker’s qualifications.  In that third paragraph, we find this rather curious limitation of her authority:

I am an “investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States” within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510(7), authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.

Now, it says that she is “authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.”  It does not say that Walker cannot investigate other allegations, but if Walker could, would not Walker have made the point clear.  It kinda makes you wonder, since nobody has found the time to provide a statute that I am in violation of.  This was first discussed when I received the “Letter- Demand to Cease and Desist“, which I reported on in Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI, when “I asked the agent what statute bound me to the Cease and Desist portion of the letter?”  I received no reply.  Since they have not provided me a statute (federal law), I am just wondering if maybe SA Walker is moonlighting for the US Attorney.

Now, here is the kicker.  In the next paragraph in the affidavit, Walker states:

4.  This affidavit is intended to show only facts pertinent for the requested motion and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter.

So, let’s see some facts.  In paragraph 15, Walker states that I received:

a Supplement to the original Protective Order, court record #1692, which prohibits any individual or entity from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.

Well, that is a fact.  Any individual or entity that disseminates those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity[,] by any means.  Now, that would make almost any person who has read and shared certain of my articles, and presumably, even if you did not read them and only shared them, you have been brought into the “long arm of the Protective Order”, and are subject to the very same punishment that they want to try to hang on me.  And, as Walker said, that’s a fact.

Do not let that scare you, because we still have to see if the Court can find some way to reach out of their jurisdiction and grab me, or you, unless, of course, you live in Oregon.  But, even if you do live in Oregon, unless you are party to Ammon Bundy, et al, the trial, which will start, again, with Group 2, on February 14, it would not apply to you, either.  The reason I say that it can’t reach you is that you have to have aided and abetted a party in the action.  That condition exists when two parties work together.  We’ll touch on that, a little later.


Then in paragraph 17, we find:

On January 23, 2017, I reviewed the Outpost of Freedom blog at and observed that HUNT not only had not removed the protected material but had posted new additional discovery information subject to this Court’s original Protective Order (#342), January 11, 2017, Order (#1691), and January 11, 2017, Supplement to Protective Order (#1692). The new CHS discovery information was posted January 23, 2017, in an article by HUNT titled “Bums Chronicles No 55.” In this post, HUNT alleges two individuals are FBI CHSs. HUNT fully identifies one of the individuals and refers to the second individual only by first name and physical description. HUNT draws conclusions based on five FD-1023 reports provided in the CHS discovery. HUNT quoted verbatim text from the CHS discovery reports.

Now, we can move on to the Government’s Motion (1788).

From that Motion:

Hunt told SA Catalano that he did not intend to comply with the terms of the letter. Hunt stated he had two more articles outing CHSs; those articles were in their final review stage before he planned to upload them.

Now, the Affidavit confirms that I had added the one article naming two people, though in the Motion, Catalano’s report indicated that I had informed them that I had two articles nearly completed.  Even if the Order were valid, I had advised them of two articles that predate the Order, though they had not, yet, been published.

The Motion then states, after going through the various events that led up to January 30,

The Order states that in the event Hunt fails to comply with the Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings.

How very nice of the Court to authorize the government to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings.  However, the Order was issued, “in part“.  The “in part”, though it had other parts, did address the problem of jurisdiction.  As explained in Article #4, the Order clearly states:

4.  In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. 1

And, the referenced footnote (1) says:

1 Because the question is not presently before it, the Court does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings.

The question was NOT before the Court.  The Motion does NOT address that touchy little matter of jurisdiction.  So, no ruling has been made with regard to jurisdiction.  Nor has the government offered anything within the Motion to suggest that jurisdiction exists for this Court to proceed any further than simply mouthing off, hoping to intimidate me into the Oregon federal District’s jurisdiction.

The Motion ends with the following:

Accordingly, the United States asks that this Court order third-party Gary Hunt to appear in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and show cause as to why this Court should not hold him in contempt.

Well, I doubt that the Court can do any more than the government has done, to ask me to visit Oregon.  Unfortunately, my last visit left a bad taste in my mouth.  Just two days after I arrived, LaVoy Finicum was murdered on the side of the road.  Certain events that occurred just moments before, and shortly after, the murder took place have been left in the hands of the government to investigate.  Those events include two shots fired by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the removal of evidence from a crime scene (removed brass), and the failure to report weapons fired by the HRT members.  And, that investigation has allegedly been going on for over a year.  I say “allegedly” because the government has been so silent on the matter that we do not know for sure.

So, if the government cannot do their job, unless it suits them, it must be left to the Press to inform the people of the misdeeds of that government.



  1. Paul Niblock says:

    Excellent deposition as always, Mr Gary. I am curious how you manage to be so prolific in your writing when your massive balls must constantly interfere. You must have a specially designed chair in which you sit.

  2. Charles B Vance says:

    Good Analysis. I do hope that Jeff Sessions as Attorney General will get the Department of Justice back on track, that the district attorneys will turn aside from their relentless pursuit of decent law abiding Citizens and turn their attention to the “Bad Dudes” our new president has identified.

  3. Lynette Warren says:

    In Ronnie Walker’s affidavit, under Sec II “Relevent Facts” he begins with a statement which he knows to be untrue.

    He states:
    “On January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 11, 2016, several individuals
    to include Dylan ANDERSON, Sandra ANDERSON, Sean ANDERSON, Jeff Wayne BANTA,
    Jason BLOMGREN, Ammon BUNDY, Ryan BUNDY, Brian CAVALIER, Blaine COOPER,
    Shawna COX, Travis COX, Duane Leo EHMER, Eric Lee FLORES, David Lee FRY, Wesley
    STANEK, Darryl William THORN, Neil WAMPLER, and others participated in the illegal
    occupation of the MNWR.”

    I might give Walker the benefit of the doubt regarding those who haven’t been tried, yet, and still stand accused, but he’s clearly stating what he knows to be an untruth regarding Banta, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Fry, Medenbach, Shauna Cox, and Wampler and has acknowledged that they had no case against Santilli. Santilli was released for lack of evidence. The others were found not guilty of the crime that Walker asserts they’ve committed. Isn’t Walker, as a law enforcement officer of the United States, supposed to recognize and comply with the law. Instead, he seems to be in denial about the verdict – the legal truth – as set forth in the first Malheur trial on Oct 27 last year.

    I’m not just being nit-picky here. This denial of the legal reality illustrates the A ≠ A problem that is rife in Anna Brown’s courtroom, driven from the top down, beginning with her lack of concern for the facts contained in her very own decisions and instructions to the prosecution team’s lead investigator’s assertion of untruths in his own affidavit. They’re just making things up on the fly to reinforce their own desired outcomes. It’s a disgrace. Judge Brown should not only recuse herself from this case, she should resign.

  4. […] case law, of course, was rebutted by my January 30, 2017, Freedom of the Press #5 – “Tilting at Windmills”.  In this article, I, again, rebutted their case law, showing that what they cited supported my […]

Leave a Reply