Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 13
Ambush – Part 2
“We Feared for Somebody’s Life”

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. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 13 – Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life”’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act I – Decade of the Eighties
Scene 3 – April 2, 1987 – April 15, 1987

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 2, 2016

Dwight writes to De Bates, April 2, 1987 {33-37}, providing some background from a good working relationship to the current untenable encroachment on the historical rights, the failure on the part of MNWR to follow a previous agreement (1975), and the subsequent consequences of that failure. A Map from 1975 is also included. Pertinent parts:

APPROXIMATELY A YEAR OR SO AGO, GEORGE CONSTANTINO TOLD ME COULD NOT GO THROUGH THE REFUGE, AS I HAD ALWAYS DONE. I REALLY DIDN’T TAKE HIM TOO SERIOUSLY, AS I KNEW THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY TO GO, AND I DIDN’T HAVE A CHOICE. I TOLD HIM THIS AT THAT TIME. WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS AFTER THAT, EACH TIME GEORGE TELLING ME I COULD NOT GO THROUGH THE REFUGE. THESE MEETINGS INCLUDED OTHER REFUGE PERSONNEL AND ALSO PEOPLE FROM THE BLM IN BURNS, OR. EACH TIME, HE WAS TOLD I COULDN’T GO ANY OTHER WAY. AROUND THE FIRST OF THE YEAR OR SO, WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING AND GEORGE PROPOSED A “PERMITTED” CROSSING THROUGH A PASSAGE THAT WAS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. AT THAT TIME, I TOLD HIM I WOULD GIVE 1,000 TO ONE ODDS, IF HE AND ANY NUMBER OF COWBOYS HE CHOSE, COULD GET CATTLE THROUGH THE REFUGE ON THE TRAIL HE WAS PROPOSING. IT WAS ASININE!!!!! AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, ON GEORGE’S PART, HE DECIDED THAT, INDEED, I COULD GO THE WAY I HAD BEEN GOING, HOWEVER, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT, AND BE SUPERVISED IN THE CROSSING. THIS IS NOT MY IDEA OF A “WORKING RELATIONSHIP”.

IN YOUR FEB. 20, LETTER, YOU WROTE THAT GEORGE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY YOU TO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT; THEREFORE, I FELT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A CONSTRUCTIVE MEETING ON MARCH 12. THE VERY FIRST PART OF OUR CONVERSATION WAS THAT GEORGE WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THIS, AGAIN, THAT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING HE WAS MISSING, AND WE SHOULD GET ON WITH THE MAKING OUT OF THE “PERMIT”. I WAS INFORMED, AS I HAVE BEEN AGAIN IN GEORGE’S LETTER OF MARCH 20, THAT HE WAS “IN CONTROL” AND COULD STOP ME AT ANY TIME THAT I DIDN’T COMPLY WITH ONE OF HIS WHIMS.

HAVE WASTED MANY HOURS OF MY TIME, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO PRODUCTIVITY AND I AM SURE YOUR PERSONNEL HAVE DONE THE SAME, BUT THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A FACTOR.

IN TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR LETTER, WE HAVE REVIEWED OUR PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, AND IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE EXPRESSED A NUMBER OF TIMES, THE IMPORTANT ISSUES CONCERNING OUR SIDE OF THIS PROBLEM, AS YOU HAVE YOURS. WE WENT TO PORTLAND, TO VISIT YOU, BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD SANDY WILBER WAS IN TOTAL AGREEMENT AS TO THE WAY GEORGE CONSTANTINO WAS HANDLING THIS SITUATION. WE DID NOT EVEN ASK TO SEE SANDY WILBER, FOR THAT REASON. THE SECRETARIES ROUTED OUR CALL THROUGH TO MR. WILBER, AND HE ASKED TO TALK WITH US SO WE OBLIGED, TO NO AVAIL. I STILL FELT THAT POSSIBLY WE HAD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PRESENT OUR POSITION, THUS MADE THE OFFER TO PAY YOUR EXPENSES TO PERSONALLY ASSES THE PROBLEM, HERE, ON THE GROUND, YOURSELF. WE ALSO SAID THAT WE WOULD PAY YOUR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE’S EXPENSES, AND OUR OFFER STILL STANDS, EVEN IF IT WOULD BE SANDY WILBER, AND WE HAVE LITTLE FAITH THAT HE CAN ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING BECAUSE OF HIS TOTAL, APPARENT AGREEMENT WITH GEORGE’S PAST POSITION. BUT, IF HE IS YOUR CHOICE, AND REPRESENTATIVE, SO BE IT. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THERE IS NO COMPROMISE LEFT IN US BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SITUATION HAS BEEN HANDLED, NOT EVEN THE COMPROMISE OFFER OF HAMMOND RANCHES FURNISHING THE LABOR TO REPAIR THE OLD, PRIOR TO 1975, BOUNDARY FENCE. WE HAVE LIVED WITH THIS SITUATION AS LONG AS IT IS POSSIBLE, AS WE HAVE STATED IN ALL OUR LETTERS. WE WILL NOT BE SATISFIED UNTIL THIS SITUATION IS RESOLVED THIS TIME, SO AS TO PROTECT CUR RIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE, AS OBVIOUSLY YOU PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED, AND ARE STILL NOT SATISFIED, AND IT SEEMS, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, ARE ON A LONG-TERM PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE OUR BUSINESS. IF YOU FEEL THAT SANDY WILBER CAN HANDLE THIS TYPE OF COMPROMISE, WE WOULD BE THANKFUL FOR HIS ATTENDANCE; HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, WILL NOT BE RESOLVED WITH LESS.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR RECOGNITION OF OUR HAVING TO USE THIS ROUTE TO TRAIL OUR CATTLE; BUT, WE FEEL THAT YOU ARE STILL BEING UNREASONABLE AS WE ARE NOT, APPARENTLY, MOVING OUR CATTLE TO YOUR SATISFACTION, AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE. THIS IS WHY WE FEEL WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO GO BACK TO OUR 1975 AGREEMENTS WITH THE REFUGE, BLM, OWC AND OURSELVES. I REALIZE I AM SOME- WHAT INADEQUATELY EXPRESSING THE SITUATION, BUT, I WILL TRY AGAIN WITH THIS ENCLOSED MAP, SIGNED BY THE BLM, AT WHICH TIME THERE WAS PRESENT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FOUR ABOVE GROUPS, AND WHICH WAS THE PRODUCT OF AN ON-THE-GROUND TOUR, CONDUCTED BY THE REFUGE, THUS VERIFYING THAT WE REALIZED THAT BRIDGE CREEK WAS A SENSITIVE AREA OVER 10 YEARS AGO. THE INSINUATION IN YOUR LETTER THAT OUR CATTLE HAVE DAMAGED THE BRIDGE CREEK RIPARIAN AREA IS ANOTHER JAB AT US WITH A SHARP STICK, THAT WE RESENT, GIVING US A BLACK EVE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY. HAD THE AGREEMENT OF 1975 BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AS AGREED, BY THE REFUGE, THE PROBLEMS WOULD NOT NOW EXIST. WE ARE THE MOST PROMINENT CONSERVATIONISTS IN THIS AREA, AS WILDLIFE, BIRDS, AND FISH ARE ALL BEING FED BY US, YEAR ROUND, AND WE ARE NOT PAID ANY TAX DOLLARS TO OFFSET THEIR CARE AND WELFARE.

BOTTOM-LINE OF THIS WHOLE MAJOR PROBLEM STEMS FROM YOU PEOPLE NOT LIVING UP TO THE AGREEMENT OF 1975, CREATING A SITUATION THAT WAS TOUGH TO LIVE WITH, BUT WE DID, UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE LOCAL GESTAPO’S EXERCISING HIS LAW-ENFORCEMENT ABILITIES (TOM DOWNS), GEORGE CONSTANTINO, HIS SUPERIOR, AND REFUGE MANAGER, AND SANDY WILBER, WHO IS BACKING HIM UP.

ALSO, IN REREADING OUR LETTERS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MAYBE THE IMPRESSION HAS BEEN MADE THAT MY “TRAILING” ACROSS THIS AREA ONLY HAPPENS ONCE A YEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THIS, IN THAT EVERY TIME I TAKE CATTLE FROM ONE SIDE OF MY RANCH TO THE OTHER, FOR WHATEVER REASON, I MUST USE THIS ROUTE.

I TOO AM VERY CONCERNED THAT YOU THINK MY RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR REFUGE STAFF HAS DETERIORATED TO ANY DEGREE. I HAVE SOME VERY OBVIOUS DEFINITE FEELINGS ABOUT THE ABILITIES OF TWO MEMBERS OF YOUR STAFF, AND OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH REFUGE PERSONNEL. UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO INCLUDE, IN YOUR NEXT LETTER, A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE INCIDENT YOU REFER TO IN YOUR MARCH 19 LETTER.

AGAIN, I AM SORRY THIS WHOLE THING HAS GOTTEN SO BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION, BUT I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FIGHT BACK, AND THIS TIME FOR A PERMANENT SOLUTION, THIS BEING THE REMOVAL OF THE NEW FENCE AND GOING BACK TO THE OLD BOUNDARY FENCE THAT SERVED WITH ZERO FRICTION FOR AT LEAST 40 YEARS, AND THE NEW (1975) AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE PRESERVED THE RIPARIAN HABITAT IN BRIDGE CREEK.

P.S. NOTE- AGAIN, NOT RELATED TO THE ENCLOSED CONFLICT, BUT PART OF THE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS THAT MAKE FOR POOR RELATIONSHIPS, AND SINCE, WHOEVER IS VISITING ON YOUR BEHALF MAY BE ENLIGHTENED, AND POSSIBLY INCORPORATE THIS KNOWLEDGE INTO THE VISIT, AND MAKE THIS A MORE PRODUCTIVE VISIT. OUR CATTLE, IN THE WINTER OF 1987 USE, HAD USED ALL THEIR ALLOTTED AUMS. THERE WAS STILL TIME LEFT ON THE PERMIT. WE WERE OUT OF FEED, AND WERE ASKED TO LEAVE, WHICH WE DID. AT THAT TIME, WE HAD ASKED TO USE EXCESS FEED THAT WAS IN A FIELD THAT WAS SITUATED WELL FOR US, AND WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS NO FEED FOR US IN THAT FIELD AS THEY WANTED TO PROTECT THE UPLANDS FOR NESTING HABITAT. APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LATER, ALL THAT FEED, THE UPLANDS AND WHATEVER, WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED BY THE REFUGE, THROUGH BURNING. THIS DID NOT CREATE ONE DOLLAR OF REVENUE TO OFF-SET THE TAXPAYER LOAD, BUT DID COST US. ALSO, THE EMERGENCY FORAGE BOARD HAS ASKED FOR ANY EXCESS FEED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FORAGE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER WATER IN THE LAKE. THE REFUGE HAS SAID THEY HAVE NO EXCESS FEED, YET THEY CAN STILL BURN AREAS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ECONOMICALLY USED AND COULD HAVE CREATED SOME REVENUE. ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE A FEW AREAS ON THE REFUGE THAT CAN NOT BE DEALT WITH IN ANY OTHER WAY, BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SEE AS THE NORM. WHETHER WE USE THE FEED, THE EMERGENCY PEOPLE USE IT, OR IT IS PERMITTED IN SOME OTHER WAY IS REALLY IRRELEVANT IF THERE WAS ONLY A TURN OVER OF A RENEWAL DOLLAR. PLUS, MAYBE THEN YOU COULD SE ABLE TO PAY OUR COUNTY IT’S FAIR SHARE FOR HAVING BEEN HERE, INSTEAD OF SHORT- CHANGING US YEAR AFTER YEAR, MAKING NO EFFORT TO BREAK EVEN.

WE REALIZE YOU BELIEVE WE ARE NOT BEING SINGLED OUT HOWEVER, JUST THIS WEEK WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT OUR GRAZING FOR THE UP-COMING YEAR IS BEING REDUCED, WHILE OTHERS SEEM TO BE GETTING INCREASES IN THEIR AUMS.

Note:  AUM = Animal Unit Month: This is based upon a 1,000 pound cow eating 25 lbs. of dry forage per day, or about 780 lbs. of dry forage per month. Grazing allotments are paid for by AUM assessments based upon available forage in an allotment.

Dwight lays out a good foundation for solution, by returning to the 1975 agreement, including a map signed by government officials. By that agreement, the subsequent environmental concerns would not have existed. He also points out that they have been environmentally conscious and have taken care of the wildlife.

In his P.S., he points to the fact that grazing lands that could provide revenue are burned by the Refuge, resulting in a loss of revenue, depriving the County of what would be their share had effective management been applied.

By now, it is quite apparent that the management at the Refuge, as suggested by Dwight, “are on a long-term proposal to terminate our business.”

In an internal memo, Sanford (Sandy) Wilbur reports to De Bates, April 14, 1987 {39}, on the results of his visit.

The immediate issue of Hammonds trailing cattle through the refuge appears to be worked out. No permit is being issued, as we are acknowledging their “historic” use of that trail, but David Johnson volunteered to accompany Hammonds on their drive to help out. It is the feeling of the refuge staff that passage through the refuge should not take over 6 hours. Right now, the first move of cattle is expected May 2 (255 head), with a second scheduled about June 11 (495 head).

Hammonds have raised several other issues of “unfair treatment”, but it appears to me that they are being dealt with the same as all other refuge permittees. The real issue is still the fence we built on the refuge boundary several years ago. The fence was built before either George Constantino or I were involved, so we cannot address anyone’s “intent” (Hammonds claim it was a “spite fence”, erected solely to inconvenience them). However, it clearly is a good fence in that it protects springs and riparian areas, identifies our boundary, and does not create an access problem for Hammonds as long as they can trail cattle through the refuge. During my phone conversation with the Hammonds, it was made clear that nothing would satisfy them except the removal of the fence. I asked again for clarification of what the specific problem was. The answer was that, if I didn’t know by now, I hadn’t been listening.

My instruction to the refuge staff was to continue to treat the Hammonds as they would treat any other permittee on the refuge. This involves documenting compliance with permits and attempting to resolve problems at the local level as they occur. I think the refuge staff does this very well, taking a low key and generally non-confrontational approach that works well in almost all situations. Because I don’t feel that Hammonds’ complaints are justified, I recommend to you that we move control back to the field as quickly as possible. I suspect that the Hammonds will call the Regional Director since they aren’t getting satisfaction from Refuges, so we should arrange a briefing for Rolf soon.

So, we see that the government has finally agreed to the historical trailing route. However, there is still a question as to the fence, and he feels that the Hammonds are not being treated unfairly, as Dwight had claimed in the previous letter.

On April 15, 1987 {41, 44}, De Bates, in response to Dwight’s “FOIA” request, provides copies of reports of abuse during a previous meeting. A handwritten note by Sandy suggests that the report by “Arlene” & “Ruth” not be included, however, De Bates includes all three reports.

Your April 2 letter regarding livestock use of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge requested that, under the Freedom of Information Act, we provide you with documentation of an incident in which you verbally abused and threatened refuge employees. That documentation is attached.

I understand that Mr. Wilbur was not able to meet you personally when he was at Malheur, but that he did talk to Mrs. Hammond by phone after he had reviewed the situation in the field. It appears that the immediate issue of moving your stock through the refuge this spring is being worked out with the refuge, but that you are still dissatisfied that we will not remove the refuge boundary fence constructed some years ago in the Bridge Creek area. Further evaluation of that situation confirms my earlier decision that the fence is in a desirable location and will continue to be maintained. If you have specific concerns about the fence as it affects your operations, please discuss them with Refuge Manager Constantino. Perhaps there is some accommodation that can be made.

If you choose to read the three reports {45-48}, you will see that Dwight was quite upset, according to Sandy, primarily over the interpretation of the Refuge policy on fencing (9RM3.1).

9 RM 3.1 Policy. It is the policy of the Service to construct fences on national wildlife refuges only when essential to management and protection of wildlife and refuge lands; and to assure that such fences are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes conflict with adjacent land owners and refuge objectives. Fencing merely to denote ownership by the United States is not normally justified.

It appears that Dwight is correct, in that it is intended to minimize conflict with adjacent landowners, and requires fencing only when essential to management and protection of wildlife. Normally, birds and deer seem to have no problem with fences, so it is difficult to see where the policy includes vegetation, as Sandy has, and will continue, to address.

The “abuse” reports are included {45-48}. However, it seems that only Sandy was verbally abused. Perhaps there is merit to Dwight’s call on the matter.

To Be Continued

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 1 – Introduction

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 2 – October 24 1986 – March 20 1987

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Decade of the Eighties- Scene 5 – May 2, 1988 – May 9, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 1 – Feb. 18, 1994 – June 9, 1994

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 2 – June 28, 1994 – Feb. 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 3 – Feb. 28, 1997 – May 21, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 4 – May 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 5 – June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997

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

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act I – Decade of the Eighties
Scene 2 – October 24, 1986 – March 20, 1987

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1, 2016

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

On October 24, 1986, Dwight Hammond met with the Tom Downs, Dave Johnson, and the Assistant Refuge Manager, to discuss stray cattle and “trailing”, the means of herding to move cattle from one location to another. Dwight discussed his practice during round up, and what he did with strays that were collected with his herd. {2-3} He didn’t think that he should notify people when he trailed his cattle, based upon “past prior rights and/or privileges”.

Apparently, a new policy was being implemented that placed even more obligations on an already hard working rancher.

When on the Refuge land, Dwight would allow his cattle to rest, and when they did, they grazed on grass that was not on his allotment. A Telephone Conversation Record, dated Feb. 13, 1987 {4}, provides notes of the conversation, within the agencies.

In a letter from Lawrence W. De Bates, Assistant Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) {10}, dated February 20, 1987, based upon a meeting on the 17th, the follow-up implies that Dwight must move his cattle at a pace determined by the Refuge, and they should not graze off the assigned trail. He further defends the fencing within the Refuge “for wildlife management purposes”. Finally, he requires Dwight to get a permit to trail his cattle on the reserve. This is the first instance of requiring a permit to trail his cattle.

Dwight Hammond replies to the letter from De Bates, in a letter dated March 7, 1987 {14-15}. He explains that they had gone all of the way to Portland, with maps, to explain to De Bates what the problem was. He said that since the Refuge had stated that it had to be resolved at District, that the meeting was the only way to resolve the problem. He also questions whether De Bates was really paying attention, as he appeared to not understand just what the problem was. He then explains the problem, again, by stating:

WE WERE NOT ASKING FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE CONCERNING ANY GRAZING SEASON, OR TRAILING THROUGH THE REFUGE, BUT CONCERNING ACCESS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE REFUGE WHICH WE PERSONALLY HAVE USED FOR 23 YEARS, AND WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS USED SINCE AT LEAST 1877, AND WHICH ACCESS IS THE ONLY GEOGRAPHICALLY POSSIBLE ACCESS AROUND THE REFUGE ON THAT SIDE, AND WHICH YOUR AGENCY BLOCKED BY CONSTRUCTING A FENCE OR FENCES ACROSS THE LAND, PROHIBITING ACCESS TO OUR AND U. S. LANDS, IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OWN REFUGE MANUAL.

WE REALIZE THAT OUR LAWS GIVE YOU THE “RIGHT” TO FENCE YOUR BOUNDARIES, BUT WE FEEL THAT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE INTENTION OF THIS FREE, DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY TO BE SO SINGLE-MINDED AS TO CUT AN EXISTING RANCH IN TWO, MAKING IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OPERATE AND THEREFORE PUTTING US OUT OF BUSINESS.

YOUR FINAL PARAGRAPH IS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO US ALSO, AS IT FURTHER AMPLIFIES OUR SENTIMENTS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO REMOVE PERMITTEES FROM THE REFUGE FOR ANY REASON. OUR PROBLEM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR “PERMIT” ON THE MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, BUT AS A NEIGHBORING LAND-OWNER, CONCERNING THE UNREASONABLE AND UNBEARABLE POLICIES OF YOUR MANAGEMENT.

Dwight Hammond, in a letter to De Bates, dated March 12 {19-20}, tells of his meeting with George Constantino. He also explains the difficulty in working with people who seem to be “in the dark”.

I REQUEST THAT YOU, AT LEAST, ADVISE ME AS TO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR PART OF THE COMING CALAMITY. IS IT YOUR MAINTENANCE MAN THAT FANTASIZES HIMSELF THE LOCAL FRENCHGLEN GESTAPO; OR YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL THAT STRAP ON THEIR SIDE ARMS TO PRANCE THROUGH OUR LOCAL, PEACE-LOVING, TAX PAYING, PIONEER COMMUNITIES (YOUR LIFE-BLOOD)?? THESE MEN MEET PEOPLE EVERY DAY WHO ARE HEIRS OF THE PEOPLE PUT OFF OF THE CHOICE GROUND IN THE COUNTY, TO RAISE AND PROTECT WILDLIFE. IN REALITY, PRODUCTION HAS DIMINISHED STEADILY, SINCE THE FEDERAL TAKE-OVER AND CONDEMNATION, EVEN BY ADMISSION OF YOUR OWN AGENCY PEOPLE AND PUBLICATIONS. I BELIEVE THIS REFUGE HAS IN EXCESS OF 180,000 ACRES, YET YOU PUT GREAT EMPHASIS ON SUDDENLY HAVING EXTREME INTEREST IN HABITAT, ETC., ON APPROXIMATELY 500 ACRES OF DRY, ROCKY HILLSIDE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN FENCED, UNTIL IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT I COULD NOT GEOGRAPHICALLY CROSS MY RANCH WITHOUT ACCESS THROUGH YOUR DEEDED LAND, WHICH I HAVE DONE FOR 23 YEARS, WITH NO PROBLEMS, AND THE HARNEY COUNTY MAPS VERIFY THIS PASSAGE AS HAVING BEEN USED SINCE AT LEAST 1877. – – OR, IS IT GEORGE CONSTANTINO, OR ARE YOU ACCEPTING FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS UPCOMING NO-WIN SITUATION, FOR ALL OF US, AND ARE YOUR SUPERIORS AWARE?

I AM GOING ACROSS, WITHOUT A PERMIT (MAYBE ONLY ONCE, I REALIZE), FOR YOU PEOPLE HAVE CREATED AN UNLIVABLE SITUATION FOR US, TOTALLY AGAINST YOUR OWN REGULATIONS, AS I HAVE ALSO TALKED TO MY ATTORNEYS. THEY HAVE ADVISED ME THAT I WAS MORALLY RIGHT, AND THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WERE NOT INTENDED TO DO TO ME WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO.

THIS MESS COULD ALL BE AVOIDED, TODAY, AND FOR TOMORROW, AS THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, BY USING THE OLD BOUNDARY FENCE, AS IT WAS ESTABLISHED WHEN THE REFUGE CAME INTO BEING. THIS MUST HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY FENCE CONSTRUCTION WHERE IT WAS.

I DID ADVISE GEORGE’S SECRETARIES THAT I WOULD PHONE AHEAD WHEN I WOULD BE CROSSING THE REFUGE, TO REQUEST THE PRESENCE OF OUR LOCAL SHERIFF, BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED. YOU HAVE PUSHED ME THE TOTAL LIMIT!!

I WISH YOU WOULD LOOK AHEAD FAR ENOUGH TO GIVE YOUR PERSONNEL THE PROPER DICTATION FOR WHEN I START ACROSS THIS AREA IN MY USUAL MANNER.

I REALIZE THAT I AM SEEMING VERY NARROW-MINDED, ONE-SIDED, AND TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO THE LAW, BUT I HAVE LIVED WITH THIS EXTREME INCONVENIENCE FOR SEVERAL RECENT YEARS. YOUR NEW FENCE BEING IN PLACE, DOESN’T SEEM TO BE ENOUGH ANY MORE, AND YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED. AS TO GOING THROUGH THE “LEGAL” CHANNELS, THIS IS PROHIBITIVE, AS YOU ARE FIGHTING ME WITH MY OWN DOLLARS, AND I CANNOT AFFORD IT, OR WIN. HOWEVER, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO MAKE ONE LAST OFFER, AND WOULD PAY THE EXPENSES FOR YOUR TRAVEL, ROOM AND BOARD, TO COME AND PERSONALLY, PHYSICALLY OBSERVE THE PROBLEM, OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR CHOICE THAT WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A REASONABLE DECISION, TAKING ALL FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION. PREFERABLE THIS WOULD NOT BE GEORGE CONSTANTINO, BECAUSE, AS OF OUR MEETING THIS MORNING, HE IS STILL, IN MY WIFE’S AND MY OPINION, IN “THE DARK”, NOT KNOWING THE COMPLICATIONS OF THE SITUATION, OR EVEN AFTER ALL THIS TIME AND UPHEAVAL, THE LOCATIONS OF THE FENCES.

IN PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS, YOU HAVE USED THIS PROBLEM AS A THREAT AND ALSO, IT HAS BEEN PUT TO ME IN THE OFFICE AS A THREAT AGAINST ME IN REGARDS TO OUR REFUGE PERMIT. WE WOULD LIKE TO MARE IT CLEAR THAT THIS PROBLEM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR BEING A PERMITTEE ON THE MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, AND IF I AM, IN FACT, REMOVED, AS A RESULT, AS YOU AND GEORGE HAVE THREATENED, THE PROBLEM WILL BE GREATLY AMPLIFIED.

P.S. NOTE – THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND; BUT, MAYBE IT COULD BE ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS SO VERBAL WITH MR. CONSTANTINO. IN DEC., 1986, THE FIELD THAT MY CATTLE WERE USING AS A PERMIT IN THE REFUGE, HAD REACHED THE OPTIMUM LEVEL OF USE, ACCORDING TO REFUGE PERSONNEL, FOR BIRD HABITAT, AND I WAS ASKED TO MOVE MY CATTLE OUT EARLY. AT THAT TIME, I ASKED TO USE OTHER FEED ON THE REFUGE, AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO OTHER FEED AVAILABLE TO BE USED; HOWEVER, AS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, THERE ARE STILL OTHER CATTLE ON THE REFUGE. I MUST DRIVE BY THIS ANYTIME I GO ANYPLACE FROM MY HOME, AND IT CAN’T HELP BUT CREATE A FEELING OF BIGOTED INJUSTICE. WE ARE TOLD THE ABSOLUTE DATE FOR REMOVAL OF ALL CATTLE ON THE REFUGE IS JANUARY 31. THIS IS MARCH 19. THESE CATTLE (NOT OURS) HAVE BEEN “TRAILING ” THROUGH THE REFUGE FOR A MONTH????

Dwight suggests that the Refuge, FWS, and the individuals involved are ignoring the problem, as well as violating their own regulations. He also points out that he is being held to these new restrictions while the cattle of others are allowed to graze, even after the close of grazing season.

The file has a hand written note and response, dated March 18 {23}, regarding Hammond’s letters. It also refers to “Constantino’s Report”, though that report is not in the file.

De Bates sends a letter to the Hammonds {25}, March 19, explaining that they are trying to find a reasonable solution, and that he is sending Sandy Wilbur to Malheur and that they should get together and seek that solution. Interestingly, a paragraph from that letters begins to give us insight into the priorities over the 186,000-acre preserve. It appears to “not set back vegetation rehabilitation” has become a serious concern in a “Wildlife Refuge”.

We acknowledge your need and right to trail cattle through the refuge over the historic route we discussed when you were here in the office. All we are asking of you is that you move your cattle through as quickly as possible so as not to use forage allotted to others and so as not to set back vegetation rehabilitation along Bridge Creek. We are not asking anything of you that we do not ask of other refuge users. It isn’t our intention to threaten anyone; our goal is only to achieve proper management of the resources entrusted to us.

Apparently, some headway has been made, as George Constantino sends the Hammonds a letter dated March 20 {30-32}. In the letter, it appears that there was a bit of concession on the part of the Refuge.

This letter is to document my verbal authorization to you to trail through the Refuge under the following conditions:

You may trail your cattle through the Bridge Creek area, entering, trailing through, and leaving the Refuge along the route marked in blue on the attached map.

We want the entire trailing operation to be done in one day.

Finally, you are to notify us at least 24 hours in advance before you begin trailing, so we may monitor your trailing operation.

However, Constantino manages to chastise and threaten Hammond, stating that unless they comply with the rules, they will not have the right, next year, to move their cattle without a permit.

To Be Continued

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 1 – Introduction

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 3 – April 2, 1987 – April 15, 1987

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Decade of the Eighties- Scene 5 – May 2, 1988 – May 9, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 1 – Feb. 18, 1994 – June 9, 1994

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 2 – June 28, 1994 – Feb. 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 3 – Feb. 28, 1997 – May 21, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 4 – May 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 5 – June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997

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

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act I – Decade of the Eighties
Scene 1 – Introduction

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1, 2016

Long before the fires (controlled burn in 2002 and a backfire to protect their own property in 2006) that resulted in Dwight and Steven Hammond being imprisoned for 5 years, the dispute over their rights had begun. Nearly four decades of harassment had been directed against them, until, finally, the government could make a very meager case, using a law enacted to cover terrorism, and applied to the Hammonds for doing what the government does, on a regular basis.

The Hammond family had been ranching in Harney County, for many years. They had been grazing on allotments on public lands, and as any rancher, they sought to resolve problems, though resolution had to be practical.

When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was the overseer of the land in question, no problems arose. However, when the Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) became the controlling agency, the protection of wildlife and plants, even to an absurd extreme, became priority, at the risk of a way of life.

The information (cited documents) in the following series, being public records with no indication of any security or confidentiality, were obtained in order to record the history of the Hammond’s relationship with various agencies, in order to continue their business of cattle ranching as they had become accustomed. The documentation revolves around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).

After 1988, it appears that he problem was solved, as there is no correspondence or entries in the folder to indicate any problems or harassment.

Then, in 1994, we see that the Refuge, once again, tries to obstruct the traditional and historical rights of the Hammonds.

This first Act will cover the decade of the eighties. The second act will cover the decade of the nineties. Throughout Act I, you will find numbers shown thusly, {nn}. They refer to the PDF page numbers in the “Hammond Legal Trailing Part I” PDF file, that being only a portion of the recovered documents. More will be brought out in Act II.

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 2 – October 24 1986 – March 20 1987

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 3 – April 2, 1987 – April 15, 1987

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Decade of the Eighties- Scene 5 – May 2, 1988 – May 9, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 1 – Feb. 18, 1994 – June 9, 1994

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 2 – June 28, 1994 – Feb. 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 3 – Feb. 28, 1997 – May 21, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 4 – May 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 5 – June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997

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

Burns Chronicles N^o 12
Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 29, 2016

I have never met Jon Ritzheimer, though I have spoken and worked with Jon on various enterprises. I found him to be quite affable, and perhaps more importantly, a willing learner.

I had hoped to finally meet Jon when I arrived at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in the late afternoon of Sunday, January 24. Unfortunately, Jon had left for his home in Phoenix, earlier that day. However I have no doubt that Jon and I will finally shake hands, in friendship, in the near future.

So, we know when Jon left Burns, Oregon, on January 24, but that is really not the point. The real question is; When did Jon arrive in Burns, Oregon and the Refuge?

Well, the FBI has their answer as to when Jon was in Burns. It is clearly stated in the “Redacted Criminal Complaint“. (Why the Complaint is Redacted will be discussed later in the article.) The Complaint is in the form of the “Affidavit of Katherine Armstrong”, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Perhaps a bit of background and educational foundation of SA Armstrong is in order. According to the Affidavit, she has been employed by the FBI for “one-and-a-half (1 ½) years”. Surely, that is sufficient time for a novice FBI Special Agent to prepare the foundation for a case that the Court, based upon a “Government’s Motion to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates, Set Status Hearing, and Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act“, is considering waiving, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“, as protected by the Sixth Amendment.

However, that is not all that is rather curious about SA Armstrong. This quote, from her credentials, “I have also acquired knowledge and information pertaining to violations of federal law from numerous other sources, including: … informants,” as if informants are a part of the educational curriculum of the “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” agency of our government.

Now, the Affidavit was signed on January 26, however, it excluded LaVoy Finicum from those named. So, we must assume that the Complaint was prepared and filed AFTER LaVoy was murdered on the side of US Highway 395.

The Affidavit, with the exception of reference to videos and the arrest of Brian Cavalier (Budda) on January 11, both of which don’t require strong investigative skills, as the former only requires an internet connection, in the latter, access to the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database, based upon events that occurred prior and up to January 7, 2016. It would seem that the government, then, has had well over a month to prepare their case. So, why do they want to deprive the accused patriots their constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial? After all, the government has unlimited agents, lawyers, resources, and money (ours) with which to prepare their case. The have already delayed “discovery”, removing time for preparation by the defense attorneys, who have limited manpower and resources.

So, let’s look at the “public trial“. Suppose you were charged with a crime. Suppose, also, that the government wanted more time to make sure that they had all of the dirt that they could get on you. Suppose, further, that the government wanted to see if they could find evidence of a crime that they weren’t even aware of, by taking a little fishing trip to the Refuge. And, suppose that they did everything they could to prevent the defense attorneys from looking over their shoulders to see what sort of fish they might catch, maybe even planting some fish to justify the rather feeble case they already have.

Now, we do have the Criminal Complaint, but as you will soon see, it is conjecture, not fact, at least in part. Most of the remainder is gross misrepresentation. The charges against the accused patriots are not based upon the Criminal Complaint, that is only justification for arrest warrants that were, demonstrably, issued after the arrests were made (hint: there was no arrest warrant for LaVoy Finicum, so the warrants would have been made out after they knew that they could not arrest a dead man.). Quite simply, they arrested six people and murdered one person, and without having the constitutionally required warrant. Within that Criminal Complaint (Redacted), we see that they have redacted (blocked out) only the month and date of birth, leaving in the years. Well, that is the first time in the federal judicial system (Beecher, Massey, Wolf, & Barbeau, etc.) where I have seen birthdates included, as they are really not relevant to the charges.

On February 3, 2016, the Grand Jury Indictment, consisting of only 3 pages, where the Criminal Complaint at 32 pages, is “Sealed”. However, the “Sealed” Indictment is readily available, at least the three pages, so we must look further to see what is really sealed. The Pacer system shows the Docket listing. The Docket listing is a numerical log of documents entered on the case before the court. Most often, the documents are logically entered (i.e. n, n+1. n+2, n+3, etc.), however we find that many entries are out of order in this case. We also find why the Indictment was Sealed, at least in part:

Note: red text reads “(In accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 this form document containing personal data identifiers is filed under seal)”

So, you can see, well, no you really can’t see, what is supposed to be a public trial. How can it be a public trial when we don’t even know what the specific charges are? Some will say, well, yes, we know that they are charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. §372. But, that statute is a general explanation, and, interestingly, was first enacted in 1861, during the Civil War. But, an Indictment should give the specifics of a charge. For example, the Criminal Complaint explains what the players did that just might constitute “probable cause” in violation of the statute, but the specifics are conspicuously hidden from the public, those of us who have every right to know what our fellow citizens are charged with.

We must ask ourselves, first, why the FBI wants these crucial explanations of criminal activity hidden, and, secondly why the judge should allow such devious and unconstitutional practices?

We can possibly assume that the specifics that were presented to the Grand Jury, were in the same form as they were in the Criminal Complaint. And, it is safe to assume that they were probably presented by the experienced FBI Special Agent Armstrong that learned so much from “informants”. That being the case, we can look to the Criminal Complaint, particularly item number 14, which reads:

14. On December 18, 2015, a citizen (hereafter Citizen) of Harney County was shopping at the Safeway grocery store in Burns, Oregon. Citizen was wearing a BLM shirt. Citizen was confronted by two men, one whom she identified as RITZHEIMER. Citizen reported to law enforcement that she heard yelling, and when she turned around, the second individual shouted “you’re BLM, you’re BLM” at her. That person further stated to Citizen that they know what car she drives and would follow her home. He also stated he was going to burn Citizen’s house down. RITZHEIMER and the second individual left the area in a black pick-up truck with black canopy and no visible license plate. Since the incident, Citizen has observed a similar vehicle outside her residence. Citizen was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle when she later saw it. The following week, a second vehicle, described as a white truck with a pink license plate and a big rebel flag sticker on the back window, aggressively tailgated Citizen, flashing lights and driving erratically. Citizen believed the second incident was related to the first. Citizen also saw the black pick-up truck outside of her place of employment early in the morning hours of Christmas Day.

Oops, where is the accuser? Back to the Sixth Amendment, which also states, “and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Both of these elements, the cause and the witness, are obscured under some court rule that is in obvious violation of the protected rights in the Constitution. But, then, that begins to move us to the heart of just why these patriots chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge; to bring to light the fact that the government seems to be operating, in many areas, outside of the powers and authority granted by the Constitution.

Now, the FBI, with all of their resources, should have no problem accessing security films from Safeway, or to find others who were witness to the events described at that location on December 18. However, their diligence in pursuit of justice seems to fail in recognizing their responsibility to protect a person from unwarranted charges.

Let’s look at some facts. Remember, the FBI and NSA have access to all of our records. They have used credit card tracking to locate and arrest criminals, in the past. So, we will use those same sources to dispute the sworn affidavit of our very professional FBI SA Armstrong.

First, Jon was in Arizona, all day, on December 18. Knowing that he was going to go up to Washington, then on to Burns, he took some pictures that morning, with his daughters. He had also arranged to see a movie with a friend, before he left on his trip. The date/time of the movie shows clearly:

Now, we can look at what Jon was doing the rest of the day, December 18, including dinner at a Mexican Restaurant. The transaction date appears in the left column on his Credit Union Credit Card (top), and in the items column in the Chase Debit Card (bottom).

You will note that the Debit Card entry for 12/21 shows that he was at “Eddies Truck and Auto Center”, in Hines, Oregon. If you look at the items entered on 12/21, you will see that he was in Washington, then went through Sandy, then Prineville, which would be enroute to Hines from Washington. So, the Hines entry had to be no less than the afternoon on the 20th.

We needn’t stop there. After all, many judicial decisions are based upon the preponderance of evidence. So, let’s look at Jon’s trip northward. First, we have him stopping in Meridian, Idaho, to spend a little time with an old friend. Then we can see the route he traveled, and finally, the picture log that gives the date and location of the pictures he had taken.

So, what we must now consider is whether this information, item #14 from the Criminal Complaint, was presented to the Grand Jury as factual information. There is no supporting statement by the “Citizen”, there is no evidence that the “Citizen reported to law enforcement…”, and there is nothing to suggest that SA Armstrong even knows of the existence of “Citizen”. Perhaps she made the whole darned story up to make Jon Ritzheimer look bad — when Jon Ritzheimer was, at least, hundreds of miles away.

While we are on the subject of the protected rights within the Bill of Rights, there is another provision of the Sixth Amendment that warrants our consideration, that the speedy and public trial be “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” So, we have a crime allegedly committed in Eastern Oregon, a ranching, agricultural, forestry, and mining, community (if we exclude the excessive number of government employees in Harney County, that being about 46% of the non-agricultural workforce), which is in the Eastern District of Oregon, though we have a Grand Jury empanelled in the Western District of Oregon. Now, the western District is city-folk. It is industrial, commercial, and though it may have a few small farms and ranches, it is most definitely comprised of a totally different lifestyle than the Eastern District. Now, being unable to construe any reason for the inclusion of that phrase in the Amendment than that the justice system must operate where there are people of like mind, we can only wonder why the government had opted to go into the urban realm to seek an Indictment, and we must also presume that they have every intention of subjecting what happened in the rural Eastern District to the petit jury, the determination of innocence or guilt, comprised of those urbanites in the Western District.

What the Framers gave us to protect against injustice, the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Burns Chronicles N^o 11
What are the III%?

Image from “The Minute Men“, by John R. Galvin

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 25, 2016

First, we must understand the significance of the oft-used expression, “III%” or “3%”. It is intended to suggest the percentage of the population who fought against the British during the Revolutionary War. Now, keep in mind what you just read. They fought in the Revolutionary War, whether they were militia, or Continental Army; They Fought!

Why would I bring this up? Well, a number of comments have come to me regarding my article, “Civil Defiance or Submission?” Many have suggested that they are III%er, and their duty is strictly defensive.

In a discussion with one of them, I asked if he was III%. He boldly told me that he was. Then I asked him if he was ready to fight, to do something. He said that his job as III% was strictly defensive. I asked him what he intended to defend. He told me that he was going to defend his bug-out location, his family, and his team.

My next comment was that his first stand would also be his last stand. When they come to get him, and they will eventually find him, he will fight and die, defending, or he will end up in the gray-bar hotel, for a long time.

There is little doubt that the first of the III%ers were militia. It was months before the Continental Army was formed, but the war had begun. People fought, and people died, on both sides, so the first few thousand were none other than Militia.

So, the first eighty-some men where under arms were, perhaps, defensive. Under Captain Parker, the Lexington Militia were gathered on the Green, though they were lined up along a side road that led to Woburn, the same route John Hancock and Sam Adams had taken when they left Lexington, once alerted by the alarm riders. The road to Concord was not obstructed, in the least. It was merely the presence of armed colonists, which led to the events that have now become a part of our heritage.

As the British continued to march toward Concord, word spread rapidly to the nearby towns, villages, and counties of western Massachusetts. It is what happened next that tells the tale of what the real III%ers were. As word spread, that the people of Lexington had become involved in a gunfight with the British, they did not ask why, they grabbed their muskets and headed in that direction.

There was no internet, nor telephone, radio, or any other means of notification other than the alarm riders. They did not stop to answer questions, they simply called to arms. It was sufficient that those who would soon be recognized as “Americans” had come under fire of the British.

The Militia, including that of Lexington, had transferred their “subordination to civil authority” from the Royal Governor to their local Committees of Safety. This had occurred during the previous years, as explained in “The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence“. Those Committees then gave orders to their respective Militia to march to Concord, as that was known to be the objective of the British.

Within hours, several thousand had arrived near Concord. They had come from other towns, from other counties, and some were on their way from other states. There was no consideration of the fact that those in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, were not from Massachusetts; had not been invited to take their arms and go to Massachusetts. They responded solely to take on the common enemy, the British. They didn’t hesitate, they were not concerned for their “bug-out location, family, and team”, rather, they were concerned for their Liberty, and their fellow colonists.

Within weeks, people from all of New England, all of the middle colonies, and some of the southern colonies had amassed around Boston, laying siege to the military might that then ruled the world. They had come to fight! They made no excuse as to why they should not go to Boston, because they were the beginning of the III%.

There were some Active Patriots (See “Active Patriots v Passive Patriots“) that came to aid those who had taken a stand in favor of the idea that public lands should be public, not treated as the private property of the government and the bureaucrats. There were Passive Patriots, those who might, as time went on, become Active Patriots and join the ranks to fight the common enemy. There were some False Patriots, whose work, while claiming to be in support of those in the Refuge, was more of a hindrance, and often served to provide more benefit to the government side than the patriot side.

Most importantly, however, was the absence of those who wear the badge of III%. Sadly, many who do wear the badge do so without due respect for its meaning, and who will find any excuse to avoid becoming involved, as only defensive, as was described above.

As I reflect on those who wear that III% badge and otherwise do not intend to serve the cause, rather, only to serve themselves, their families, and their team, I am reminded of those who receive an award simply for being there, not realizing that to wear the III% badge calls for the courage, conviction, and commitment — that which the real III% of 240 years ago had.

Burns Chronicles N^o 10
Is There a Peaceful Solution?
Redux
Representative Greg Walden

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 22, 2016

In a previous article, “Is There a Peaceful Solution?“, I included a link to a video. Based upon a number of comments, it appears that many decided not to watch the video, instead filling in the answers, for themselves. They continue to assume that there is a peaceful solution to the problems that we are facing in dealing with the federal government.

Understand that Representative Walden spoke to the House of Representatives on January 5, 2016, just 3 days after the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was occupied, though the occupation had nothing to do with being “armed”; and the day after Dwight and Steven Hammond turned themselves over to the Bureau of Prisons, at San Pedro, California — to serve the harsh sentence imposed by the Appellate Court, not by the trial court.

I have underlined the more significant portions of what Rep. Walden had to say, so that you can fully understand that the administrative agencies tend to ignore the laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution, by that branch that has the sole authority to enact laws. The specific wording of that provision of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

For those who believe that there is a peaceful solution, I can only ask, “Just how do you propose to achieve that solution, when the laws are ignored by the government, when they choose, and misapplied (as in the Hammond case) when they choose?”

* * *

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues are aware of the situation in Harney County, Oregon, where a group of armed protesters have overtaken a Federal facility in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

This group is led largely by people who are not necessarily from Oregon, although they obviously have supporters from Oregon. They were originally there to protest the sentencing of Dwight and Steve Hammond.

I know the Hammonds. I have known them for probably close to 20 years. They are longtime, responsible ranchers in Harney County. They have been sentenced to prison not once, but now twice. I will get into that in a moment.

The point I want to make at the outset is for people in this Chamber to understand what drives people to do what is happening tonight in Harney County.

I have had the great honor and privilege to represent Harney County for a number of years. I have seen the impact of Federal policies from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration. I have seen what happens when overzealous bureaucrats and agencies go beyond the law and clamp down on people. I have seen what courts have done. I have seen the time for Congress to act and then it has not.

I want to put this area in perspective because I think it is really important to understand how big this region is. By size, my congressional district in Oregon is something like the seventh or eighth biggest in the Congress. If you overlaid it over the east coast, it would start in the Atlantic and end in Ohio.

The county where this occupation is taking place–Harney County–is over 10,000 square miles. There are 7,000 souls inhabiting it. If my math is right, that is one person for every 1.4 miles. One person for every 1.4 miles.

Just this one county is 10 times the size of Rhode Island. It is larger than the State of Maryland. And 72 percent of it is under the command and control of the Federal Government.

It is the public’s land. That is true. But what people don’t understand is the culture, the lifestyle, of the great American West and how much these ranchers care about the environment, about the future, about their children, about America, and how much they believe in the Constitution. Now we see the extent they will go to in order to defend what they view as their constitutional rights.

***

But, I want to talk about what happened with the Hammonds. I want to put in perspective what happens almost every year in my district. That is these enormous wildfires.

The Miller Homestead Wildfire in 2012 burned 160,000 acres, mostly in this county, if not all; 250 square miles, a quarter of the size of the State of Rhode Island. That was just in 2012.

The Barry Point Fire that year, in Lake County, next door, burned 93,000 acres. Last summer alone, we burned 799,974 acres across Oregon; that is both forest and high desert. In 2012, 3.4 million acres burned in Oregon.

There was another fire in Malheur County. The Long Draw Fire, in 2012, burned 557,000 acres, five times the size of Rhode Island. So 93,000 acres, 557,000 acres, 160,000 acres, all burning.

The Hammonds are in prison tonight for setting a backfire that they admit to, that burned 139 acres, and they will sit in prison, time served and time going forward, 5 years, under a law that I would argue was never intended to mete out that kind of punishment, and I will get to that in a moment.

***

When Secretary Babbitt, the Interior Secretary at the time, came before the House Resources Committee, of which I was a member, I said, Mr. Secretary, your own resource advisory committees in the area just reported that there was no need for additional protection on Steens Mountain, and yet, you and the President are threatening to create this national monument. Why do you waste the time of the citizens to go through a process to determine if additional protections are needed and then ignore what they came up with?

To Bruce Babbitt’s credit, he agreed when I told him: I think you would be surprised about what the local ranchers and citizens of Harney County would be willing to do if you give them a chance. To his credit, he said: All right, I will give them that chance. And, he did.

We went to work on legislation. It took a full year. I worked with the Hammonds. I worked with Stacy Davies, I worked with all kinds of folks, put a staffer on it full-time, multiple staffs, and we worked with the environmental community and others. And we created the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act, model legislation, never been done before, because I said: We don’t have to live by past laws, we write laws.

So, we wrote a new law to create a cooperative spirit of management in Harney County. The Hammonds were part of that discussion. We saved a running camp, Harlan Priority Runs. We protected inholders. We tried to do all the right things and create the kind of partnership and cooperation that the Federal Government and the citizens should have.

Fast forward on that particular law. Not long after that became law, and it was heralded as this monumental law of great significance and new era in cooperation and spirit of cooperation, some of those involved on the other side and some of the agencies decided to reinterpret it. The first thing they tried to do is shut down this kids’ running camp because they said: Well, too many, maybe more than 20, run down this canyon and back up, as they had for many, many years. They wanted to shut it down. So we had to fight them back and said, No, the law says historical standards.

Then the bureaucrats, because we said: You should have your historical access to your private property, if you are up on Steens Mountain, you should maintain that access like you have always had it. Do you know what the bureaucrats said? They began to solicit from the inholders in this area: How many times did you go up there last year? You see, they wanted to put a noose around the neck of those who were inside. That was a total violation of what we intended and we had to back them off.

See, the bureaucracy wants to interpret the laws we write in ways they want, and in this case, they were wrong, not once, but twice.

Then, a couple of years ago, I learned that, despite the fact we created the first cow-free wilderness in the United States under this law, and said clearly in this law that it would be the responsibility of the government to put up fencing to keep the cows out, as part of the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management said: No, we are not going to follow that law. And, they told the ranchers they had to build the fence.

I networked with my Democrat colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, who was part of writing this law. I said: Peter, you remember that, right? He said: Yeah, I didn’t like it, but that was the case. BLM still wouldn’t listen. So, we continued to push it and they argued back.

Well, it turns out there had been a second rancher who brought this to my attention who they were telling had to do the same thing, build a fence, when the government was supposed to under the law I wrote. The arrogance of the agency was such that they said, We don’t agree with you.

Now, there aren’t many times, Mr. Speaker, in this job when you can say I know what the intent of the law was, but in this case I could because I wrote the law, I knew the intent.

Oh, that wasn’t good enough. No, no, no. No, no, no. The arrogance of these agency people was such that we had to go to the archives and drag out the boxes from 2000, 1999-2000, when we wrote this law, from the hearings that had all the records for the hearings and the floor discussions to talk about the intent. And our retired Member, George Miller, actually we used some of his information where he said the government would provide the fencing. They were still reluctant to follow it. So I put language in the appropriations bill that restated the Federal law.

***

This is a government that has gone too far, for too long. Now, I am not condoning this takeover in any way. I want to make that clear. I don’t think it is appropriate. There is a right to protest. I think they have gone too far. But I understand and hear their anger.

Right now, this administration, secretly, but not so much, is threatening, in the next county over, that looks a lot like this one, Malheur County, to force a monument of 2.5 million acres, we believe. I think this is outrageous. It flies in the face of the people and the way of life and the public access.

***

We have fought other issues. More than half of my district is under Federal management, or lack thereof. They have come out with these proposals to close roads into the forests. They have ignored public input. They often claim to have all these open meetings and listen to the public, and then, in the case of Wallowa-Whitman, the forest supervisor who was eventually relieved because of this, I believe, completely ignored all the meetings, all the input, all the work of the counties and the local people, and said: Forget it, I am going my own direction.

There were 900 people that turned out at the National Guard Armory where they had a public hearing, standing room only and beyond, furious.

You see, how do you have faith in a government that doesn’t ever listen to you? How do you have faith in a government that, when elected Representatives write a law, those charged with the responsibility of implementing it choose to go the other direction and not do so? That is what is breaking faith between the American people and their government, and that is what has to change.

The other thing that has to change, the law under which the Hammonds were sentenced. Now, they probably did some things that weren’t legal. I have given you the size of the acreages that burned naturally. I haven’t gotten into the discussion about how these fires are often fought and how the Federal Government frequently will go on private land and set a fire without permission to backburn. That happens all the time.

In fact, in the Barry Point Fire down in Lake County, they set fire on private timberland as a backburn while the owners of the property were putting out spot fires down in the canyon. I drove down there afterwards. They are darn lucky to have come out alive.

There was nobody sentenced under the terrorism act there. Oh, heck no. It is the government. They weren’t sentenced. Nobody was charged. Oh, it just happened.

Now, fires are tough to fight. I have great respect for firefighters. There are always two sides on how these fires get fought. But I can tell you, a few years back in Harney County, because I went and held a meeting out there right as the fire was being put out, that the fire crews came in, went on private ground, lit a backfire on private ground, behind a fence line, that then burned out the farmer’s fence, the rancher’s fence, and burned all the way over and down into a canyon where there was a wetland, which would have been the natural break to stop the fire from the other side. You see, they never needed to burn that land.

These things happen in the course of fighting fire. It doesn’t mean they are right. But rare is it that somebody ends up 5 years in prison.

Let me tell you what the senior judge said when he sentenced the Hammonds the first time, Judge Michael Hogan, senior Federal judge, highly respected in Oregon. He sentenced Dwight Hammond to 3 months and Steve to a year. There were different offenses here.

He said, “I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum because, to me, to do so, under the Eighth Amendment, would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.”

The Judge went on to say, `”And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct would not have been the conduct intended under the statute.”

“When you ask, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles, and there are homes up the ravines, it might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that is what the Congress intended.”

“In addition, it just would not meet any idea I have of justice proportionality. It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience, to me.”

Senior Judge Mike Hogan, when he did the original sentencing.

But, you see, under this 1996 law under which they were charged and convicted, it turns out he had no judicial leeway. He could not mete out a sentence that was proportionate to what the crime was.

So yesterday, Dwight and Steve went to prison again. Dwight will be 79 when he gets out. Steve will be about 50.

Meanwhile, in Harney County, on the ranch, Susie will continue to try and survive; 6,000-acre ranch, she needs grazing permits to make this happen. It would be a cruel and unjust act, by the way, if access to those grazing permits that allow that ranch to work were not extended. What possible good could come out of bankrupting a grandmother that was trying to keep a ranch together, while the husband sits in prison, her son sits in prison? What possible good?

They will serve their sentences. There is nothing, short of clemency that only the President can offer, that we can do. But we can change that law, and we should, so that nobody ever is locked in like that for a situation like this, where a senior judge, literally, on his final day on the bench, says this goes too far, it goes too far. They appealed that, by the way, and lost. But I believe that the judge was right.

***

They are good people. Their sons and daughters, by a higher proportion, fight in our wars and die, and I have been to their funerals. So to my friends across eastern Oregon, I will always fight for you. But we have to understand there is a time and a way. Hopefully the country through this understands we have a real problem in America: how we manage our lands and how we are losing them.

It is not like we haven’t tried here, Mr. Speaker. Year after year we pass bipartisan legislation to provide more active management on our forests so we don’t lose them all to fire, and we are losing them all to fire. We are losing firefighters’ lives, homes, and watersheds–great resources of the West. Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave. He created this wildlife refuge in 1908.

There were some bad actors there in the 1980s, by the way. They were very aggressive running the refuge, threatening eminent domain and other things that took ranches. It was bad. That lasted for at least a decade or more. It has gotten better though. It is not perfect. There is a much better relationship, and the refuge and the ranchers work closer together. In fact, during this fire in 2012, the refuge actually opened itself up to the ranchers for hay and feed because theirs was burned out because of this big fire. So there was a better spirit there.

But there are still these problems: the threat of waters of the U.S. shutting down stock ponds and irrigation canals and a way of life, the threat of fire every year that seems to not be battled right and just gets away, and no one is really held accountable; the continued restriction on the lives of the men and women who, for generations, have worked hard in a tough environment. It has just gone too far. It is hurtful.

I hope people understand how serious this is felt and how heartfelt this is by those who pay their taxes and try and live by the law and do the right things and how oppressed they feel by the government that they elect and the government they certainly don’t elect, and how much they will always defend the flag and the country, and their sons and daughters would go to war, some will not come back–and they have not from this area.

… The BLM needs to make sure Susie Hammond isn’t pushed into bankruptcy and has her ranch taken by the government and added to those that have been. We need to be better at hearing people from all walks of life and all regions of our country and understanding this anger that is out there and what we can do to bring about correct change and peaceful resolution.

It is not too late. We can do this. It is a great country. We have the processes to do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

* * *

The peaceful solution, then, should be solely those laws enacted by the Congress, such as the Steen Mountain legislation that Mr. Walden spoke of. The Executive branch is to carry out and enforce those laws. Though, as we have seen, they choose to interpret them other than the wording or the intent of those laws lawfully enacted.

Further, the agencies are empowered to adopt rules. To do so, they are to publish those proposed rules in the Federal Register and hold public hearings on the proposed rule. Now, this is just a bureaucratic trick. The hold the hearing, and regardless of the input by the public, the agency, once they have held the hearings, have satisfied the requirement. Then, they adopt the rule, even if 100% of the public input is contrary to the rule.

So when we realize that the legislative branch is without any constitutional authority to assure that they laws they pass have become “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI, clause 2), then we are at the mercy of the interpretation, or rules, of the agency that administers those laws.

With that in mind, let us return to the question:

Is there a peaceful solution?

Burns Chronicles N^o 9
Civil Defiance or Submission?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 18, 2016

“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass, could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787) [North Carolina Supreme Court]

The unfortunate circumstances of January 26, 2016, which resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, and Brian Cavalier was a blow to an effort to expose the dishonesty of the federal government in its pursuit of acquiring land belonging to ranchers in Oregon.

In fact, the story behind what happened in Burns, Oregon actually goes much further. It had begun to show the underbelly of the beast we call the US government, its failure in obedience to the Constitution, the very document that created it, and its failure to abide by established judicial “due process of law”. Perhaps most significant is its absolute disregard for human life, and especially so if that life is of one who believes in the Constitution.

Now, many have said that what was happening at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was of no concern to them. Some have said, “We (the militia) are here to protect our state. What happens in Oregon is not our concern.” And, they are right, but only to an extent.

In the hours that followed the events at Lexington Green and Concord, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, Militia from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, marched on dirt roads to come to the aid of those from another colony. Within days, many more colonies had sent their forces to join those surrounding Boston. Of course, it was not their concern, though they did realize what had happened in Massachusetts would, eventfully, happen in their own backyards.

Many have stated that their greatest concern is that the government will come to take their guns, and that will be the time to act. However, they fail to respond to the slow and meticulous erosion of the Second Amendment, constantly progressing, bit by bit. But, they still have their guns, so there is nothing to worry about.

However, just a week after the Indictments were issued in Oregon, a Grand Jury in Nevada issued Indictments against five people who were involved in events at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada, in April 2014, nearly two years prior.

Both acts, Nevada and Oregon, were acts of Civil Defiance. Let’s be clear about that term. Civil Disobedience is a term applicable to participating in something that might result in ones arrest, or perhaps being assaulted by law enforcement. These activities are conducted with the hope of political change. They are, at best, inconveniences.

Civil Defiance, however, is an act in real defiance against unlawful authority. Whether firearms are used actively, or passively, there is no doubt that Civil Defiance has the possibility for not just incarceration, but death.

During the Bundy Ranch affair, hundreds of armed patriots stood defiant against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees and contractors who were trying to arrest cattle for grazing on public lands. The patriot weapons were simply for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. BLM was the aggressor, with force of arms and a “judge’s edict”.

In Oregon, once again, the patriots’ arms were for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. There is no instance of those at the Refuge, or away from the Refuge, ever threatening or intimidating anyone. In fact, they had a policy to let anyone venture into the occupied area, without threat, or harm. Their arms were for self-defense.

The government, in this instance, under the control of the FBI, was the aggressor, however, unlike Nevada, the aggressor chose to shoot and kill LaVoy Finicum. As can be clearly seen in the aerial footage, Mr. Finicum never had a gun in his hand. He was lured into an ambush and shot. He had no opportunity to defend himself, even if he had been armed. Quite simply, the government that he was exposing murdered him.

So, let’s put a little perspective on things. Whether you are in Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, or elsewhere, what you have been reading about is your future, as much as those who have been directly affected by those events. To “reason” that “it didn’t happen to me” is both acceptance of the legitimacy of the government’s proven practice, and submission to it. When it finally gets to you, those who had more courage than you, have already been taken by the forces of government, either to prison, or to the cemetery.

If you cannot stand up for your fellow patriots, and instead, make excuses as to why you did not come to their aid, whether by location or disagreement of purpose, then you have submitted, and you can clearly see your own future.

I was asked the question “Is there anything that we can do about this?” After some thought, I realized that the Indictment from Nevada was a message that the government is in the process of taking control. This raises the question as to whether we can back them down. If more of us begin standing up by occupying federally owned facilities, like the Refuge, or by taking other inspired actions, can we demonstrate that we are not backing down; that we are not willing to Submit to their unconstitutional activities, and that we will retaliate, as they have, by expanding our efforts in response to every unlawful or unconstitutional act committed by the government?

“In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!”

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Burns Chronicles N^o 8
Active Patriots v. Passive Patriots

image © 2016 Militia News

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 16, 2016

“…As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution’ it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies”.

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson      August 24, 1815.

I believe that Adams’s description of the Revolution, being the period in which the populace transitioned from faith in government to distrust of government, is probably appropriate for the 18th century as well as today.

Since Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas, we have seen a very substantial change in the attitude of large portions of our people, with regard to the government. The recent murder of LaVoy Finicum, with the full knowledge that those who murdered him will have absolute and complete protection from the government, is indicative of that distrust. The question, however, is not about that distrust, rather, which of us are truly Patriots, and which are only pretend patriots?

There was a transition, 241 years ago, where those who were loyal to the Crown and presumed that they would never fight against their government, found a moment in time had come to decide as to whether to maintain that obedience to the government, or take up arms against it.

On April 19, 1775, that time had come. Those within a reasonable distance of Lexington and Concord, thousands of them, picked up their arms and ventured out into the beginning of a struggle that would last for another six years. They left home and family, not knowing if they would ever return. They crossed the line, not because of what had happened to them, but rather what had happened to their neighbors, many of them from other colonies.

As word spread through the other colonies, many thought the problem was only between Massachusetts and the Crown. In time, they realized that the violation of the British Constitution and the loss of their “Rights of Englishmen” were in jeopardy, just as in Massachusetts. They, then, chose their course. They became Active Patriots.

The passive patriots that had not bought or drunk tea were split. Some became Active Patriots, while others remained passive patriots, throughout the Revolutionary War.

We are at that point in our history where we are facing quite similar circumstances. Some have already become Active Patriots, while others, though appearing to be active patriots, are, in fact, passive patriots, or worse.

The passive patriot simply needs to sit back and watch the world go by. Perhaps he might express support for the Active Patriots, or for their cause, or even make contributions to that cause, financially, or otherwise. But at best, he is a sideline supporter. Some might be more active by participating in interim forms of government, such as Committees of Safety.

Some of those passive patriots went to Burns, Oregon, recently. They were willing to demonstrate, carry signs, sound off in public meetings, and show support for those Active Patriots who had taken a step in Civil Defiance by opening the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration area to the public.

Of course, the Active Patriots went armed; the Second Amendment does provide for the “security of a free State”, which they had declared the Refuge to be. However, they made clear that the arms were solely for self-defense, and those who had the opportunity to visit the Refuge during these events found that the people inside were peaceful, unoffending, and courteous to all who visited them. They were not the haughty bureaucrats who normally occupied those buildings. And, those who visited them, without nefarious thoughts on their minds, were clearly passive patriots.

Now, there is a third side to this equation. We don’t find them in the historical context. But, we find them in proliferation in our current era of “revolution”. These are the ones that would have traveled to Concord to discourage colonists from firing on the Redcoats, diverted them to another activity (perhaps carrying signs or pitchforks), or perhaps even have told the British what the Active Patriots were up to.

Today, however, they are comprised of people who want to take charge; they want to control the situation; they may even want to help save the lives of Active Patriots by convincing them to submit to arrest. And, they will tell others that they were simply trying to avoid any bloodshed — even after blood had been shed. Let’s refer to them as false patriots. (See The Burns Community)

Those who went to Concord knew that blood was to be shed. The idea is to shed the blood of the enemy, and endeavor to keep your own from being shed, however, that consequence was a part of the effort.

During the course of events in Burns, there were many who contacted me, and others, asking whether the time had come. These were Active Patriots, simply waiting for that day we all know was coming, but not wanting to simply go to an event (Sugar Pine Mine; Montana Big Sky Mine) and camp out, away from family and digging into their own purses to act out a role. They really wanted to know if the British had fired on colonists, and if the colonists were going to fire back.

Some went to Burns. Some remain, and some have since left. They were insufficient in number to have any effect, because the false patriots had done everything that they could to divert as many as possible in the wrong direction.

If others are ready to go to a barricade and protest, or possibly for other purposes, they might divert them to over fifty miles away in a gesture of sympathy for a life lost. So, let’s look at the three, and put them in rather simple terms.

Active Patriot — One who is ready and willing to take up arms, regardless of costs, affect on family, or fortune, and is committed to the cause to that extent. These would properly be considered the real III% that are willing to take up arms.

Passive patriots — These are those who will go to varying extent to support the Active Patriot, by any number of means. They are the support every army needs, and they do so, willingly. Often, their activities might put their lives at risk, but that is inconsequential to the completion the efforts that they have begun. Time and money are their primary contributions. These are the Supporters of the III%.

Finally, we come to the false patriot. His actions tend to support the enemy, whether through disruption, diversion, intelligence gathering (frequent communication with the enemy), and often the attempt to discredit or ridicule those who are of the other classes. These people are not patriots; rather, they are, in fact, simply false. In years past, they would be referred to as “culture vultures” or “patriots for profit”, if their concern was primarily their monetary gain. However, others might be more accurately defined as “snitches”, “informants”, “spies”, or worse.

Since we have progressed from Civil Disobedience, where one might get arrested and spend a few hours or days in jail, to Civil Defiance, where we stand, firmly, against the enemy, and endeavor to turn the continued encroachment of our rights, then we can fully expect that the time will come, soon, in which the line is drawn and the point of no return has been reached. It behooves us to identify which role our neighbors will take. If they are to be Active Patriots, or passive patriots, then we are in need of both. However, if they are false patriots, then they need to be excluded from any aspect, no matter how mundane, of our work. They need to be expelled from our community, for they serve no useful purpose, except that purpose which serves the enemy.

Burns Chronicles N^o 7
What is Brandon Curtiss?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 15, 2016

I received a phone call from Ryan Payne, shortly after the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was entered by nine people, and restored to ‘open to the public’. Ryan indicated that there was a need for others to come join them, as they were concerned for the safety of such a small crew.

Now, many will question why they might be concerned for their safety, however, we need only consider the last few weeks to understand, as many patriots do, that the federal government tends to solve problems with bloodshed, unless all parties come out with their hands up, and submit to arrest whether there is a real crime, or not.

With the understanding that those who might enter the Refuge, since renamed Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), might find that the government would want to arrest them, it was felt by the Operation Mutual Defense Advisory Board (OMD-AB) that a caveat regarding that possibility be included in a call out.

Upon being advised, through other sources, that Brandon Curtiss, Idaho III%, had secured a 40-acre parcel for visitors to camp on, this seemed to be the solution to an alternate location for those who might otherwise not show up because of the caveat.

However, one of those inside of the HCRC expressed his concern that Brandon (“Brandon” will be used as a collective name for Idaho III% and Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), and the individual, as appropriate to the context), had stated that he was there, along with his following, to assure that there would not be another Waco, and suggested that “he would probably drop his gun and run, should things change for the worse”. It was with this in mind that I sought to contact Brandon, on behalf of OMD, and managed to do so through Pete Santilli, on January 10.

When I told Pete that I was trying to reach Brandon, he said, “just a minute”, and he handed his phone to Brandon. Brandon was cordial in the first part of the discussion, though he was rather assertive. “Any militia that come to Burns are under my command”, he said. That sounded like a sort of militia martial law, and Brandon, with 8 or 9 years of law enforcement experience, but no military experience, has taken command. But, then, I knew this was the “prime directive” when I called for Brandon. He also claimed to have secured forty acres for camping purpose, directly across from the Refuge, though I found out later that it was directly across from the Narrows, about six miles from the Refuge. Perhaps he “secured” it, or perhaps it was a fantasy, as he did not even know where it was.

I had been directed by the OMD-AB to ascertain whether, if Brandon decided to order everyone to go home, would he release those who came under the OMD banner? For him to understand what this question was being posed, seeking a solution, I prefaced it with the “drop guns” concern.

Can I say that I was surprised when he “dropped the phone and ran”? Well, I wasn’t as surprised as I might have been, since the first few minutes on the phone, I was mostly listening, while Brandon appeared to want to both ask and answer his question as well as the reason for my call.

Pete, endeavoring to get patriots to work together, reestablished communications by having Brandon call me. This time, however, it sounded as if we were on speakerphone, and additional parties were present, including Eric Parker and Brooke Agresta.

I tried to explain that I am old school, and when you seek a solution, you must understand the problem. I don’t believe that they ever fully digested that thought, as they spent quite a few minutes berating me, telling me what I said, which is not what I said, since I didn’t have the opportunity, and finally concluded with Brooke telling me that she would destroy me in the patriot community if I didn’t do something (I don’t recall what) in the next three minutes, as she spoke for the next two minutes and then hung the phone up.

Well, that discussion didn’t go to well, so I had to find an alternative for those who didn’t want to risk the possible consequences of staying inside of the HCRC. That, however, would have to be put off to another day.

That was my first ‘introduction’ to Brandon Curtiss, though his name had come up earlier. In a report given by Ryan Payne to an OMD-AB special meeting, November 19, nearly two months before the above incident, Ryan Payne explained some circumstances surrounding the meetings held with both the Hammonds and Sheriff Ward. The report, though second hand, bears out what subsequent events tend to substantiate. The pertinent part of the report can be heard in this 12: 30 – clip, Ryan Payne speaking.

The foundation for subsequent activities by PPN, Idaho III%, and to some degree, OathKeepers, is clearly established.

My next dealing with Brandon Curtiss occurred on January 28, two days after the murder of LaVoy Finicum. Due to the arrests made during the Ambush, I no longer had access to people and information that were necessary to what I intended to write. Though my room was booked for another night, I had decided to return home where I am accustomed to writing. So, I began loading my truck for the return journey.

The evening before, I had written a call out (explained in Stand Up; Stand Down). In that call out, I had recognized the necessity of an immediate response, and that response would have to come from the Harney County area, to be effective. What it said in part, was:

“Attention all Oathkeepers, Idaho Three Percenters, Pacific Patriots Network, especially Brandon Curtiss, Joe Rice, Eric Parker, and Stewart Rhodes.

. . .

You have an obligation to proceed to the Harney County Resource Center (the wildlife refuge), immediately, in order to protect the patriots still there. If you fail to arrive, you will demonstrate by your own actions that your previous statements to defend life, liberty, and property were false.

As I was carrying some things to the truck, a man walked up to me. I recognized him as Curtiss, and I noticed that there were 4 other men with him, all in their twenties or thirties, and 3 of them quite husky. Brandon introduced himself, and as is my habit, I extended my hand. He replied that he would not shake my hand and then accused me of calling him a coward. Now, the circumstances didn’t warrant, in most cases, my attention to exact words, however, my reply was something along the lines that I did not call him a coward, only his action, or lack thereof, would make that determination.

One of the, let me call them, “goons”, was taking video with his phone, so there exists a record of these dealings. So, if I am in error, let them come forward with the entire video.

As I continued to go to the room and return to the truck to load it, Eric Parker challenged me, as well. They tried to block my passage, and I had to walk around them. At one point, I was putting things in the back seat (4-door) and when I turned around, Curtiss had blocked as much of the area between the door and bed of the truck as he could block. There is no doubt that he wanted me to “push” my way through, and then claim that I had assaulted him. However, I turned sideways and managed to slide out and go about my business.

During the course of my coming and going from the room, I called the manager and asked him to call the cops; that I was being threatened and harassed. It might seem ironic to some that I ended up calling the cops on someone who spent 8 or 9 years as a cop, but why not give him a taste of his own medicine?

While the harassment continued, and threats were being made, I heard a voice from behind me saying, “Leave him alone!” One of the beefier goons went up and faced this rather short, wiry guy. When I glanced back over that way, a few seconds later, the goon had decided not to take on the little guy.

The manager walked by and told me that he had finally gotten through to the police. Just a minute or so later, Brandon offered me his hand. I told him that he had his chance, and chose not to take it. At about the same time, the little guy said, quite loudly, “Don’t do it”, meaning don’t shake his hand. I was really beginning to like this guy.

When I had the truck nearly loaded, I went over to see who this supporter was. I asked him if I knew him. He simply replied, “Wolf”. He explained that he was a friend of KC Massey, and it struck me that I had interviewed him when I did the story of the shooting by the BPS agent. I couldn’t recall, at that time what his real name was, and now that I do, I think I’ll just leave it at “Wolf”.

He told me that he had been asked to go to Burns to protect me, though he refused to say who gave him those instructions. So, that will remain a mystery to both the reader, and me but it was nice to know that someone, besides my family, was concerned for my safety.

While still talking with Wolf, the police finally arrived. I explained what had occurred to the officer. In the meantime, another patriot that I had met the night before had been watching from the second floor balcony, and he came down and joined us. Both he and Wolf confirmed what I told the cop.

Meanwhile, other cops were interrogating Brandon and the goons, so that head cop, the one that I had spoken to, went over to put the pieces together. Soon, he returned and said, “Everything has been taken care of. You have nothing to worry about. If there is a problem, call us and we well be here, right away.” I thanked him and wished him a good day.

Meanwhile, the second floor patriot was joined by his girlfriend. I offered to take all to breakfast, but Wolf decided it would be his treat. We went to a local truck stop and had a great breakfast, and a wonderful conversation between real patriots.

Interestingly, my dealings with Brandon Curtiss were not over. On February 4, just after 11:00 AM, I received a Facebook PM from him. It started out, “All bullshit aside with our differences, I am not planning on storming any barricades. That would be insane. This is getting spun up and out of control.”

This led to a rather extended PM exchange, and a phone call (identified in the PM), that led to what I thought would be a resolution of our differences and beginning to work together. It had to do with a conversation that I had earlier with someone who contacted me as he was traveling to Oregon.

The post in question, which will also appear in the PMs, states that PPN “will march through the barricades and through the FBI.” This information was passed on as unconfirmed, but would be necessary for the person to get to the Narrows and be prepared to bring those who were not affiliated with PPN to join them, if it were true.

My team continued to track the source of that information in an effort to confirm, or deny, the “information”. It had become quite apparent that many absurd stories had been circulating, by that time.

At 11:03 AM, February 4, I get a Facebook PM from Brandon Curtiss.

At 11:27 AM, begins the explanation as to what had occurred, and what the OMD position was in the matter. To aid the four inside (Fry, 2 Andersons & Banta), we wanted to see if we could get them some relief so that we could be sure of “holding the fort” long enough to put out a general call, hoping for many more to come to Burns to assist in keeping the public lands open to the public.

At 11:32, I suggest that we begin working together. Brandon agreed. Then, I indicate what the OMD position is, that we need the relief to get in to the Refuge.

At about 12:30 Brandon wanted to go telephonic. Not yet being sure that I could rely on what he said, based upon the previous experience, I recorded the call. A timeline to key parts of the conversation follows:

0:24 – 4:00: Explanation of how we can hold the ground. Brandon builds obstacle to discourage any real action. Then, he explains that he got a call from Oregon State Police (OSP) — based upon what he had sent me (in PM at 11:18 AM). So, I have to wonder why they called him. They didn’t call me, though I appear to be an instigator. Does Brandon have some special relationship with the OSP? Did they call him to get him to thwart any action that might provide relief to those inside?

5:06 – 7:50: He suggests that this would be a “point of no return”. Darn, someday, if we want constitutional government restored, there will be a “point of no return”. He thinks that we would need a thousand “well trained patriots”. To form the battle line that has been suggested would only require discipline. If we cannot get our country back without “well trained patriots”, then we just might as well put our hands behind our backs and back up to the nearest FBI agent. That is nothing more than an obstacle, really, an obstruction — which has little merit. When you have to fight, you fight with what you have. Patriots have been training for many years. Do we train into oblivion? However, I continued to discuss a tactic that has been presented, as that tactic would be both unanticipated and difficult to defend against.

8:29 – 9:00: Brandon talks about the call outs that they have done. Those call outs will be discussed, elsewhere, but they have been absent any show of force, rather, they are intended to just get people to Burns and let them be a burden on the town (See The Burns Community). Quite frankly, what he had, and continues to call for, has hurt far more than it helped those in the Refuge. He then states that those who had come to Burns, and the Refuge, scattered after LaVoy was shot. The cause and effect of that reaction is discussed in “Stand Up; Stand Down“, and there were persistent phone calls and text messages, from PPN, to those inside, to abandon their positions. This resulted in only 8 or 9 defenders by the next morning.

9:01 – 10:29: Discussion of passive and active support. Brandon seems to prefer passive (demonstrations), though he is Idaho III% (III% is the John Adams estimate of how many colonists FOUGHT, like with muskets, against the British). This is also the difference between Civil Disobedience, which might get you arrested, and Civil Defiance, which is defying the presumed authority with arms, as at the Bundy Ranch in April 2014. Then, he mentions LaVoy, and says that he doesn’t “want anyone else losing their life.” So, now we step into the world of “peaceful resolution”. That was the mantra of the FBI, Sheriff Ward, Judge Grasty, and, apparently, PPN, Idaho III%, and the OathKeepers.

13:40 – 16:40: Brandon explains that he spoke with Ammon and Ryan about letting them (Brandon) know when they were going to be “out and about” so they could be “over watch and scouting around”. So, they (Brandon) took a lot of hits since they weren’t there (at the shooting). However, the run into town has no good place for an ambush. It is wide open. Now, if someone wanted to provide “over watch and scouting around”, there was no reason for Brandon to drop that mission, since he should have known that the road to Grant County went through the Malheur National Forest, with plenty of trees, rolling country, and many curves — ideal for an ambush. As far as not being notified, the meeting in John Day was well advertised as much as a week, or more, before that fateful day. However, it is probably much easier to be sitting in a restaurant, enjoying a meal paid for by contributions made to support the operation, than to take the initiative and scout the route. If they had done so, it is quite apparent that the ambush location was established at least a day before, when branches were cut from trees to facilitate firing positions, snowmobile tracks, and the entire ambush area prepared, and probably quite obvious, at least to someone who could “scout” an area — before, not after, the fact.

18:25 – 19:10: Brandon has both numbers and was going to give them to B. J. Soper, presumably to let him know that we are “working together”.

21:44 – 22:04: Here, Brandon includes the FBI, along with OSP, as having contacted him. Why they have so much faith in getting answers from Brandon is a matter for speculation, at this point.

22:32 – 23:22: Brandon says, “Well, we will work through it. It’s okay. And the, by all of us coming to gather, and then working together, it just makes us stronger”…. We then, finally, “shook hands”, over the phone — that is the honorable thing that real men do. Then, he says, “This is what we all need to be doing, working together and building our network, you know, larger.”

So, we end the conversation with what should be a good and honorable working relationship.

On the morning of February 5, I discovered that, without notifying me, nor having received that call that Soper was supposed to have made to me, the “Call to Action” at the blockade had been changed to a demonstration at the site of LaVoy’s murder. Though I don’t have the original message that I received that morning, the following is the wording from pacificpatriotsnetwork.com:

So, what had been discussed (above) was simply tossed out the window, the location changed, and raises the question as to the sincerity of Brandon Curtiss, as we have learned to expect from government officials.

My comment, with regard to this “working together”, then continues the PM conversation. Needless to say, Brandon Curtiss’ true colors were amply demonstrated, not only by this most recent episode, but not in the least, inconsistent with what was reported by Ryan Payne, Brandon’s asserting authority over any militia that came to Burns, his abrupt rudeness and unwillingness to talk in the early conversations, and finally, this attempt to obtain information, suggest that he was honorable, and then assigning the responsibility, not on himself, as leader of Idaho III% and PPN, but on Soper, who was probably never informed of the telephone conversation and the agreement to work together.

NOTE: Though one of the comments (Matt Grove) below links a questionable business practice, reports at the following link refers to Brandon Curtiss’ business, Curtiss Property Management, where there are two other reports filed explaining his character. They are not inconsistent with what is presented, above. He is, it appears, simply a “con man”, both in real life and as a “patriot”.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/specific_search/Brandon+Curtiss