Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 14
Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 20, 2016

Sorry about the play on words, however, in looking for a title for this article, it seemed appropriate to choose the rooster instead of the chicken, as the rooster has a specific role in the relationship.  The egg, however, is a birth, a creation of something new — that will continue to grow, eventually replacing both the rooster and the chicken, in the scheme of things.

Perhaps a few words from the Father of the Constitution might be appropriate:

[The government] can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.  This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together.  It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.  If it be asked, what is to restrain the [Government] from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the [Government], as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

James Madison, Federalist No. 57

Now, the original, and then only, charge against those in Oregon that participated in the opening of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to the public, was 18 US Code § 372.  This law was first enacted during the Civil War.  It was the 1st Session of the 37th Congress Lincoln had already called for 75,000 and suspended habeas corpus {page 1 of pdf}, before the law was enacted.

The law was first introduced on July 17, 1861 {2}, just over three months after the war had begun), and:

“provides that if five or more persons within any State or Territory shall conspire together to overthrow, Or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States; or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay, the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States, against the will, or contrary to the authority of the United States, or by force, or intimidation, or threat, to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office of trust, or place of confidence, under the United States, each and every person so offending shall be guilty of a high crime.”

The act was supported by Mr. Trumbull {7} when he provides a couple of examples in which this law, being far short of Treason, is to punish those who have committed specific acts against officers of the government.  In one example, he speaks of a case in Missouri where “a number of persons, by threats of violence and intimidation, prevented a postmaster from performing the duties of his office.”  He provides another, more general, example, of “route agents” were deterred from performing their duties.

In both instances, there was a “victim”, either the “postmaster” or a “route agent”, and there were specific acts that kept them from their duties. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?’ »

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 15, 2016

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

On May 6, 1987, David Johnson filed an internal memo {52-55} explain that he had received a call from Dwight Hammond, on April 27, and that Dwight said he was going to begin moving cattle the next morning, at 5:00 AM.. Johnson, because of 3 broken ribs, advised that he could monitor the trailing, but could not help. Dwight told him that if he was not going to help, he needn’t come. When Johnson and another employee arrived at 10:00 AM, the move had been completed and the Hammonds were on their way back to their ranch.

Johnson attempted to trace the route that the Hammonds had taken, and attached a map to show the route. His final statement in the Memo, “I did not see any significant resource damage as a result of this action.”

On January 18, 1988, Dwight Hammond sent a letter to De Bates {57-58}, which says, in part:

THE ONLY THING YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE IS WRITE LETTERS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROBLEM NO LONGER EXISTS, AND THAT THE PROBLEM IS BEING WORKED OUT. NOTHING PHYSICAL, (WHICH IS THE REAL PROBLEM) HAS CHANGED. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988’ »

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 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 6

Is There a Peaceful Solution?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 09, 2016

I have heard professed patriots, such as Melvin Lee (especially, beginning at the 19:27 mark), on behalf of Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), claiming that what was accomplished by Ammon Bundy and others was wrong, that there is a peaceful way to achieve what they were trying to achieve. When what Ammon did is compared with our own history, they argue that there was no Constitution then, but there is one now, and we must abide by it.

So, let’s set the record straight by starting with the Constitution. There was an English Constitution, however, it was a compilation of acts and court decisions, beginning with the Magna Carta, and insuring the “Rights of Englishmen”. It was the Crown’s refusal to recognize the rights of the colonists, as they were enjoyed in England that led to the Revolution.

Our Constitution is written in a single document, with amendments in addition to the original. However, the Supreme Court will not pass on the constitutionality of a matter before it “unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case”. In other words, only as a last resort. This was explained to the country in a 1936 Supreme Court decision, Ashwander v. T.V.A.

Lee also claims that there is a peaceful solution, suggesting demonstrating, petitioning politicians, etc. Well, those are fine words; however, they are nothing more than words. But, I don’t want you to take my word for it. I think that the best source would be a person, Representative Greg Walden, who had firsthand knowledge of the abuse by the administrative agencies, even though an act of the Congress was passed to set some rigid rules against such abuse. If our lawmakers pass a law and the agencies ignore, or circumvent, the law, perhaps you can explain to me just how a peaceful resolution can be achieved. Listen to the entirety of his Speech on the Floor of the House of Representatives (Published January 8, 2016 – 24 minutes).

So, what can we do to change things, peacefully? To get government back to being the servant rather than the master? I have read the OathKeepers post where they are trying to get Ammon and his people to leave. They suggest that a “lateral move” to another, friendly, county, would solve the problem. Well, it surely would have gotten them off the Refuge. And, we heard both the Sheriff and the FBI constantly touting that they were seeking a “peaceful resolution”, but, then, we have the aerial footage showing just how that turned out for LaVoy Finicum, Ryan Bundy, and the others who are currently facing 6 years of “peaceful” solitude.

Surely, had Ammon done so, they would have gone directly into the hands of the feds, or ended up being murdered, as happened to LaVoy Finicum on the 26th. So, words, whether from the feds, law enforcement, or professed patriots, mean nothing. Only actions speak loud enough to generate the attention, and the support of other freedom loving Americans. Consider, too, that we have passed the point of even thinking that words, unless backed up by the threat of defensive force, are worth any more than the words of those who are destroying our country, and those who seem to, under the guise of “patriotism”, support those deceptive words.

Burns Chronicles N^o 2
Ambush

LaVoy Finicum’s last ride
“I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
                                                                                    Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2016

The Death of LaVoy Finicum

Note: Times given are referenced to the aerial time stamps, minus eight hours. Quotations are based upon the best recollection of the witnesses.

I had lunch with Ammon Bundy while the Sharp family sang. It was the first time I had met Ammon, and we went over the articles I intended to write about the events that led up to the actions of January 2, 2016, with the investiture of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration complex, since renamed the Harney County Resource Center. The subjects for the articles were the misunderstanding of the people of Burns as to what source resulted in the fear and anxiety then extant in the town of Burns, and the information available in the “public” records contained in the filing cabinets at the refuge that might show the use of subterfuge in the obtaining of land to extend the federal “ownership”, not only in the Refuge, but throughout Harney County.

Ammon also indicated his pleasure for the upcoming meeting in the Grant County town of John Day, expecting to get additional support from Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer. As we discussed, it was to the backdrop of the Sharp family’s vary harmonious singing.

I then visited Ryan Payne, an old friend and fellow board member of the Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Advisory Board. Ryan, too, was looking forward to a productive meeting with the Grant County community, hoping to establish a Committee of Safety to become a voice from the disenfranchised people of that County, as they had in Harney County.

The meeting was to begin at 6:00 PM on January 26, 2016. The drive, which in that part of the country, is a rather fixed route. From the Refuge, you go west on Sodhouse Lane to State Road 208, then North into Burns where you pick up US 395 North, through Malheur National Forest, through Seneca, and finally to John Day. The trip is just over 130 miles and is, unquestionably, the only practical way between the two locations.

Vehicle #1, the lead vehicle, LaVoy’s white 4-door pickup truck, contained Robert “LaVoy” Finicum driving, Ryan Payne at shotgun, and, from driver’s side to passenger side in the back seat, Ryan Bundy, Victoria Sharp, and Shawna Cox. Vehicle #2 contained Mark McConnell, driving his brown 4-door Jeep, with Brian “Budda” Cavalier at shotgun and Ammon Bundy in the rear. This was the position of all of the people as they left the HCRC, and the position of each until they left their respective vehicles. Thus, they began their 33-mile drive to Burns, which resulted in an unexpected and tragic termination.

After leaving Burns, they traveled up US 395 about 15 miles north of the intersection with US 20. As they passed National Forest Road 2820 (NF 2820) on their right, they noticed a line of trucks and other vehicles stacked up to enter US 395. There were at least eight vehicles, rather odd for the middle of a forest. This was about 4:25 PM, and about an hour out from their destination.

Once those vehicles turned north, the same direction they were traveling, it dawned on them that this might just not be a coincidence. However, optimistically, they continued on their way.

Less than a minute later, Vehicle #2 pulled over in response to flashing lights and sirens. Those who pulled over Vehicle #2 identified themselves as FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) with a loudspeaker. They then instructed the driver to exit the vehicle and walk toward them, hands on his head. He approached them, he was instructed to lie on the ground, head away from them, and “low-crawl” back to them, where they disarmed him, cuffed him and patted him down. The same procedure was then addressed to the man in the back seat (Ammon), and finally to the man in the front seat (Budda), until all three were “secured”. All three acted without resisting, and fully compliant with the instructions given. They were then placed on the ground with their backs against one of the FBI vehicles, where they remained until after those from Vehicle #1 were finally returned to that area. Ammon’s hat and briefcase were still in the Jeep when it was recovered from impound, two days later

Vehicle #1, realizing that Vehicle #2 was no longer behind them, and not wanting to separate from and abandon their friends, slowed to a stop just beyond NF 31, about 3/4 mile from where the ambush began. They were followed by two FBI vehicles that stopped about 40 feet behind them. Ryan Payne then stuck his hands and head out of the passenger side window and a single shot was fired, striking the truck near the outside rear-view mirror.

The first shot having been fired, Ryan’s concern was for the women who were well within that line of fire. He exited the truck, hands held about shoulder level, and yelled, “There are women in here”. Seeing the number of guns pointed at him, when the command was given, “hands on your head. Walk toward us”, he complied. He was then searched, handcuffed, and taken back to where the three from Vehicle #2 were detained, a few hundred yards behind Vehicle #1.

After Ryan left the vehicle, LaVoy, seeing laser dots around him, and the observers in the back seat seeing a laser dot directly on LaVoy’s hat, he sticks his head and one hand out the window and yells, “Go ahead and shoot me.” He follows that with, “We are going to meet with the Sheriff [Palmer of Grant County]. We have a meeting with the Sheriff. You are going to have to shoot me. We are going to see the Sheriff. We are going to see the Sheriff.”

LaVoy then turned to the remaining occupants and said, “We are going to see the Sheriff. If you girls want to get out, then you can.” Victoria then replied, “I am not getting out.” She was terrified because Ryan had been shot at.

Shawna, a grandmother herself, was not going to leave a little girl by herself, opted to go with the flow. So, the three in the back seat slid down, knees against the back of the front seat, getting their heads as low as possible. In the forest, there was no cell phone service, so efforts to call out were futile. Shawna, however, had her phone video camera on and was filming these events, as they happened.

At 4:33:47 PM, LaVoy accelerates and the chase was on. Shawna then asked how far they would make it before the tires would be shot out. Receiving no answer, she asked, “How far is it to John Day?” LaVoy replied, “Fifty miles.”

Just over a mile up the road, at the end of a left sweeping curve, three vehicles block the roadway. The roadside has a snow bank about 2-3 feet high. After just about 1 minute of flight, hoping to get to Sheriff Palmer at John Day, their hopes decelerate as rapidly as LaVoy’s truck before it turns slightly to the left and plows through the snow. As an agent runs into the path of the truck, LaVoy swerves further to the left, probably to avoid injuring the agent. The truck comes to its final rest. Although past the vehicles blocking the road to John Day, the failed momentum of LaVoy’s efforts to reach sanctuary with Sheriff Palmer.

Unknown to those in the truck, and those back down the road, an effort was made to warn them of what was to come.

Victoria and Shawna were last minute passengers in Vehicle #1 because Victoria was late in preparing for the trip to John Day. Her family had left more than ten minutes ahead of LaVoy, in that they were scheduled to sing at the Community Meeting, the destination of all.

When the Sharp family passed the checkpoint at Seneca, they tried to contact those behind them, but cell reception was non-existent where these events were unfolding. Any chance to forewarn them of what they might expect was not able to be conveyed.

Within seconds, LaVoy is out of the truck, hands raised, and observing where the agents are, walks widely away from the truck and towards its rear to assure that if gunfire begins, that the truck and those inside of it are not in the line of fire.

[Note: A Witness has provided a correction — that the gunfire started even before LaVoy got out of the truck, that being the shots fired at LaVoy’s truck while he was still on the road driving toward the roadblock. opf ]

The rear seat occupants slowly rise, after LaVoy exits. They are still trying to stay low, but also to observe, as best they can, what is occurring outside of the vehicle. They see LaVoy, hands in the air, trying to negotiate deep snow and probably uneven ground, stumbling, occasionally, probably because he was wearing his narrow cowboy boots.

[Note: Ryan Bundy is recording, verbally, on his cell phone, what is transpiring. Shawna Cox is taking video of the events, as they go down. Neither phone nor camera have been returned to their owners. opf ]

LaVoy then, probably still attempting to remove the threat from those still in the vehicle, yells, “Shoot me, just go ahead and shoot me.” As he is being shot, he turns back towards his friends, still in the truck, as if in a final good-bye. Just 13 seconds after LaVoy left the truck, he falls to the ground, dead. However, his arm does move, slightly, after he lay on the ground, perhaps as a last gesture to those still inside, perhaps a reflexive reaction.

Note: Second person information from one of the witnesses, indicates that LaVoy was shot

[Note: The witness has provided a correction to the article – that the witness observed at least three shots that hit LaVoy, though there may have been ore. opf ]

There is no reason to believe that he was shot in the face, only in the body-mass.

Those inside are terrified; they see that LaVoy is shot, while unarmed. In reflection, if soldiers (or Marines) in Afghanistan, had acted as the agents and shot an unarmed man, without provocation, would have violated the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of war, and would have stood Court Martial, then probably imprisoned or discharged from service. Unfortunately, the ROE do not apply here, in our own “free” country.

At the same time that the gunfire was directed at LaVoy, by two agents clearly aiming at him, those inside of the truck begin seeing laser dots, perhaps thirty or forty at any given time, and Ryan Bundy is shot in the shoulder. Bullets begin to pierce the truck; windows break, impacted by bullets. All hell breaks loose as perhaps hundreds of bullets penetrate the vehicle or hit the snow, outside, sending clouds of snow into the air. All of the windows had been broken by gunfire, which was described as “coming from every direction”.

Ryan and Victoria had gotten on their knees, ducking as low as they could while Shawna remained in the previously described position. They began to wonder if the gunfire would ever stop, and that eventually they, too, would be killed by the agents.

Laser dots were appearing on knees, seats, all over, inside of the truck and they realized that other agents had come out from behind trees on the left side, and perhaps the right side of the road, firing randomly into the truck and surrounding area. Whether through the grace of God, or simply poor marksmanship, after nearly six minutes, those inside began yelling, “Stop, stop”. Then, gunfire, flash-bang grenades, and tear gas projectiles, ceased.

During this ordeal, Victoria, who had, just finished EMT school, said, “They shot him. I want to help him”, though she was restrained from doing so by Ryan and Shawna. At eighteen years of age, gentle Victoria had seen war come to her own country.

The right side of the truck had plowed snow, so the occupants were told to exit the left door, Ryan Bundy, being first, walks, with hands up, onto the paved roadway and is secured. Next comes Victoria, and finally, Shawna. With no female agents present, Shawna watched very closely as an agent simply ran his fingers around Victoria’s waistband of her pants.

The three were then detained, but allowed to lean against a van, in an effort to stay warm, as opposed to those from Vehicle #2, where they were forced to sit on the cold ground.

After a while, Shawna and Victoria were loaded in a van (not sure of the vehicle type) and driven back to pick up Payne, McConnell, Ammon and Budda. Ryan Bundy was transported by ambulance back to Burns.

They were detained at that location for what seemed like hours. Ryan Payne, after learning of LaVoy’s death, berated the forty, or so, agents, calling them murderers and that they had blood on their hands — something that those who took over the refuge had attempted to avoid, since January 2. However, those who had constantly expressed a desire for a “peaceful resolution” had, finally, drawn first blood in a contemptible act against American citizens, thereby proving the assertions made by Ammon Bundy throughout the course of the occupation of the refuge.

Victoria was extremely upset and constantly expressing her outrage over what the government had done. Mark McConnell, surely upset himself, took it out on Victoria, for her vocal expressions, until quieted by the others.

Somehow Ammon, when searched, managed to sneak his cell phone past the pat down, and as they drove towards Burns, the interior lights of the vehicle being left on, was able to call his wife, Lisa, and began telling her what had happened, including the first outside knowledge of LaVoy’s death. As they approached Burns, the interior lights were turned off, probably so that those on the street could not see who the occupants were. The glow from the phone face now showing brightly on Ammon’s face. They then stopped, pulled them out of the vehicle and found the cell phone.

Next stop was the hospital to check on Ryan Bundy, who still had a bullet in his shoulder, then on to a rest area west of Burns, where everybody was removed. About the same time, Ryan Bundy was also delivered to the rest area.

All were given their Miranda Rights, and it is unknown whether anybody answered any subsequent questions. They were then advised that they were being charged with “conspiracy to impede officers”. The document, the Criminal Complaint, must have been prepared after the arrests were made. A nefarious practice, and probably illegal even by the standards of justice that were intended by the “due process” concept of law. This is abundantly clear by the fact that “Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum” is not listed on the Complaint, for if it were prepared before the arrests were made, his name most surely would have been included, unless they had already intended to kill him. More logically, the Criminal Complaint, a requisite for this type of arrest, was prepared after the FBI Special Agent, Katherine Armstrong, signed the Complaint, and Stacie F. Beckerman, U. S. Magistrate, signed the document, purportedly in Portland, some 300 miles away by road. Certainly, not what we should expect from our government.

Finally, all were together, though, then, each was placed in a separate vehicle for transport to their final destinations. Two vehicles transported Mark McConnell and Victoria Sharp back to Burns, where they were released. The remainder went in the opposite direction, presumably directly to Multnomah County Jail.

As far as firearms, one witness said that LaVoy had a 9-mm in his shoulder holster, well under his armpit, and there is no indication that he reached high enough or deep enough under his jacket to even get his hand close to it. With the exception of Shawna and Victoria, all were probably armed, as was the practice. Ryan Bundy appears to have dropped his firearm into the snow as he exited the vehicle. Mark McConnell had his taken when he was “apprehended” at the first stop. LaVoy’s well recognized revolver was left beside the seat when he exited Vehicle #1 to draw fire away from the remaining occupants of that vehicle.