Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing

Freedom of the Press #14
Telephonic Hearing

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2017

In my previous article, “Freedom of the Press #13 – Sojourn to Sacramento“, I mentioned the telephonic hearing held on Thursday, April 6, leading to my release, just a few hours later.  Prior to the hearing, it was set in stone, by Magistrate Brennan, in Sacramento, that I would not arrive in Portland until April 25.  This fits the schedule for “diesel therapy” (where the run you all over the country, in a sense, punishing you for being accused of a criminal act), which would take me to Oklahoma, then to Pahrump, Nevada, and then on to Portland over a period of twenty-five days.  The hearing, however, forestalled that tour of the West.  What led up to that hearing is the subject of this article.

I was self-arrested at my home and transported to Sacramento, California, on Thursday, March 30.  Judge Anna Brown was apprised of the arrest on Thursday, shortly after I was arrested.  I will describe the events as I lived them and provide pertinent entries from the Ammon Bundy, et al case in Oregon, Docket reports.

03/30/2017 [ECF#] 2051
ORDER On March 10, 2017, the Court entered a Sealed Order # 2017 Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt. On March 30, 2017, the government advised the Court that Gary Hunt has been taken into custody pursuant to this Court’s arrest warrant. Accordingly, because there is no longer any need to maintain under seal the Court’s Order # 2017 , the Court directs the Clerk to unseal Order # 2017 Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

On March 30, Judge Brown knew that the Warrant had been served.  Now, as I understand from my Federal Public Defender, Douglas Beevers, on Tuesday, April 4, Judge Brown had been waiting to be notified that I had arrived in Portland.  Apparently, she expected me to be in Portland on Monday.  When she contacted the US Marshal Service, they told her that I was being held in Sacramento.  Apparently, she had been advised that I would be arriving on April 25, via the diesel route.


On 7:00 am, Friday, March 31, I was five-pointed (waist chain, handcuffs, and leg irons) and transported from the Sacramento County Jail, by US Marshal van.  They drove about four blocks to get me to the Federal District Courthouse, directly across the street from the Sacramento County Jail.

I met my California Federal Public Defender, Douglas Beevers about an hour before my scheduled bail hearing.  In about 15 minutes, I had to explain the circumstances leading up to my arrest.  Magistrate Brennan refused me bail, and I was to be held, as stated, to be available in Portland on April 25.  It was a done deal in Brennan’s mind when I went into his courtroom.  The reason behind his set mind will be the subject of another article.

After the 2:00 pm hearing, I was returned to jail by the same means, though the driver stopped and started, quickly, a couple of times.  There is no way to keep from sliding around when you are all trussed up.  I can see how injuries can occur with this form of shackled transport.  Fortunately, this was my last official government ride.

When I returned to jail, I found my new quarters already reserved for me.

Tuesday, April 4, one of my contacts advised me that, via email, that my attorney (Beevers) would be in that morning.  When afternoon arrived, I was rather upset that he did not show up.  I had no way to contact him.

Wednesday, April 5, afternoon, Beevers visited me and said that Thursday we would have a telephonic hearing with Judge Brown.  I advised him that the Sheriffs Jail had no facilities for inmates to have secure communications with attorneys or any such hearing.

This started a series of communications that resulted in the determination to hold a telephonic hearing on Thursday, April 6, as described, above.  However, I had already found that the Sacramento Jail has no provision for secure communication between my lawyer, and me except in a face-to-face visitor area.  He passed that information up to Oregon.  Judge Brown then arranged for the hearing.  The guard that was in the room with me during the hearing informed me that what was happening by my being able to have such communication was “quite rare”.  I must applaud Judge Brown for expediting the hearing by forcing the Sheriff’s Jail to accommodate that aspect of justice.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2054
Scheduling Order: SETTING a Show Cause Hearing for Thursday, 4/6/2017 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 14A before Judge Anna J. Brown. Gary Hunt is directed to appear by phone. Counsel for the Government and Counsel for Gary Hunt will be present in Courtroom 14A. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

This ended up being a “Release Hearing”, as I was not in any position to present any testimony or evidence on my behalf.  See ECF # 2056 (below).

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2055
Motion for Revocation of Detention Order filed by Interested Non-Party Gary Hunt as to Defendant Ammon Bundy, Jon Ritzheimer, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox, Peter Santilli, Jason Patrick, Duane Leo Ehmer, Dylan Anderson, Sean Anderson, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Sandra Lynn Anderson, Kenneth Medenbach, Blaine Cooper, Wesley Kjar, Corey Lequieu, Neil Wampler, Jason Charles Blomgren, Darryl William Thorn, Geoffrey Stanek, Travis Cox, Eric Lee Flores, Jake Ryan. (schm) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

This Motion was at the request of my attorneys.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2056
AMENDED Scheduling Order: SETTING a Release Hearing for Thursday, 4/6/2017 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 14A before Judge Anna J. Brown. This Release Hearing is to consider whether Gary Hunt may be released from custody in Sacramento, CA, pending his appearance at a Show Cause hearing to be scheduled in Portland, OR. Gary Hunt is directed to appear by phone. Counsel for the Government and Counsel for Gary Hunt will be present in Courtroom 14A. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

I was not put into the call until close to 2:00, and I have no idea what occurred for the first hour.  I have requested transcripts, as I believe that I have a right to know about all of the proceedings on my ’cause’.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2057
Order Setting Conditions of Release as to Gary Hunt by Judge Anna J. Brown (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Person and Appearance Bond) (slm) Modified on 4/6/2017, request from attorney Michael E. Rose to send him a copy of this order as Mr. Rose was appointed by Judge Brown for Gary Hunt. I e-mailed the order to (schm). (Entered: 04/06/2017)

Then, we have the “Minutes of the Proceeding”, which, as I said, I joined about 2:00 pm.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2058
Minutes of Proceedings: Release Hearing held on 4/6/2017 before Judge Anna J. Brown as to third-party Respondent Gary Hunt. Gary Hunt appeared by telephone. ORDER – Appointing Susan Wilk from the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the limited purpose of preparing for and representing Hunt during this Release Hearing. Appointing Michael Rose for all other purposes. Scheduling order to follow. Counsel present for Plaintiff: Pamala Holsinger. Counsel Present for Respondent: Susan Wilk; Michael Rose (by telephone); and Douglas Beevers, Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of California (by telephone). (Court Reporter Amanda LeGore). Judge Anna J. Brown, presiding. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

As a result of the hearing, and working out some details, as explained in the previous article, I was released from “detention”.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2059
ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record at the Release Hearing held April 6, 2017, and pursuant to the Order # 2057 Setting Conditions of Release, the Court GRANTS Motion # 2055 for Revocation of Detention Order filed by Gary Hunt. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

In accordance with my and my counsel’s request, the following stipulations were made a part of the record.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2060
SCHEDULING ORDER: For all purposes related to proceedings against Gary Hunt in this matter, the parties and the Court will refer to him as “Respondent Gary Hunt” or “Respondent” or “Hunt,” but not as “Defendant Gary Hunt.” As the parties agreed during the Release Hearing on April 6, 2017, the Court will adjudicate Respondent Gary Hunt’s response to the Court’s Order # 1901 in two stages. The Court will first hear the parties’ arguments as to the jurisdictional issues Respondent seeks to make. Respondent’s memorandum regarding jurisdictional issues is due no later than Noon on April 21, 2017. The government’s response is due no later than Noon on May 1, 2017. No reply will be permitted, and, accordingly, the Court encourages counsel to confer about the merits of these jurisdictional issues before Respondent files his memorandum. The Court SETS a hearing regarding the jurisdictional issues on May 9, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14A of the Mark O. Hatfield U. S. Courthouse, 1000 SW Third Avenue, Portland, OR. Pursuant to its orders authorizing Hunt’s release, Hunt is required to appear in person at this hearing. In the event that the Court determines it has jurisdiction to continue to consider the merits of the government’s arguments in support of finding Hunt in contempt for allegedly violating certain Protective Orders in this matter, the Court will set an additional briefing schedule and another hearing date and time at which Hunt must appear to in order adjudicate Hunt’s response to the Court’s previous Orders to Show Cause. The Court directs Hunt’s counsel, Michael Rose, to ensure Hunt receives a copy of this Order. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

Now, a behemoth system like the jail/prison system in this country is a difficult beast to cause to change direction.  As it was, after the first hearing, I was caught up in a government paid tour of the Western States, by land and by air, all meals, and lodging paid with your tax dollars.

However, when Judge Anna Brown found that she would have either to set that system straight, or delay any hearings regarding the publication of my articles, for quite some time.  Judge Brown asserted her authority to overcome that behemoth, arranging for the Sacramento Jail to establish communications for my participation.  She also arranged for my counsel, Michael Rose, in Oregon, and my counsel, Douglas Beevers, in California, as well as other Federal Public Defenders in Oregon, to participate in a release hearing, all within a very short period of time.

I must applaud Judge Anna Brown for assuring that I served a minimal time on the Arrest Warrant and that I would be released, on conditions acceptable to all, except the US Shysters, and on my way home, as quickly as it could possibly be done.


  1. thanks for taking the time to keep everyone apprised of your encounter with the federal system. thanks for speaking the truth and showing where the system at least makes an attempt to do right i.e. Judge Brown’s desire to protect your right to counsel and preventing needless waste by having you tour the Western US at taxpayer expense. I have read your account so far and I personally believe you have not violated any court orders since you have not “disseminated” anything. As a New Media journalist you have a right to report the facts as you see them and we as the public have a right to know. Thanks.

  2. In plainsite says:

    While it is okay to recognize that judge Anna Brown could have been a lot worse it is like recognizing a street mugger who showed some mercy by only taking $10 instead of $100 and leaving your driver’s license and credit cards so that you feel a sense of gratitude. But the reality is that the thief still took $10 and so it is with the arrest warrant and putting the 5-point chain on you and causing you extreme discomfort. This was clearly a case of Judge Anna Brown finding you guilty until proven innocent. Otherwise you would have remained free pending in order to determine jurisdiction in the district court where you resided and no imprisonment should have been necessary.

  3. Donna Furnival says:

    One thing I ain’t doing is getting arrested. I have been before and treated similar. I’d rather go down in a hail then being subjected to these creatures in power over us. I have the greatest respect for this author and hope this experience will help secure an award for excellence in the line of duty.

  4. Fred Marsico says:

    Between the Federal Court here in Oregon and the one in Nevada, it is apparent that the US Justice System does not provide justice at all. Sometimes an informed jury can provide that justice as was evident in the first trial of the peaceful patriot protesters. In the last one here, the US and Judge Brown made sure that there were guilty verdicts.

    In the Bundy Trial in Las Vegas, the court stifled the defense by intimidating witnesses with threats of possible arrest, refused to grant the defense a subpoena to bring the complainant, Daniel P. Love in to testify (violating the defendants right to face their accuser(s)) and did not allow the jury to hear testimony that could be deemed ’emotional’ by any defense witnesses.

    Regardless of what political party you are a member of, regardless of how much or little land you may own (or think you do), this issue is not about cattle nor the environment. It’s about rights to property and freedom. It’s also about due process and the Constitution.

  5. […] explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“, the hearing currently scheduled for May 9, in Portland, is only to determine if the Court has […]

  6. […] the opportune means in the telephonic hearing on April 6, 2017.  This is fully explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“.  Briefly, the matter of jurisdiction was brought up as a separate issue from the show […]

  7. […] as explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“, Judge Brown acted promptly to rectify this […]

Leave a Reply