Outpost of Freedom blog

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’ »

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 7, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 22
OathKeepers vs. Militia – Part III

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 22, 2016

Just over two years ago, I wrote two articles, Oathkeepers vs. Militia and Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II. Those articles were associated with the events that were happening at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada. I had no intention of writing a series regarding the subject, though more recent events, in and around Burns, Oregon, have compelled me to do so.

What we are discussing is to what level members of OathKeepers cooperated with government officials, both local and federal, in Burns, Oregon. Beyond simple cooperation, did they also provide misinformation to both sides to heighten anxiety — on both sides?

To better understand this concept we need to revisit a story I did back in 1994. Michael Hill, an Ohio Unorganized Militia Chaplin, was shot to death on a roadside while returning from a patriot meeting. Hill was alone in his car and was being followed by friends. A police officer pulled Hill over and Hill complied, pulling to the side of the road. The police car pulled over behind him, and the friends pulled over behind the police car. While the friends were still present, they heard gunshots and fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, two additional officers arrived. Based upon my research, one of these officers fired additional shots into Hill’s nearly dead body. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 22 – OathKeepers vs. Militia – Part III’ »

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

image © 2016 Militia News

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 16, 2016

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

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson      August 24, 1815.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burns Chronicles N^o 7
What is Brandon Curtiss?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 15, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Wolf Trap – No Justice Here

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 7, 2016

William Wolf was convicted of having an unregistered firearm, that firearm being a machine gun and a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length.

In a couple of previous articles (The Setup and The Entrapment) some of the circumstances surrounding Wolf’s being targeted and entrapped were addressed. However, those were written before his trial.

The Judge, in this case, was Susan P. Waters. She has been an instrument of “obstruction”, throughout. Apparently, she places herself, with the aid of the law, above justice.

During the trial, additional evidence of outright lies by the prosecutor’s witnesses have come to light, as explained in the following letter that Wolf has gotten out to us. The letter was transcribed from a written copy, and is exactly as written:

* * *

The trial of William Krisstofer Wolf has culminated in three facts; the paid informant and Gray’s testimony and the infringement on free speech and a fair and impartial trial.

On December 18, 2014, in a debriefing of a recorded meeting, in Four Corners, Montana, the paid informant, Ed Gray, made the statement. I wanted a “Russian fully automatic shotgun, specifically a Saiga.”

That recorded meeting, by the FBI agent Greg Rogers, as entered into evidence, has NO such statement. In 22 months of FBI recorded statements, I ONLY ever request a “Russian automatic shotgun.” That is not an illegal request. If it were the, model 1911 .45 ACP, the old Army .45, would be illegal because the letters ACP stand for automatic colt pistol, which is NOT a fully automatic pistol. It is still used and sold today with no permits.

However, in those 22 months of FBI recorded conversations and meetings, there is NEVER a mention of a “Russian fully automatic shotgun, specifically a Saiga.” Therefore, the statement made by Ed Gray in the debriefing on December 18, 2014, can ONLY result in one conclusion; Ed Gray and I had a unrecorded conversations; NO audio exists of me mentioning a “Sega fully automatic,” yet on audio and testimony, Rogers and Gray say I do.

This evidence is supported by telephonic records, I asked my defense team to subpoena, that would prove there were unrecorded conversations. However, Ed Gray, on the stand, under oath, testified that there were no unrecorded conversations or meetings. As Gray testified that on December 18, 2014, I told he AND Agent Greg Rogers, I wanted a Russian Saiga fully automatic shotgun. The recording prove that testimony in the statement on December 18, 2014 debriefing, to be a direct lie under oath. Unrecorded deals defining conversations violate the wiretap rules.

The prevailing reason for my conviction is based on the verifiable, undisputed, recorded, perjurious testimony and debriefing statement by Ed Gray, which is paramount to Derivative Entrapment. This renders Ed Gray’s testimony uncredible and inadmissible.

To cover for the uncredible testimony and debriefing of Ed Gray, the Department of Justice, repeatedly presented testimony and evidence to establish a proclivity toward my bad character. However, FBI documents and recordings CLEARLY show that I had NO proclivity or predisposition to commit a crime. As a matter of FBI documents and recorded fact, it clearly shows that the FBI, through various informants, intended to induce me to commit the crime of manufacturing and distributing grenades, rocket propellant, RPGs, and explosives, as well as helping an FBI informant to acquire a Glock P18 fully automatic pistol.

I responded, on an FBI recording, that there was no need for a fully automatic weapon. This recorded statement establishes two things; one, I know the difference between a fully automatic and an automatic. Secondly, it clearly establishes that I had NO proclivity or predisposition to purchase and/or commit an illegal act of owning a fully automatic.

This harmful error occurred with the repeated inclusion of testimony and evidence by the Department of Justice, ultimately the exposing the jury to evidence that was persuasive, but inadmissible that it SO aroused the emotions of the jury, that calm and logical reasoning was abandoned; creating a biased and prejudicial jury, thereby denying me a Constitutionally protected fair and impartial trial.

That immaterial, irrelevant, harmful evidence and testimony created under prejudice, which caused my defense team to spend 500 hours trying to review for my defense.

However, this harmful, immaterial, irrelevant testimony, attacking my freedom of speech, expression, assembly with like-minded people, freedom of the press, and my right to redress of grievances without interference, infringement, or restriction by the government or government intervention, is Protected by Article 1 of the Bill of Rights.

Yet the agencies of the federal government did exactly that, as testified to by FBI agent Matt Deurmeir’s 25 month investigation and subsequently the Department of Justice’s introduction of my political views on government corruption; specifically, abuse of power, judicial and political misconduct, items that are not illegal to own or the historical and potential current or future use or open discussion, namely a flamethrower, my very lawful and constitutional redress of grievances and my views and opinions of current and potential futuristic patriotic events.

These Protected rights are NOT derived from recent groups like the Black Panthers, chanting, “pigs in blankets, fry them, like bacon,” which is a direct reference to flamethrowers and their hypothetical use; or Black Lives Matter, who said, “if you don’t start holding yourself accountable more like this will happen,” in reference to the execution style murder of a sheriff; or Louis Farrakhan: calling for 10,000 young men to do what is necessary; or Rev. Al Sharpton leading a chant in Ferguson, Missouri of “what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now,” who then gets invited to the White House for dinner. These Protected rights are derived from the founding documents; I quote:

“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. A repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury… We have warned them from time to time of attempt by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us… That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such governments and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Black’s law is very clear on a Right where a corresponding Duty is invoked. All the exercise of my free speech, that the Department of Justice used against me to prejudice the jury, is derived from that founding document unanimously declared on July 4, 1776. It is the Declaration of Independence, and it is the bedrock of America. You may not like what I have to say, that is my Protected Right, and shall not be infringed.

The use of this inflammatory, irrelevant, and immaterial testimony, along with the fact that agent Greg Rogers, as recorded by the FBI, NEVER definitively expressed that the firearm was fully automatic and only inferred that a fully automatic was illegal; in fact he went to the extent of invoking that the firearm was legally converted, not inverted, by have registered, licensed and federally regulated Class III dealer, conclusively bases actions Entrapment by Estoppel, thereby resulting in an illegal arrest. That action resulted in a prejudicial and unimpartial jury.

The facts, as evident in the FBI documents along with many others my defense team could not bring forth due to the 500 plus hours spent trying to prepare a defense against irrelevant, immaterial, harmful, and ultimately prejudicial testimony, as well as the proven lies under the oath of Ed Gray, deprive me of a constitutionally protected right to a fair and impartial trial.

This obvious harmful error can and should be corrected by this court. This very instant in compliance with its oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, as affirmed in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling and not passed over, ultimately turning this into a manifested Constitutional error, to a higher court.

I unequivocally declare my innocence in this matter and continue to maintain I was entrapped and ultimately denied a fair and impartial trial amounting to a Political Persecution because of the exercise of my free speech as targeted by the FBI.

                                                            /s/ Wolf
2/1/2016

* * *

[Note: Transcribed by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom. PDF of handwritten document at Wolf’s Letter.]

Those wishing to write to Wolf can do so to the following address:

William Krisstofer Wolf
Booking # 20151722
Housing Unit NOR2-N207
Yellowstone County Detention Facility
3165 King Ave. East
Billings Montana 59101

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
Making Schuyler Barbeau Out as a Terrorist

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 15, 2016

A recent Facebook post rightfully posted the following email content with the caveat that they had not confirmed the email was actually from Schuyler Barbeau. However, as shown below in the screen capture, the email was mailed through “CorrLinks”. CorrLinks is a privately owned company that operates Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System, the email system used by the United State Federal Bureau of Prisons to allow inmates to communicate with the outside world. To use CorrLinks own description of their purpose,

“CorrLinks is a way for family and friends to communicate with their loved ones incarcerated in prison”. Established through a relationship between a corrections agency and Advanced Technologies Group, this system allows family and friends to subscribe to CorrLinks services.”

The next obvious question would be whether the email was generated by Schuyler Barbeau, as indicated, or fabricated by the government. Frankly, I doubt that the government would ever usurp the prerogative to do such a thing, as it would be illegal, and would, most likely, be found out during subsequent court proceedings. So, it is fair to assume that the email did come from Schuyler. However, to substantiate this, it has been confirmed by telephonic communication, as well.

So, let’s look at the content of the email (A PDF of the email, redacted, is here). Understand, however, the reference to the email received at the bottom is left in to further sport the legitimacy of the email The content was of a personal nature, except that portion which is discussed below. The text is unedited.

From: BARBEAU SCHUYLER PYATTE (46153086)
Sent Date: Monday, January 11, 2016 10:51 PM
To: teamrescueone[at]gmail.com

Subject: RE: P.S.

i have gotten one letter from mom but she didnt give any warnings to me. so they are hold my mail. the captain read me something similar from a letter from my friend Brooke. i know whats going on around here but im not supposed to talk about things. i have had discussions with the staff here about the sistuation and have been given a greenlight to send a message out to someone who can pass the word on. whoever it is that is making these plans needs to stand down. any attemps will only hurt my situation. im planning to take my case to the supreme court. i have new arguements to make to try to get the laws changed. everyone need to just wait to see what happens. they can peacfully protest and keep showing support, but i dont want violence on the staff here. they are not the enemy. pass this message on to someone down there so the word can be spread around until it reaches the right people. we’ve been working to show that im not a terrorist but if anyone breaks me out then the government would be able to show that i am, then they’ll use military to come after me. thats not what i want right now. im trying to show the judge that im not as bad a guy the the government is making me out to be. everyone just needs to hold off for now but continue to support. what i really need is for everyone to work on gaining support for making short barreled rifle and machine guns legal. i want the National Firearms Act repealed. i need appeal lawers that want to go to the supreme court to get involved. theres got to be someone out there. i have new arguements, but i need help.

—Aenk, Carrie on 1/11/2016 3:51 PM wrote:

The Subject, “RE: P.S.”, is because this is a reply to continuation, or addendum, to an email sent the previous evening. This email (redacted portion) was sent to Schuyler at 3:51 PM on Monday the 11th. Schuyler’s sent this email exactly seven hours later. Considering the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors, this would also support that Schuyler had written the email.

So, why did he write the email? The redacted portion did contain information that would suggest both his response and the willingness of the “custodial officers” (BOP and/or FBI) to not only let him respond, but, probably, encourage him to respond.

Schuyler points out that he had only received one email from his mother, Stacy Milam. Apparently, for reasons that will be explained later, that letter was never delivered. However, the “captain” read him a letter from “Brooke”, which appears to have had content suggesting there was an effort afoot to break him out of jail. Now, this would be a fool’s errand — to break someone out of a federal detention facility such as the one at SeaTac (shown above).

However, rumors did circulate, at a previous hearing, on December 14, 2015, suggesting such an action was being proposed. With that in mind, has Schuyler’s ordeal been compounded because of the expressions of some that they wanted to decide for Schuyler that he should not be in jail? The simple actions of those outside have given the government just cause to assume that he may be a domestic terrorist, regardless of the fact that Schuyler has done nothing to substantiate the designation.

As explained in the email, and which has been expressed by Schuyler, before his current ordeal, he does want to challenge the Short Barrel Rifle law, and the whole National Firearms Act, in court, as he says, all of the way “to the Supreme Court”.

It was bad enough that the rumors floated around, last month. However, subsequent events simply compounded Schuyler’s problem, and that is where this email brings that problem to light.

In the email, Schuyler tells us that the captain read another letter, “from my friend Brooke”. That friend has been confirmed as Brooke Agresta (Idaho III%), though it has not been confirmed that she sent a letter to Schuyler in jail, as was stated by Schuyler in the email.

What we do know is that Brooke encouraged Stacy to call Schuyler and tell him that there was rumor of an attempt to break him out. Stacy didn’t want to call him, and that is almost impossible in that only certain people can call in to most jails/prisons, so she settled on writing to him.

Note: Last evening, Brooke Agresta called me to try and discourage my posting this article, believing it was about her. She also confirmed that she did tell Stacy Milam to call Schuyler, as indicated, but denied sending him a letter.

Every phone call is monitored, and every letter and email is reviewed prior to being given to the prisoner, as are all communications out from the prisoner. Quite simply, this is primarily to ward of any plans for escape or to get contraband into the prison. The possibility that such a letter as Stacy sent to Schuyler being a coded message for an escape must surely have crossed the minds of those whose job it is to review the content of communications, hence the concern on the part of the captain. This would be of greater concern if, in fact, Brooke had also sent a letter. However, whether one or two letters went to Schuyler, the idea behind such a letter, talking about a possible break out, originated from Brooke Agresta.

Now, Brooke is the girlfriend of Brandon Curtiss. Brandon is a former law enforcement officer. As such, he should know what the consequences would be if such a letter, or letters, were sent to Schuyler. So, the questions remains, was there a motive for generating information that would surely bring additional scrutiny, and the possibility of labeling Schuyler a terrorist who was secretly planning his own escape from incarceration? Or, is it simply an unconscionably stupid mistake? After all, he is subject to the mercies of those who may want to make sure that he does not get back out on the streets.

Denouncing the Denigrators
The Seeping Wound in the Patriot Community

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2016

Recent events up near Burns, Oregon, have brought, once again, the Denigrators to the forefront. These are people who will begin digging, misrepresenting, and outright lying, about some of the key players in any event. Occasionally, a bit of truth is brought out, though often, it is intended to associate those who may have bad records with those who are otherwise; good, honest, men, doing what they believe to be a necessary course of action.

About that necessary course of action. Many people have been critical, not of the players, but of the activity of taking over federal buildings. They tend to judge those actions by their own standards, and expect others to abide by their moral compass.

However, if they are not players in a particular incident, what is their motive to object to the actions of others? Are they conditioned as “arm chair quarterbacks”, drinking beer and deciding why the coach’s call was a bad one? Well, there is nothing wrong with that, even if it is taken to the Internet. Surely, those who support the same team are most likely to agree, or, then, they might have a different opinion. The bottom line, however, is whether their team won, or lost.

The professed patriot, however, has different opposition, and it never changes, though the playing field might. The opposition is the government, and the playing field, in the current instance, is the Malheur Refuge, about thirty miles south of Burns, Oregon.

The handful of people that initiated this action have been accused of being government agents, provocateurs, scumbags, guilty of falsely representing the military service, and possibly even more evil deeds than Batman’s enemies. These assertions are submitted to the public with airs of absolute authority, though for what purpose? Well, we will get in to that, later.

At the end of the Bundy Affair, I wrote an article, “The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues“, discussing what was becoming quite apparent; the Internet was being used to subvert the efforts being exerted by hundreds to push the federal government back, and leave the Bundys to continue with their business, without government removing their longstanding use of federal property.

At the same time, I was adding an addendum to an article, “Vortex“, that I had written back in 2012. It dealt, primarily, with my experience and personal knowledge of events where the nefarious tactics of the police state we have been living in for decades were exposed. It explains the levels and types of agents, as well as the role and types of informants. In April 2014, I added an addendum to the article, supplementing it with more recent tactics of that police state, especially as applied to the Internet.

Now, with that in mind, we will discuss a recent Facebook article, which appears to be authored by Christian Yingling, late in the evening of January 4, two days after the Malheur Refuge buildings were seized. The first three paragraphs of the article set the stage:

Ok …Everybody… please gather around and listen to what I am about to say. Then either shut your mouth, or share this far and wide. If you have ANY faith in me as a leader you will heed what I am about to say. If not.. I want nothing to do with you. simple as that.

The key to victory in any battle is the ability to remain calm in any given situation. What we are seeing right now is a whole bunch of people acting based solely on raw emotion. This is very bad and I’m about to explain exactly why. I am not letting my emotions make my decisions for me, but instead, looking at this from a calm, level headed, common sense approach.

What you are all witnessing right now right now in Oregon has the makings of a full on false flag event. And I will prove that to you to the absolute best of my ability. Should you choose to look at this from a logical perspective you will see I am 100% correct. Some of what I will tell you is speculation based on my own experience and experiences of others I have talked to throughout this ordeal, but most of what I am going to tell you is documented verifiable fact.

The first paragraph says, agree with me, or shut up. I am your leader. Rather suggestive, and well within the realm of Physiological Operations (PysOps).

In the second, he suggests that the operation in taking the Wildlife Refuge building was based upon “raw emotions“. This, of course, is to denigrate those who carried out the mission. However, that mission was well planned, even to the point of having all attention focused, to the last minute, on the Fair Grounds, where everybody, even the government agents, expected Ammon Bundy to speak. This left no opportunity for the government to establish a roadblock to keep the team from getting to the Refuge. Those who were assigned to “tail” the key players, and they were well known to the FBI by this time, could only tail from the rear, so there was no obstruction in accessing the buildings. That did require “a calm, level headed, common sense approach“, though our “author”, tried to reverse these thoughts in the minds of the reader.

Next, he uses the battle cry of keyboard patriots, “false flag“, to garner attention, and then asserts that he is “logical” and “100% correct“. Finally, he says that what he is going to tell you is “documented verifiable fact“. Now, I must agree, in part, with that final assertion. It is documented. It is verifiable”, however, whether it is fact, or not, is the whole focus of this article. Documentation only requires the existence of a document, and in this case, there are hundreds. Perhaps thousands, of internet “documents”, that will support his claims. So, it is also verifiable, that we cannot dispute. The whole question hinges on whether it is factual. And, here lies the problem.

Let me digress. In a recent discussion in a patriotic forum, it was suggested, regarding Ryan Payne, that he should have defended himself against the allegations that he claimed to be a Ranger. However, when those claims came out, Ryan pretty much had his hands full at the Bundy Ranch. So, should he drop everything, ignore his obligations and responsibilities to address such allegations, just because they were brought up?

To answer that question, I can refer to my own experiences. Back in 1995, I was accused of being John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City Bombing. This all came from a single article by Bill Cooper. Now, should I drop my travelling, investigating, and writing, and redirect my efforts to addressing this, or should I continue on with my original purpose? Had I curtailed my efforts to get to the bottom of stories of interest to patriots to “defend” myself against this allegation, that very act imply, that defense was needed, and perhaps it was true? It was seventeen years later, when there were over 40,000 iterations (verifiable documentation) of that single story, that I finally said, “that’s enough”, and did a two-hour radio show to dispel the accusation. If you are interested in the background, and the proof of the falsehood of the accusation, the audio of that show can be found here.

As George Carlin advised us, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Among the many efforts to denigrate Payne, Yingling says, “Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial “leader” of the militias present at the Bundy ranch“. So, is that verifiable, and is it fact? Well, I have seen similar assertions, many times. So it is verifiable, at least that it was said. However, the “fact” (pesky little devils) is that his role at the Bundy ranch was far from what is suggested. Ryan was “Militia Liaison” to Cliven Bundy. And there is a very valid reason for such a designation. If Cliven Bundy had developed a direct relationship with the militia then the “law of agencies” would make the “principal”, Cliven Bundy, responsible and liable for the acts of any of his “agents”. That would provide legal fodder, should any accident result in injury or damage to property, and make accidents and injuries the responsibility of Cliven Bundy, which would be grounds for lawsuits, resulting in the loss of his ranch, everything he owned, and perhaps prison time. More so if the charges were brought by the federal government. The role of Militia Liaison breaks that legal responsibility and directs it to the individual that committed, whether an agent or an accident, injury to another or damage to property. So, he was not the “leader” of the militia, instead he was the liaison. So, he communicated between the two elements. As such, he had to endeavor to create an atmosphere that would provide for a cohesive effort. That effort was sustained from his arrival until the Unrustling, on April 12, and even beyond, where disputes were resolved, and attempts to subvert the efforts of the militia were a constant hindrance. Those who wish to “verify” this “fact” are welcome to contact Cliven Bundy.

So, let’s get back to another allegation made against Ryan Payne, that being that he “also claimed to be an Army Ranger, But when we had someone at the Ranger School check their records. They said NO Ryan Payne had EVER attended that school“. When this allegation was made, I contacted Ryan (I had been in regular communication with him during the entire Bundy Affair) and discussed it with him, agreeing to take the burden off of him. He arranged to have copies of two awards that he had received while in the Army, and I pursued seeking audio recordings of him saying that he was a “Ranger”. I spoke to many who said that they had heard him say it, and one of them is well known for recording conversations, yet none of them recording Ryan saying that he was a Ranger. However, I did run across two recordings where Ryan said that he had been in “a Ranger unit”. This information was published in an article, “Stealing Valor“, in May 2014. As the title suggests, it was not stolen valor, instead, it was an effort to steal Ryan’s valor away from him.

Next, let’s look at what was said about Jon Ritzheimer. Yingling, apparently, believes that he is a psychiatrist, or at least a psychologist, since he feels he is qualified to state that Jon “is exhibiting all the classic signs of PTSD”. Bravo, Christian, though I’m not sure what “classic” means, and almost all returning vets are diagnosed as having PTSD and given a prescription medications. Even the VA admits that they don’t try to treat it, but many thousands of veterans so diagnosed are productive members of their community. Jon, for example, after working for others, began his own business. His background is explained in “Jon Ritzheimer – When did Freedom of Speech Become Hate Speech?”

Yingling, in his paragraph on Jon Ritzheimer, says, “How could ANYONE in their right mind think that dying trying to fight the BLM of all things is going to ‘change the govt’?” I’m not quite sure why it was included there, but it is worthy of note. What will change the government? I know it is rhetorical, but it is also realistic. Has voting worked? How about demonstrations, petitions, letters, calls to congresscritters? I think it might be appropriate, here, to quote a portion of Patrick Henry’s famous speech of March 23, 1775:

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those war like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation – the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which now coming on. We have petitioned – we have remonstrated – we have supplicated – we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! (emphasis mine)

So, how does Yingling suggest that we “change the govt“? To point out problems is easy enough, and it is easy enough, too, to find support on the Internet to prove the existence of the problem. The problem is that it is solutions that are necessary. After all, we have multitudes, perhaps nearly enumerable, amounts of problems. It is those who seek a solution that we should revere, not condemn.

Now, Yingling has tried to trash others, and I’m sure that he has found “verifiable sources”, though, perhaps, only partially, or even void of facts. However, I have chosen both Ryan and Jon to demonstrate Yingling’s fallacy, as I already have the facts on those subjects. Those facts were developed from diligent research, not of what others have, verifiably, written, but to the source, for the purpose of writing articles. Though there may be 40,000 statements to some subject, there is only one fact. It is the quality of the information, not the quantity that matters.

Such unsubstantiated rantings, as we have discussed, can only serve to harm the patriot community. At this time when we need unity, we find division. Perhaps it is time to consider whether we really want to “change the govt“, or just play like we do.

For the record, in my twenty-three years of writing for the patriot community, I have only publically accused two people of being contrary to the interest of the community. The first was Linda Thompson, back in the 90s and the era of fax networking, not the Internet. The second was Christopher Blystone. Both have substantiated facts, both verifiable and documented by other than the perpetuation of destructive rumors.

Finally, we must look at what motivates one to do such as Yingling has done. First, let me state that I am not accusing Yingling of having any specific motivation behind what he wrote, rather it is what he wrote that I am addressing. I fully understand that often sincere purpose can lead to erroneous conclusions. It is the purpose of this article to explain the nature of the consequence of the propagation of erroneous, or invalid, information, based upon both substantiated and unsubstantiated “facts”, and more importantly, the tendency to create “facts” based upon theory rather than base theory upon facts.

The two most likely motivations are, first, the desire to appear to have inside knowledge, what I refer to in the Vortex article, as the “guess what I know” mentality, or as a friend describes it, “useful idiots”.

The second, and far more sinister, is the one that often feeds “facts” to the above described individuals. Once fed, the “information” is composed into the subsequent misinformation (that is so destructive to our community), and is perpetuated, ad infinitum, and quite often sensationalized in the process. As explained in “Vortex”, the person that first plants these destructive seeds into the community is the “Vortex”, and he plants them with a specific intention, that of disruption, conflict, division, and, hopefully, in their efforts, to created a dysfunctional community out of one that must rely upon cohesiveness. It is a community wherein, if one disagrees with the actions of another, though those actions are directed at achieving the common goal, as the events on Burns surely are, then he should not go public with malicious attacks, as they only serve the government. For, to do so does far more harm than simply keeping your mouth shut.

I believe this has been amply demonstrated by the events in Oregon, as we see organizations that were critical of, but not outspoken against, the operation, now coming together in order to protect those at the Refuge from harm by the federal government. As the old saying goes, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!” Do not be an obstruction to the efforts of others, as they are pursuing the same goal, as are all of those who really are patriotic, and believe in their country, not the government.

Maryland Resolves, December 12, 1774
As our opposition to the settled plan of the British administration to enslave America will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of men in this province, we do most earnestly recommend that all former differences about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion; and we entreat, we conjure every man by his duty to God, his country, and his posterity, cordially to unite in defense of our common rights and liberties.