Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 29
Public Lands – Part 2
The Federal Government Has No Jurisdiction

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 21, 2016

In a previous article, “It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, we looked at the constitutional aspect of jurisdiction.  Many will simply ignore that aspect, since they believe that the government is not bound by the Constitution, anymore.  So, we must wonder whether those who enacted laws, more recently, regarding jurisdiction, especially on lands that were obtained for certain purposes, were as doubtful of the intent of the Constitution.

The original buildings on the Refuge were built during the Great Depression under one of the various work programs intended to provide employment.  The land that they were built on was acquired by the government on February 18, 1935.  The remainder of the government-owned land in Section 35, as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was expanded, was acquired on November 22, 1948.

Shortly after the first parcel was acquired, on April 27, 1935, Congress enacted “AN ACT To provide for the protection of land resources against soil erosion, and for other purposes”, at 49 STAT 163.  Those “other purposes did include uses anticipated “to preserve public lands and relieve unemployment“.  That Act applied:

(a) On lands owned or controlled by the United States or any of its agencies, with the cooperation of the agency having jurisdiction thereof; and
(b) On any other lands, upon obtaining proper consent or the necessary rights or interests in such lands.

So, it was recognized that the federal government need not have jurisdiction, but more about why, later.

The benefits of the Act would be extended where local government would extend “reasonable safeguards for the enforcement of State and local laws imposing suitable permanent restrictions on the use of such lands…”

So, we see no effort to presume prior jurisdiction, to make all needful rules and regulations, as per Article IX, § 3, cl. 2, or to presume a necessity to require the State to cede the lands to the federal government, as per Article I, § 8, cl. 17, since there were no “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.

Then, on June 29, 1936, Congress went even further in abiding by the Constitution by clarifying their position on “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” (I:8:17), with “AN ACT To waive any exclusive jurisdiction over premises of resettlement or rural-rehabilitation projects…; and for other purposes”, at 49 STAT 2035.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acquisition by the United States of any real property heretofore or hereafter acquired for any resettlement project or any rural-rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes heretofore or hereafter constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the Resettlement Administration pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, or any other law, shall not be held to deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over such property, or to impair the civil rights under the local law of the tenants or inhabitants on such property ; and insofar as any such jurisdiction has been taken away from any such State or subdivision, or any such rights have been impaired, jurisdiction over any such property is hereby ceded back to such State or subdivision.

So, not only did they relinquish all “civil or criminal jurisdiction“, but they ceded back any jurisdiction that had been taken away from any State or subdivision.  Now the record had been set straight, in accordance with the Constitution.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 29 – Public Lands – Part 2 – The Federal Government Has No Jurisdiction’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 23
Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 10, 2016

So far, ten of those charged in United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al, have pled guilty, and the eleventh is soon to follow. They are, as follows:

• Jason Blomgren (Joker J), pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
• Brian Cavalier (Booda), pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge and a charge of possessing firearms or dangerous weapons in a federal facility.
• Blaine Cooper, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
• Travis Cox, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
• Eric Flores, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
• Wesley Kjar, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy
• Corey Lequieu, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
• Joseph O’Shaughnessy, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy
• Ryan Payne, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
• Geoffrey Stanek, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
• Jon Ritzheimer, scheduled to plea

So, why are they pleading? Is it because they really think that they are guilty?

Most, if not all, of those above have been “intimidated” or “threatened“, by federal prosecutors, either directly, or through their appointed counsel, that a Terrorism Enhancement could result in a sentence of 30 years, possibly for each count.

For a little background, over twenty years ago, I reported on a trial (see below) that I would eventually learn to be one where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines had brought into our judicial system something that was very foreign to the system of justice, as implemented by the Founders. Perhaps it would be beneficial to begin with an understanding of the judicial system that was intended, based upon many centuries of evolution in the British Common Law.

The English Constitution, even before the Magna Carta (1215 AD), began evolving in 1080 AD, and was also the beginning of a legal evolutionary process that sometimes went backwards, but most often went forward, in an effort to provide justice rather than blind obedience to laws. It was the English Common Law that was the foundation of jurisprudence for the Founders.

This foundation is evidenced even in current statutes, such as Florida Statutes (2015), where we find:

2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

We can also look to the Maryland Constitution (2008), which provides, in its Declaration of Rights:

Art. 5. (a)
(1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity…

In the same Declaration of Rights, we also find:

Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

Now, the Maryland Constitution predates the United States Constitution, as it was first ratified by the People on November 11, 1776 – over a decade before the Constitution. Clearly, the understanding (original intent) of the Maryland Constitution and the United States Constitution were predicated upon those laws that then existed, and definition, or intent, of the words used, were as they were understood at the time. Absent a lawful change of definition, those definitions and intentions are still the body of the law and should be recognized as such.

Also true of the Common Law, at that time, and remember, the intention is still the same, is that a jury determines law and fact. However, there is one more aspect that comes into play. The jury also imposed the sentence, as they were the judge of facts, those which determined the severity of the crime; the law, what was intended and the extent applicable to the case at hand; and, by combining the two, would determine the sentence to be imposed, if the accused were found to be guilty.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 23 – Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act III – Finale – “a long train of abuses and usurpations…”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 3, 2016

Upon examination of the government’s trail of paperwork spanning a period of nearly two decades , between the Hammonds and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), it is apparent that they were being persecuted by the federal government for simply insisting upon exercising their historical right to trail cattle. This began long before the controlled burn in 2002 and the backfire in 2006 that resulted in them being sentenced to five years in federal prison.

What is plainly “a long train of abuses” has been well documented by the documents obtained by those who made copies of public records (not classified) that were found at the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Though there were many more incidents, this review of the paper trail of correspondence between the Hammonds and the FWS , as well as other intergovernmental records, clearly demonstrates that abuse. This provides us a bit of transparency to the federal government’s treatment of those who had every right to their historical usage of those public lands.

On October 26, Dwight Hammond notified Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) at MNWR, some 30 miles south of Burns, Oregon, and explained that historically, he did not have to notify anyone to “trail” his cattle (for you city folk, this means herding cattle along a route from one point to another). FWS attempted to impose a requirement that they be notified as to the number of cattle, the route, the time, and the date of such movements. The new policy also disallowed grazing off of the trail while the cattle were being moved, held Dwight to a schedule by FWS, and demanded that he obtain a permit from them for each move.

During March of 1987, Dwight traveled to Portland, taking maps and explaining to higher-level bureaucrats the problems with the implementation of this new “policy” that was contrary to his historical rights. Subsequently, Dwight wondered whether anyone at FWS even paid attention to anything he had to say. Revealingly, one bureaucrat admitted that the government acknowledged his right to trail cattle through the MNWR over the historic route, yet, he still insisted that Dwight trail his cattle as quickly as possible so as not to damage the rehabilitation of vegetation along Bridge Creek.

Accusations that Dwight had been “verbally abusive” against MNWR personnel cropped up the following month, particularly revolving around the issue of the government fencing, resulting in limiting access to certain areas, including water. Over the course of the subsequent months, right into 1988, internal MNWR memos revealed that some of the bureaucrats realized they contributed to the “soured personal relationships,” which created a climate of “serious mutual distrust.” Flip-flopping on whether the Hammonds enjoyed a right or privilege to trail their cattle, constructing a boundary fence that impeded such trailing, which admittedly increased costs, were but just two elements that exacerbated an already tense relationship between the Hammond ranchers and the MNWR personnel. The long and short of it is that the MNWR bureaucrats unilaterally imposed their interpretation of the “regulations” upon the Hammonds with little warning, and then acted as if the Hammonds were being “uncooperative” for simply insisting that they abide by the previous agreement for conducting operations.

In 1994, the Hammonds received a letter from the MNWR manager stating that a “special use permit” will not be reissued to the Hammonds because their lack of “compliance” with Refuge “regulations” over the past several years, despite the fact that there had been a six year hiatus once MNWR personnel had realized they had overstepped their bounds. Dwight appeals the manager’s decision, arguing that there was a failure to provide full disclosure of the circumstances leading to the denial of not only the permit, but also all FOIA requests. Two months later in April, a higher-level bureaucrat denies Dwight’s appeal on the grounds that he made threats against MNWR personnel. A flurry of notices and appeals are sent out for the remainder of the year, going all the way up to the Department of the Interior; parallel to all of this, a federal Circuit Court awarded the Hammonds right to the use of the Bird Waterhole.

Unknown criminal charges against the Hammonds were proposed by the MNWR manager to be dropped by an Assistant United States Attorney for events that occurred on August 3, 1994 provided that the Hammonds not sue FWS and that they agree to notify MNWR personnel when they intended to trail their cattle, which they still, inexplicably, need a special use permit for. Obviously, the precedent of Revised Statute 2477 recognizes the historic right of the Hammonds to trail their cattle; this is further bolster by the Ash, Wetzel, and Miller Affidavit.

Whether it be the subsequent removal of culverts, or hauling gravel from a pit, this history of the Hammond’s relationship with the federal government is indicative of the notorious failure of a system that allows such broad discretion to bureaucrats. The MNWR and FWS administrative agencies tried to convert a right of the Hammonds to trail their cattle into a privilege, and when both the legal research and court decisions supported the Hammonds’ position, the bureaucrats scurried like frightened rats in their attempt to demonize the law-abiding ranchers.

The story of the Hammonds prior to the fires reveals the federal administrative agencies use of “lawfare”* to restrict and infringe historic rights involving public lands. Although some might insist that the Hammonds could have avoided their current fate by selling the ranch and “getting out of Dodge,” would this really be the American tradition that made this once great nation — to just pull up stakes at the slightest difficulty? It should come as no surprise, now, that Dwight and Steven Hammond’s status as political prisoners is indicative of what might easily befall many other Americans, should they fail to force the government back to its constitutional limitations.

* The use of laws to conduct a form of warfare against the rights of individuals.

FINISH

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

REFERENCE

• Hammond Legal Trailing Part I (Documents from the Eighties)
• Hammond Legal Trailing Part II (Documents from the Nineties)
• Ash, Wetzel, & Miller’s Affidavit

THE SERIES

1. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I (Decade of the Eighties), Scene 1: Introduction
2. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I (Decade of the Eighties), Scene 2: October 24, 1986 – March 20, 1987
3. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I (Decade of the Eighties), Scene 3: April 2, 1987 – April 15, 1987
4. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I (Decade of the Eighties), Scene 4: May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988
5. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I (Decade of the Eighties), Scene 5: May 2, 1988 – May 9, 1988
6. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II (Decade of the Nineties), Scene 1: Feb. 18, 1994 – June 9, 1994
7. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II (Decade of the Nineties), Scene 2: June 28, 1994 – January 22, 1997
8. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II (Decade of the Nineties), Scene 3: February 28, 1997 – May 21, 1997
9. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II (Decade of the Nineties), Scene 4: May 22, 1997
10. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II (Decade of the Nineties), Scene 5: June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997
11. The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II (Decade of the Nineties), Scene 6: Feb. 26, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 20, 2016

This series is not about the two fires and subsequent conviction of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  It is about the abuse, by government agencies, in the two decades prior to the first fire.

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

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

On February 25, 1998, Steven Hammond wrote a letter to the Oregon State Police regarding trespass and hunting in a no hunting area {351-352}. It appears that the OSP had stopped issuing citations to violators after speaking to Refuge personnel. This led to a follow up letter to Dick Munoz, FWS, Portland, addressing the concern and the failure of Malheur FWS to enforce the hunting regulations {353-354}.

On May 12, 1998, Dave Stanbrough faxes Munoz telling him he will draft a response to Steven Hammond’s letter {356}. Munoz implies that the decision not to prosecute the trespassing hunters was in the hands of the OSP, not the Refuge {357-358}.

July 6, 1999, the Bureau of Land Management in Hines, in a letter to Dwight Hammond, advises him that, in response to Dwight’s request of June 9, 1999 (No copy of the request in the obtained documents), they are denying him permission to use his own fencing to control cattle crossing Bridge Creek to get to the Mud Creek Allotment {359-360}. Dave Ward, “Rangeland Management Specialist” in this correspondence.

[Note: This is not the David Ward, Sheriff of Harney County.]

In an undated memo, from Anne Sittauer, MNWR, to Dave Stanborough, a third party report of a meeting on site between Dave Ward and Steven Hammond was supposed to have resulted in a written report by Ward {361-362}.  Steven never received the report but was told that he could not be allowed to trail his cattle to get to the “next allotment”.  Steven did agreed to give 24 hours notice of trailing, but refused to sign any request to trail. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 6 – Feb. 25, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004’ »

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II
In Schuyler’s Own Words

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 7, 2016

Schuyler Barbeau was arrested in a setup, participated in by his best friend, Oliver Murphy, on December 6, 2015. Until just a few days ago, what happened to Schuyler was unknown, except that he ended up in jail. The only story that could be told, at that time, was from Allen Aenk, who was present in the car when the minions of government, in complete battle dress, descended on the two of them. What Allen Aenk was able to observe is described in The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau.

Schuyler has now come forward with his description of the events of that day, including a transcription of the interrogation that was conducted prior to him being finally settled in the King County Jail.

The following account is transcribed from a handwritten report by Schuyler. The interrogation dialogue was copied from a copy provide to Schuyler by the government, as part of Discovery. That transcript was redacted with “XXXXX” in place of a name. However, the name is placed, in context, as the informant working with the FBI is known as a result of our previous investigation, and is used in place of the “XXXXX”.  Schuyler’s comments with regard to the interrogation dialogue are included (in parenthesis).

[Note: I have been informed, through friends of Schuyler Barbeau, that this was not a transcription, rather, a recollection of the interview.  I, foolishly, assumed that since he had used the “XXXXX” in places that it was transcribed (copied).  I have been advised that in keeping in compliance with the Court’s effort to make public only what they want to be public, Schuyler used the “XXXXX” to avoid violating the Court’s prohibition on divulging Discovery information.  6/24/16 gh]

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

Allen and I were pulling off Highway 18 where it intersects Interstate 90 to enter the non-operational weigh-station.  As we rolled through the long parking lot, I spotted my best friend, Oliver Murphy’s, Ford Explorer, sitting by the small weigh-station building.  The hood was up as Oliver had told me that the car was overheating.  Now, the purpose of my meeting him was to pick up cash for a sale he did for me.  As we approached, I said aloud, “Well, there is his SUV, but I don’t see him.”  We parked next to the Explorer and as we did, I took notice of the stickers all over the rear and window, confirming in my mind that this was in fact the right vehicle, because I recognized the stickers, even the pro-2nd Amendment one.

I stepped out of the car, grabbed the dog’s [Note: a dog that had just been picked up by TeamRescue for training – opf] leash and waited for it to climb out of the backseat into the front seat and then out of the car.  Just then, as she jumped out, I heard a whole bunch of shouting to my 11 o’clock position.  I looked up and over the top of the hood of the Explorer (which they closed as they came around) and saw the military (it actually turned out just to be the FBI) come pouring out of the building and around the Explorer with their pistols and M4s pointed at my face.  Now, there was no difference in dress and appearance between these guys (FBI) and some Delta Force operators from the Army.  About 15 to 20 agents total.  They had their multi-cam clothing, full kit, plate carrier, body armor, and helmets, along with other gear.  “Operators” are carrying, and using all their high-speed weapons.  This overwhelming display of “tactic-cool” is a true testament of the militarization of law enforcement. Continue reading ‘Barbeau Qued in Seattle – The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II – In Schuyler’s Own Words’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 21
The Public’s Right to Know

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 16, 2016

We all know that when there is an alleged violation of one’s rights, the freedom of the accused, while somewhat curtailed, is usually respected, and this is known as part of due process. Absent due process, judicial behavior often falls into arbitrary decision-making, biased juries, and the rail-roading of political undesirables, straight into prison. Lack of judicial transparency is usually a clear sign that whatever vestiges of a republican form of government may still be there is waning, and quickly; should the public’s right to know not be reinvigorated, then posterity will likely never know true freedom.

A Person accused of a crime, according to the Sixth Amendment, has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him“, and, “to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor“.

The government, of course, has the right to search with a warrant, and the subpoena power to compel witnesses. Clearly, they have a right to know.

The accused has the power of the subpoena, to compel witnesses on his behalf. He also has a right to discovery, to see what the plaintiff has, in the form of proof, and to introduce evidence on his behalf.

Historically, trials were public. Often crime scenes were photographed by news reporters/cameramen, often with victims still in place. Reporters were given all but the most critical investigative results, and all of this was to assure the public that there really was a crime in their community. Witnesses told what they saw, to investigators (public and private), other people, and the press. Those charged and arrested were able to talk to anybody and often did press interviews from jail. If they were released from custody, they could speak as freely as any other person. Thus, the public was always aware of the accused’s explanation of events.

When the matter went to trial the courtroom was open, so long as the observers behaved, and the press had every opportunity to report on all aspects of the case, including evidence and testimony. For the most part, all of the facts were laid out to the public, by one means or another, even before the trial began.

When the trial was over, regardless of the outcome, the community was fully aware of what had occurred, what the government did to bring justice, and whether the person that had been accused was vindicated of the charges, or convicted.

So, let’s look at what a trial really is. The first element is comprised of the facts of the matter. This includes evidence, recordings, writings, photographs, and the testimony of witnesses. However, that is just the beginning. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 21 – The Public’s Right to Know’ »

The Bundy Affair – #13
“Gold Butte Impound”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 10, 2016

We are all aware of the events that occurred two years ago, resulting in the recent arrest of 19 people, based upon the government’s allegation of events.  However, what we know is based upon Mainstream Media (MSM), as well as observations by various patriots, of those events.  What we have yet to see is what the government’s side of the story is, at least from the planning of the operation.

The picture, above, is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planner/artist conception of what the BLM base camp would look like.  It is taken from the cover of the Twenty Page “Gold Butte Impound – Incident Action Plan- April 5, 2014” (Plan).

The Plan was implemented on April 5, just one week before American patriots “unrustled” the cattle that had been rustled by the BLM, according to their Plan.  What is even more interesting is the amount of resources the government opted to commit, in order to steal the Bundy cattle.

In the past, a dozen men could handle and drive a herd of cattle to the railhead, many hundreds of miles away.  Now, if it were rustlers, attempting to steal cattle (yes, steal cattle, in violation of state laws (see “Violence Begets Non-Violence”), could probably handle the task with half a dozen to a dozen men.  However, the Plan eloquently demonstrates the inefficiency of government.  They have allotted 26 office personnel, 21 contractors, and 195 agents to rustle a few hundred cattle.  That’s right, about 242 people, primarily from BLM and National Park Service, who were tasked with this project.  Just imagine what the cost of the operation might be, if they had sold the cattle, they probably could not be able cover the cost of more than a couple of days of the operation.  But, then, who has ever expected the government to be efficient?

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #13 – “Gold Butte Impound”’ »

The Bundy Affair – #12
Dave Bundy’s Two Citations

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 9, 2016

As mentioned in “Violence Begets Non-Violence”, Dave Bundy was arrested, taken to Las Vegas, spent the night, never saw a judge, and was cited for Failure to Disperse and Resisting Arrest. Then, he was released onto the streets of Las Vegas, over 80 miles from the Ranch, with no cash in his pocket. At the time that article was written, I was waiting on copies of the citations, to see what light they might shed on the incident. So, now we have the citations, and there are some interesting aspects to them.

First, in the “Place of Offense” box, both citations say “BLM lands on or near SR 170”. Now, if it was on SR 170, it is a state road, so we must wonder where the BLM presumes it has jurisdiction.  I haven’t contacted the Nevada Department of Transportation to determine the actual Right-of-Way (R/W) width of SR 170, however, in measuring the width between fence lines along the roadway, it appears that the R/W width is 66 feet (a common width for older roads). The pavement measures about 26 feet. So there is State Road R/W for about 20 feet off of the edge of the pavement. If Dave was “on” or “near” the State Road, he was probably on state land, not on federal land. So, we must wonder why the BLM can presume to have jurisdiction, first to tell anybody on the road to “Disperse”, and second, to presume the authority to arrest them.

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #12 – Dave Bundy’s Two Citations’ »

The Bundy Affair – #11

“Violence Begets Non-Violence”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2016

It was on April 12, 2014, when mostly unarmed supporters gathered at the Toequap (Toquop) Wash, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, between Exits 112 and 120 on Interstate Highway 15, stood down the federal government with regard to cattle been “impounded”, readied for transport, or killed.  However, since the government has brought the matter up, again, we may want to revisit some of the incidents and circumstances that led to the Unrustling of cattle by these supporters of the original American Way of Life.

It was April 6, 2014, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, when Dave Bundy had stopped to take pictures of the 20, or so, vehicles coming off a road from Gold Butte Mountain.  It was rather odd to see so many vehicles in that location, so Dave had decided to record the event.

Other Bundy relatives were present and reported seeing four snipers, one of them about 30 feet away from Arden Bundy.

The men in the vehicle convoy stopped, exited, donned tactical gear (pictured above) and told those present to “disperse immediately”.  The other Bundys began to disperse, or remained in the vehicles to watch what was transpiring, however, Dave continued taking pictures.  Understand that Dave, and the others, were on a public road, simply wondering about, and recording, what was going on.

1. As Dave continued, some armed men approached Dave, grabbing him and throwing him to the ground, then rubbed his face in the gravel as they handcuffed him.  He was then placed in one of the vehicles and they headed toward Henderson, Nevada.  One of the government players, Lisa Wilson (Load/Hold Team, one of the Rustler’s teams, (775) 229-2722, see Government Agents at the Bundy Ranch) began to question/ interrogate Dave, who refused to provide any meaningful answers, as he had done nothing more than take pictures from a public road.

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #11 – “Violence Begets Non-Violence”’ »

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 25, 2016

This series is not about the two fires and subsequent conviction of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  It is about the abuse, by government agencies, in the two decades prior to the first fire.

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

During the course of the constantly revised Opinion (final version, below), on June 30, 1997, Barbara Scott-Brier, Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region, Department of the Interior, who had been working on the Draft (see Feb 28 & May 22) sends a letter to Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management {215-216}, requesting information relative said Draft. The request is for: Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 5 – June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997’ »