Outpost of Freedom blog

Statement by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom, with regard to the government attempting to silence the Freedom of the Press

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
January 6, 2017

Rumor has it that I was visited by the FBI, yesterday, January 5, 2017. That rumor is true It was not an investigation or an interview. Instead, it was to hand me a letter from the Portland, Oregon, United States Attorney’s Office, signed by Pamela R. Holsinger, Chief, Criminal Division, on behalf of Billy J. Williams. That letter was a Cease and Desist letter.

Today, I told the FBI messenger that I had no intention of complying; that I wanted to look into my legal rights. A few hours later, I was informed by two sources that the government has filed An affidavit, and request  for a court order, and a proposed order wherein they order me to remove my articles with discovery information in them, and refrain from publishing any more discovery information.

This is fast becoming a matter of the First Amendment right of the people to know what their government is doing. This same subject went before the United States Supreme Court, in 1971. That case was “New York Times Co. V. United States 403 U.S. 713”, wherein the Court, in defending the public right to know, stated:

“Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.”

The New York Times prevailed and the government could not restrain the Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The matter before us, now, is equally, or more important in that the right of the people to know how the government operates in their private lives, with “spies” reporting everything that they can about what you do, with no criminal intent, to the government.

This is what the KGB did in the Soviet Union. It is what the Stasi did in East Germany. Neither country exists, now, as the police state was not compatible with people used to kings and emperors. It is absolutely unacceptable in a country of free and liberty loving people.

If exposing government spies that spy on the people is criminal, then I confess to that crime. If, however, We, the People, have a right to know what our government is doing, then the Court on Oregon is criminal.

The following documents are the letter and the three filings in the Ammon Bundy, et al, case in Oregon.

Cease and Desist Letter

Motion to Enforce Protective Order – (Expedited Consideration Requested)

Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order

[Proposed] Order Enforcing Protective Order

Burns Chronicles N^o 50
Informants – What to do About Them #2

Mark McConnell
Merry Christmas, Mark

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 25, 2016
Merry Christmas, Mark McConnell

The matter of informants, and the government’s efforts to protect the names of those who have snuck into our midst is a denial of justice and to some degree, the Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

Now, we can look at what the government wants us to believe. We can also look at what common sense dictates that the Framers of the Constitution meant. Just because a person doesn’t take the stand in court, when that person has provided information to the government, upon which the government builds its case, he has witnessed against the accused. The defendants, then, had every right to confront that “witness”, as he is privy to what he saw, what he heard, and what he said to the government. He is as much a part of the case against the defendant as the person who takes the stand, takes an oath, and testifies. Quite often, he is the justification for a search or arrest warrant to be issued, or a criminal indictment to be brought, before the court.

However, when that ‘witness’ is hidden from the defendant, the defendant is denied information that may aid him in a proper and fair defense. In some cases, their testimony might provide exculpatory evidence, testimony that might prove his innocence, that would undermine the contrived case made by the government.

With the recent trial of Ammon Bundy, et al, we can begin to put together a picture of the injustice and the dishonesty of the government’s pretext for hiding such “witnesses.”

We will begin with a partial trial transcript of the trial on October 17, 2016:

THE COURT:

I would like to start first with Ms. Harris’s motion with respect to the identity of a witness. [Some of] the defendants have subpoenaed, it’s Docket No. 1443, And it is really a subset of the larger issue raised both by Ryan Bundy in previous filings and by Ammon Bundy in his motion to compel 1423. Before, I received Ms. Harris’ filing, which I only received this morning about 7:00 a.m. it showed up in my system, I had emailed to the parties my preliminary conclusions having reviewed, in camera, the unredacted reports related to the so-called CHSs confidential human sources, 15 different individuals, 112 reports, and I conveyed in that email to the parties that I have compared the redacted to the nonredacted reports and according to the applicable standard, did not find any basis to disclose the identity of those 15 confidential human sources. I observed to the parties that as I compared the redactions from the unredacted material, I really didn’t find any substantive significance. The redactions primarily looked to me as necessary to protect the identity of the informant, and so with respect to that general review, I conveyed to the parties my intention was to deny the motion generally.

Then came in Ms. Harris’s motion on behalf of Ms. Cox with respect to a very particular one of those 15 confidential human sources, identified in her motion as number two, as to whom I have the redacted and unredacted materials. That was one person’s records I went through.

The motion indicates that the defendants have found the actual CH#2 who was known to the — who went by an alias, according to this motion, of John Killman. K-I-L-L-M-A-N. And so the motion goes on to argue why it’s relevant, first of all, for the defendants to call this person whose alias is John Killman and to introduce evidence from his personal knowledge of observations he made at the refuge.

And I presume defendants already know his true name in that they — Ms. Harris tells me in this filing that he’s been subpoenaed in his, is physically present, and needs to testify first thing because of other issues in his life.

We can see that the identification of the informants is a primary concern of Judge Anna Brown. Next to speak is one of the Government attorneys.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 50 – Informants – What to do About Them #2’ »

Camp Lone Star #31
The Case of Kevin KC Massey – I
Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

James Madison, Federalist #62            

Do we simply accept the government interpretation of a law, without consideration for the grammatical structure(incoherent, or just misrepresented?)? If so, do we simply rely upon the enforcers of the law to tell us what we may, and what we may not, do?

Gary Hunt, October 17, 2016               

We will begin with a brief discussion of the legal/historical context of what result in Kevin “KC” Massey standing trial for “felon in possession of a firearm.  The, we will go into detail, including excerpts from the transcripts, of KC’s trail in Brownsville, Texas.

Kevin Massey organized what became known as Camp Lone Star (CLS), located on the property of Rusty Monsees.  The property abuts the Rio Grande River, about six miles southeast of Brownsville, Texas.  Massey had lived on the Monsees property for months, prior to the incidents that will be described.

The area in which the Camp was located is well known as a crossing point for illegal immigration.  The Camp was established to discourage illegal crossings, primarily to persuade those attempting to cross to return to the south shore of the River.  On occasion, the illegals were detained and turned over to United States Border Patrol (BPS).

Camp Lone Star was the most successful private, permanent, border operation along the entire southern border until the events described below began to unfold.  Though it only covered a few miles of common crossing areas, it was a full-time operation and reduced, significantly, crossings within its area of operation.

On August 29,  2014, there was a shooting incident where three of the CLS Team were patrolling the border, on private property, and with the consent of the owner’s representative.  A Border Patrol agent shot at one of the Team, who never raised his weapon and who then placed it on the ground, without the need for a command from the agent.  When the other Team members and BPS agents came together for the BPS to “investigate” the shooting by their agent, the CLS Team members cooperated, fully, with the investigation.

The only violation of any sort was the agent shooting, in violation of BPS policy.  However, it appears that the agent has not been subject to any hearing or punishment because of his actions.

. Continue reading ‘Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – I – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 33
Ryan Payne’s Plea Withdrawal

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 13, 2016

Back on July 13, Ryan Payne signed a plea agreement.  As will be explained, below, he has now requested the Court to Withdraw Guilty Plea and Proceed to Trial by Jury and go to trial on the charges.

Though it won’t be mentioned in the Motion, in addition to what follows, Ryan was threatened with a Terrorism Enhancement, if he went to trial and was convicted.  That would be a 30 years sentence, but, as I said, the Court cannot recognize that, as it was part of negotiations.

So, let’s look at the picture that the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea gives us, at least in pertinent part.  I will leave the citations in, for those who wish to review previous decisions on the subject:

After entering a plea of guilty to Count 1, Mr. Payne stated the following as a factual basis for his plea, in the words of Ryan Payne:

“Ah, your Honor, the very first adult decision that I ever made was when I was 17, to join the military of the United States.  And in so doing, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I traveled to Harney County, here in Oregon, under the pretense that this was my intent. That I was coming to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

“In pursuing that effort, I understand I — I have come to understand that folks who were — who work for the Government, that that Constitution ordained, perceived my actions as threatening or intimidating.  And, thereby, I – I understand myself to have been guilty of the charge that I’m charged with.

The Court inquired whether Mr. Payne agreed that his actions actually impeded government officials. Mr. Payne responded, “[a]s it has been presented to me, it is my understanding that I did, your Honor.”

So, Ryan went to the Malheur Refuge with the intention (not a criminal intent, rather, a patriotic intent) to defend the Constitution.  And, that is what this whole trial is about.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 33 – Ryan Payne’s Plea Withdrawal’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 30
Officer?   What Officer?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 26, 2016

In the Indictments, both in Oregon and Nevada, there is one Count that raises some serious questions.  The exact wording, to the extent of understanding the charges being made, is as follows:

For Oregon:

COUNT 1

(Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States)

(18 u.s.c. § 372)

On or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants…

It then goes on to list the Defendants and makes some rather general accusations, WITHOUT naming “Officers” or, how they were impeded.

Next, we look to the Nevada Indictment:

COUNT TWO

Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 372)

Then, they go into a narrative, missing, of course, any named “Officers”, or any specific acts that constitute impeding.

The statute cited reads:

18 U.S.C. § 372 : US Code – Section 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Now, our concern, as much as with the Indictments lacking specificity, is the Statute, itself.  So, let’s first trace the history of the Statute, and then we will look into just who an “Officer” might be.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer? What Officer?’ »

The Bundy Affair – #14
“public trial” v. Star Chamber

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 11, 2016

Recently, the Las Vegas Review Journal petitioned the Court to allow access to certain evidence that would be used against the Defendants.  They even asserted that they would have no problem if names were omitted from the documents.  This was filed in response to the government’s Proposed Protective Order, a request that the Court seal and keep from the public some of the discovery materials, certain evidentiary documents, and exhibits that could be used in the trial against the Defendants.  Quite simply, it is all of the evidence acquired by the government in their pursuit of the persecution of 19 people that were involved in the Bundy Ranch Affair, nearly two years before the matter was indicted by a Grand Jury.  The Court has yet to rule on the matter.

Before we proceed, the discovery material would show what the government did, what they acquired, what their practices are, and whether they had subversive agents embedded within the group that afforded protection to the Bundy Ranch in April 2014.

As you follow along in pursuit of the government’s position, and the legal precedence, some of it even distorted perversions regarding the original intent of the Founders, also keep in mind that, historically, spies and entrapment were used against enemies, and spies against foreign governments, but never sent within the population that was supposed to be protected by that government.  For, to do so essentially, makes the people an enemy of the government, or, rather, the government the enemy of the people.

So, let’s look at what the Supreme Court has said, with regard to the Sixth Amendment.

In 1979, the United States Supreme Court, in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 US 368, addressed whether the press and public could be denied access to the court and evidence in a pre-trial hearing.  Although the decision was based solely (and rightfully) on a pre-trial hearing, the decision of the Court ventured further into the entire concept of the intent and purpose of a “public trial”, as guaranteed by 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.

The Petitioner, Gannett Co., is a publisher and among others, published USA Today.  Greathouse and Jones were defendants in a state prosecution for second-degree murder, robbery, and grand larceny.  They requested that the public and the press be excluded from the hearing, arguing that the unabated buildup of adverse publicity had jeopardized their ability to receive a fair trial.  The trial judge granted the motion.  The following are excerpts from that decision:

Petitioner [Gannett] then moved to have the closure order set aside but the trial judge, after a hearing, refused to vacate the order or grant petitioner immediate access to the transcript, ruling that the interest of the press and the public was outweighed by the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

The New York Court of Appeals… [held] the exclusion of the press and the public from the pretrial proceeding.

The Constitution does not give petitioner [Gannett] an affirmative right of access to the pretrial proceeding, all the participants in the litigation having agreed that it should be closed to protect the fair-trial rights of the defendants.

Publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings poses special risks of unfairness because it may influence public opinion against a defendant and inform potential jurors of inculpatory information wholly inadmissible at the actual trial.

The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a public trial is for the benefit of the defendant alone.  The Constitution nowhere mentions any right of access to a criminal trial on the part of the public.  While there is a strong societal interest in public trials, nevertheless members of the public do not have an enforceable right to a public trial that can be asserted independently of the parties in the litigation.  The adversary system of criminal justice is premised upon the proposition that the public interest is fully protected by the participants in the litigation. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #14 – “public trial” v. Star Chamber’ »

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’ »

Liberty or Laws?

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself”

Does the Fifth Amendment Stop at Miranda?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 6, 2016

The principle element in this discussion is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The provision that is of concern is, “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  And, we must begin by understanding that, as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says,

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Clearly, the Fifth Amendment, then, is a prohibition against the government, “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the federal government’s] powers”

To understand the role of the Supreme Court, at least for nearly the past century, we need to review what Justice Brandeis explained in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), in which he explained the “rules” that the Court had adopted to avoid “passing upon a large part of all constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision.”  (See About Ashwander v. TVA)

The pertinent rules from that decision are:

2.  The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it… ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless necessary to a decision of the case…

3.  The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied….

4.  The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.

7.  ‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided…

To summarize the pertinent rules:

• The Court will not decide on the constitutionality, unless absolutely necessary – rules 2 & 4.
• When the Court does rule on the constitutionality, that ruling will be as narrow as possible – rule 3.
• The Court will, whenever possible, rule on statutory construction to avoid ruling on constitutionality – rule 7.

Now with this in mind, they won’t rule on the constitutionality, unless necessary, and if they do rule on constitutionality, they will make that ruling as narrow as possible.  We will look at a Supreme Court decision that we are all familiar with, Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

In Miranda, which requires that law enforcement officers notice the person being investigated for possible criminal activity be advised that he have the right to refuse to talk and to have an attorney present.  However, in keeping with Ashwander rule #7, the ruling deals only with those in custody.

So, the question arises, why would one’s right only apply to when one is in custody (they narrow ruling)?  If one the right to not incriminate oneself, “to be a witness against himself”, would that not apply once suspicion was raised against him, or does it only apply after he is in custody?.  Wouldn’t it really be a prohibition against government, both before and after one was in custody?

If a law enforcement office, in uniform or plain clothes, with the intent of trying to elicit a confession, or information that would incriminate someone, while in custody, was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and confirmed by the Supreme Court, then why would we assume that that prohibition did not also extend to when one was under suspicion?  After all, when one is under suspicion, the law enforcers are just a small step away from putting someone in custody.  Why would that prohibition only come into play when the actual act of custody was implemented?  Is it possible that those who ratified the Amendment intended for that form of chicanery to be acceptable?  Or, was their intention to prohibit divisive means of acquiring incriminating evidence in apparent conflict with the wording of the Amendment?

Now, we need to visit a little historical background to carry the ramifications of the intent into an understanding of changes in practices between the Eighteenth Century and modern law enforcement, to put a proper perspective on how the intent of the Amendment is circumvented.

In the Eighteenth Century, spying, intelligence gathering, and other such undercover work was carried out in higher levels of government, only.  The consequence for being caught practicing such infamy was death.  Consequently, those willing to lay their lives on the line for the greater cause of national politics carried out such work.  The idea of spying on their own citizens was out of the question.  After all, it is the job of any decent government to protect its citizens, not to treat them as they would an enemy.  The idea that such practices could be used in the lower elements of society, in pursuit of criminals rather than state secrets or wartime intelligence, was not a practice, as honor was conscientiously upheld.  To deceive alleged criminals would be to stoop to the level of criminals. Continue reading ‘Liberty or Laws? – “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”’ »

Administrative Agencies – The Fourth Branch of Government
Circumventing the Constitution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2016

Suppose you lived in Washington state or Colorado.  Suppose, too, that consistent with state law, you grow, process, and use marijuana.  Now, state law says you can, but federal law says that you can’t.  What happens if the feds arrest you and charge you with a crime?

The Constitution/Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”.  Would a federal requirement that demands that you register your firearms be such an infringement, if your state did not require such registration?  Could you be successfully prosecuted by the federal government if charged with failing to register your firearms? Continue reading ‘Administrative Agencies – The Fourth Branch of Government – Circumventing the Constitution’ »

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

Domestic Terrorism?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 18, 2015

Update

Yesterday, Schuyler Barbeau was Indicted by a Grand Jury. He was indicted solely on the information in the Criminal Complaint. He is only charged with violating Title 26, US Code §§5861(d) and 5845(a)(3), to wit:

26 U.S.C. § 5861: Prohibited acts

It shall be unlawful for any person –

   (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; or

26 U.S.C. § 5845 : Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter –

   (a) Firearm The term “firearm” means

     (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

They have also included the forfeiture provision (26 US Code §5872(a)) which would allow them to keep any firearms, if Schuyler is convicted of the crime.

Before we get in to just who is a terrorist, it would not hurt to revisit the Search Warrants that were served at the Ranch. The search warrants included Title 18 provisions that were not included in the Criminal Complaint. Had the Search Warrant been in compliance with the constitutionally required limitations, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, the only items that could have been included were the Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and any other barrels or objects directly related to the SBR. However, what they took, they presumed the right to take based upon the Search Warrant reference to “(b) possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).”

To make matters worse, they have alleged that Schuyler was a “domestic terrorist”, and I’m sure they expressed that to the Grand Jury. I am equally sure that though the Search Warrant has yet to be filed on the Court Docket, that the Grand Jury was probably made privy to it — most likely to demonize Schuyler so that the Jury would feel no doubt that they had to indict him. However, the Grand Jury only indicted Schuyler on the original charges from the Complaint.

Is Schuyler the Terrorist?

However, this whole episode with the Search warrant leads us to consider who the terrorists really are. Schuyler was accused of having a rifle receiver, a 10.5 inch, and an 18 inch barrel, both of which would fit the receiver, but he didn’t register and pay the tax on what could have been made from the otherwise legal parts.

The government, in the hearing on December 14, accused Schuyler of being a “domestic terrorist”. To support these allegations, the Criminal Complaint states:

The CHS advised that Barbeau frequently told the CHS that the federal government was not abiding by the principles set forth in the Constitution and that many public servants, such as judges and police officers who had sworn to uphold it, had deviated from their oath of office. Barbeau told the CHS that it was his duty to educate public servants who were not living up to their oath and discussed “lynching” those he deemed unworthy if necessary. In one instance, Barbeau told the CHS that he and other like-minded individuals would physically remove a California judge presiding over a misdemeanor weapons violation he received there in the fall of 2014.

Well, that is hearsay, to say the least, but they also said that he was going to “hang a judge”. So, were these just words under Freedom of Speech, or was he serious about what he had said, such as in the context of a threat or incitement? He never moved in that direction, or otherwise indicated that he intended to carry out this “threat”. So, if this is the extent, well, we must also include a rifle (SBR) that, if he had registered and paid the $200 tax, would have been as legal as his political statements under Freedom of Speech. Schuyler never threatened (coerced or intimidated) the judge, and if the judge knew what he said, it would probably be because the government told the judge what they said that Schuyler said.

However, the government says that he is a terrorist simply because of their claims of Schuyler’s possession of a machine gun, stolen federal property, and the utterance of vague hearsay of THREATS.

So, what law would make him a “domestic terrorist? What is the government trying to tell the Court and the Grand Jury? Well, here it is:

18 U. S. C, §2331.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.

There would have to be “acts dangerous to human life”, and criminal in nature. Or, that appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population”, or to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.” So, with these three choices, which, if any, did Schuyler’s actions fit into? None? Well, that’s what I understand, too.

By the way, Schuyler was honorably discharged from the Marines Corp, after 4 years of service to his country. He then went into the Army and served another 3 years, and was again, Honorably Discharged.

Is the Government Conducting Terrorist Activities?

Well, that is a tough question. If we ask Mainstream Media, or the government, we know what the answer will most likely be. That, however, like what Schuyler has said, is just words, with no actions to back up those words. I suppose we could call that Freedom of Speech, though a gross distortion of Freedom of the Press.

However, on December 6, while Schuyler was arrested, and Allen Aenk was being detained and his car searched, without a warrant, other activity (actions) was taking place. However, it wasn’t “domestic terrorists” (or, was it?) that entered the Aenk Ranch. At 12:40 PM, fifteen thugs, dressed in battle gear, entered the property, bypassing a locked driveway gate. They were soon followed by two more squads comprised of five thugs, each.

However, rather than me telling the story, so there be no doubt, we will let the videos from the security cameras tell the story. I will assist be giving a description, the video time stamp, and the [true time], as we go through the five cameras (channels) captured that afternoon. The videos have been edited to reduce the over 7 hours of total footage into just the significant portions.

Channel 1 (at Front Gate, from house) (38:04 long):

0:46 [12:37:46] The goon squads turns off of Springdale Hunter Road, in the distance, onto a private easement road.

2:50 [12:39:51] The first vans of battled dressed goon squads arrive at the front of the property.

3:31 [12:40:32] The 15 thugs begin entering the property, SBRs at the ready, reminiscent of the military tactics used in villages in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7:27 [12:49:47] Five more thugs enter the property.

9:18 [12:55:06] Five more thugs enter the property, making 25 thugs, and a number of supervisory personnel.

12:28 [12:58:36] The front gate is unlocked using the key that was voluntarily given to the thugs by Carrie Aenk. Understand that the government already knew that Allen and Schuyler were detained near Seattle, nearly 300 miles away. If they had any intelligence (of either kind), they would have known that Carrie was home alone.

15:03 [01:00:59] Twenty-four minutes after the initial entry, Carrie is escorted to one of the kennels, handcuffed and with a coat thrown over her shoulder (this, after being thrown down in the mud. See “Carrie’s Statement“), to secure some of the dogs — without the use of her hands. After all, there are only 25 goons.

16:34 [01:02:20] Enter an important person with case in hand, and another important person with bag in hand.

32:17 [02:34:03] Vehicles begin leaving.

32:48 [02:43:27] Important person leaves with case (16:34), box and envelope.

33:25 [02:44:04] Important person w/baggage meets non-government looking vehicle. Important person walks from vehicle, without baggage, about 20 seconds later.

36:45 [03:30:11] Silver SUV pulls into driveway (SA Baldino), parks just out of frame, appears to reach into back seat (37:03).

Channel 2 (Right of entry gate, from house) (7:49 long):

0:15 [12:40:53] Goons “sweep” the property, anticipating major action from sole occupant (Carrie) One goon slips and falls on the ice (right side of frame), comes up prepared to fire his weapon.

4:42 [03:30:19] SA Baldino arrives (See Channel 1 – 36:45)

4:53 [03:30:29] SA Baldino does something, difficult to explain, at back door of SUV (See Channel 1 37:03.)

7:02 [03:40:38] Drives away with passengers. Thugs have left the property, 3 hours and 4 minutes after entry.

Channel 3 (West entry gate, from house) Note: This channel included for a little levity, and to watch taxpayer dollars wasted. (11:19 long):

00:04 [12:45:49] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment of pickup truck.

00:33 [12:46:47] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment, this time with SBR and Tactical Light aimed at potential threats.

2:45 [12:58:10] Goon wary of “vicious dog”.

3:39 [12:59:26] Other goon tries to befriend the “vicious dog”.

3:56 [03:56:55] Flash bang goes off, cracking window and forces security camera into black and white mode.

Channel 4 (storage area; Schuyler’s trailer – far left, from house) (48:21 long):

Note: Throughout this video, remember that the warrant listed stolen federal property and machine guns. Since then, we have learned that they were also looking for explosives. Note how cursory the search of the storage area is. A machine gun, explosive, and unidentified stolen federal property could easily have been overlooked.

00:14 [12:41:06] Goon passes entry tool to another goon, prefatory to breaking in through back door of house. Apparently, the entry team was not quite ready to enter.

1:28 [12:42:17] Note the camera shuttering, followed by smoke in about 15 seconds. This was probably one of the “flash bangs” set off while “clearing” the house.

1:55 [12:44:42] First goon enters Schuyler’s trailer (left, with ladder leaning against it).

11:50 [12:58:16] Carrie Aenk enters at left of frame, handcuffed and a coat thrown over her shoulders, escorted by a goon.

12:35 [12:59:49] Carrie enters at left of frame, escorted by one goon and one important person.

30:30 [01:36:47] Two goons go up the hill, above storage, for some reason. Probably to relive themselves.

41:50 [02:13:04] Box is handed out of Schuyler’s trailer.

42:54 [02:17:03] Trailer door closed. One hour and 33 minutes in the search of Schuyler’s trailer.

47:41 [02:37:24] Plastic tote box and cardboard box carried from 4-wheeler to leave scene left. Note the apparent weight of the two boxes and compare that with the inventoried items in the Search Warrants (page 4), and consider the apparent weight.  Also note, in Channel 1, that the plastic tote box never left the property through the gate.   So, where did it go?

Channel 6 (Southeast corner of house) (2:12 long): Short, simply another view of clearing the area.

 Conclusion

We saw that Schuyler had none of the elements of a “domestic terrorist”, and though we won’t have an exact match, we can look at what you have seen in the videos and see that 25 plus thugs, battle dressed and often raising their weapons, can readily be considered as an act “dangerous to human life”, even when performed by the government. After all, I believe that they are human, just like us, and since many of us, including Schuyler Barbeau, have received probably more training in the use of firearms, while in military service, then some of these goons.

There is little doubt that this display of force was intended “to intimidate or coerce”, though perhaps not a population, but the population of the Aenk Ranch, whether in Springdale or Seattle.

And, the Search Warrant, along with other misrepresentations, are accusations without any foundation, such as suggesting that Schuyler was a domestic terrorist, are, without a doubt, intended to “influence…a government” entity, specifically, the Grand Jury, to secure an indictment.

If government was granted, by the people via the Constitution, the authority to do anything, it was because we, the People, had the authority to grant them theirs. Should we expect them to act with as much, if not more, integrity than we would expect of ourselves? Or, did we, as they assume, make them our masters?

If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

That’s all I have.

Timothy McVeigh, August 14, 1997 — just prior to being officially sentenced to death