Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles #39
Informants – What to do About Them

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 6, 2016

Recently, I watched a video of an interview with Terri Linnell that was couched into an in-studio, live “exposé”, purporting to prove that what Linnell had said was an “obvious lie”.  This whole program was based primarily on my article, “Burns Chronicles N^o 32 – Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)“, and the host’s subsequent interview with Terri.

In the comment section of that video, I disputed a couple of items that were alleged to be truthful, one, in particular, dealing with the time element, and when people might have known when LaVoy had been murdered.  After all, this set everything into motion, this past January 26.

However, their estimate of when people outside could have known what had happened came out to 10:00 PM. Heck, I knew by 7:00 PM, and as I recall, it was one of my team members that had called me (in Burns) from another state to tell me what had happened.  Subsequently, one of the guests has admitted that they had no idea of what time the information would have gotten out — they were just guessing based upon when they found out about the murder.

I had intended to go back to YouTube and review/comment on the remainder of the 2 hour 25 minute video, since I had commented on perhaps only the first twenty minutes that I have watched.  Since I had been working on another article, I postponed that subsequent review.

Then I found myself tagged in a subsequent discussion on Facebook, I was invited to be interviewed because of my disagreement with the host.  I accepted, however.  I included the provision that my interview had to be done that day.  First, the video was damaging by its untruthfulness, and such lies should be outed in a timely manner.  Second, I didn’t want to wait the “3 or 4 days” for the host to conduct the interview.  I have better things to do than wait around for someone to try to figure what questions he needs to ask to try to cover his blatant misrepresentations.  Heck, the interview would have been about the video he had created, so if anyone needed to prepare, it would have been me.  However, he turned it back on me for not being willing to abide by his schedule.  So be it.  I have broad shoulders and take full responsibility for not doing the interview.

Now, why do I bring this up?  Well, since I posted the article, which I had agreed not to post until Terri testified in the Portland trial, many alleged patriots have attacked her, verbally.  Some understood and appreciate what she had done, but when she left the courtroom, she was stunned and could find no one who would talk with her, nor could she find a place to stay.  It was that treatment of Terri that caused me to put pen to paper, in hopes of providing another perspective on how we should treat informants.

So, let’s look at the three informants that testified during the trial.  First, we have Mark McConnell, though he still denies, or at least sidesteps, his role.  He was outed, intentionally, and quite surprisingly, by the government in their direct examination of an Oregon State Police officer.  It was later reconfirmed by the Court that he was, in fact, an informant.  Mark professes to be a patriot, and he probably is —along the lines of OathKeepers, where the Constitution is what they are told by their superiors, and is patriotism to the government, not to the country or the Constitution.  Mark is one informant that all true patriots should, at least, distance themselves from.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 39 – Informants – What to do About Them’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 38
If You Can’t Continue To Punish Those Who Are Not Guilty,
Then Punish Their Attorney

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 4, 2016

On October 27, 2016, in a Federal Court in Portland, Oregon, Not Guilty Verdicts were read by the Court and affirmed by the Jury.  Shortly thereafter, a rather interesting and unusual event occurred.

One of the ex-Defendants, Shawna Cox, described what happened when the Jury was excused:

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

As we stood for the Jury to leave the room, I watched in disbelief as the Judge told us to all sit down and remain seated while the US Marshalls removed Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and David Fry from the room.

We were still standing and Mr. Mumford raised both of his arms and leaning down into the microphone on the desk in front of him he said to the Judge:  “NO Your Honor.  These men are leaving this room with me, as FREE Men!  The Jury has just acquitted them and they are free to leave!”

Judge Brown responded, “The Marshalls are going to take them back to the jail.”

Mumford said:  “You Honor, the jury has just rendered the Not Guilty verdict, and you have no more jurisdiction, do you?”

Judge Brown responded, “Stop yelling at me Mr. Mumford, don’t ever yell at me again, ever.  And No, I don’t.  But the US Marshalls are going to retain them until they are returned to Nevada to stand trial there.”

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 38 – If You Can’t Continue To Punish Those Who Are Not Guilty, Then Punish Their Attorney’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 37
Intent v. Effect

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 30, 2016

There has been no substantial interview regarding the deliberations that resulted in 12 Not Guilty Verdicts, and One Verdict where the jury could not get consensus.  However, we do have a bit of information that is probably the most critical single piece with regard to understanding just what happened that led to those verdicts.

Juror #4, the juror that brought Judge Brown the indication of bias by Juror #11, has stated that the government failed to show that the occupiers had the intention to impede the government employees.  That the failure of the employees to report to the Refuge may have been an effect of the occupation.  Since the Jury Instructions required the government to prove “intent”, the jury had to find them Not Guilty, at least with regard to Counts One and Two.  In a written statement, Juror #4 said, “All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation.”  The difference between “effect” and “intent”, then, becomes the foundation for this article.

However, first, a bit of an explanation.  I seldom bring politics into any of my articles, however, to put this situation in a proper context, I think it is necessary to do so, now.  Whether what I am going to bring to your attention had anything to do with their verdict, or not, is yet to be known.  If it was not considered, then the irony of the comparison still should be of interest to all.

Addressing those matters that were brought to our attention, this past Friday, regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server and the possibility that criminal pedophiliac material may have gone through that server.  That material could possibly be emails from former Representative Anthony Weiner (New York (D)), through his wife, Muslimah Huma Abedin*, through Hillary’s rather suspicious email server, to an underage girl.

* Huma Abedin – Former deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and still a prominent figure in Hillary’s campaign for President.

If that were the case, then suspicion of such activity would warrant, as in all pedophile investigations, the seizure of phones, computers, photographs, records, and almost anything that might prove to be evidence of criminal activity.

At present, there is no public knowledge of the suggested connection, FBI Director James Brien “Jim” Comey, Jr., has advised Congress that the Clinton email scandal investigation has been reopened.  Rather ironically, this information comes out the day after the Verdict of Not Guilty in the Ammon Bundy trial.

However, this email scandal had its roots back on July 5, 2016, when Comey stated that, “[W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton, or her colleagues, intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information…” (video).  In his almost unprecedented statement, he recommended that the Justice Department not prosecute, because of the absence of intent.

However, it appears that the Jury in the Bundy trial had more sense than either Comey or Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the Oregon District.  Comey chose not to prosecute and Williams, probably based on the recommendation of Greg Bretzing, FBI SAIC, chose to prosecute.  All three ignored what even a blind man could see.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 36
Words from the Poor Losers

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2016

Quite often, while writing an article, my heart is heavy over the actions of government that is suppressing the rights that are our birthright, as posterity of the Founding Fathers.  However, as I sit at my keyboard, today, it is with a sense of pleasant surprise and extreme joy that so many felt, yesterday, when the verdict was announced in the Ammon Bundy, et al, trial.

The pleasant surprise comes because for the first time in over twenty years of watching Patriots stand trial for pretend crimes, the jury came back with a verdict that was not what the government wanted.

In a recent article, “The Bundy Affair – #16 – The Legal Shotgun“, I explained how there is a tendency for juries to find defendants guilty of something, especially when many charges, or counts, are a part of the prosecution.  This seems to be based upon the infallibility of government.  If they say that someone did something wrong, then we, the jury, must find them guilty of doing something wrong.

The jury found that though the government tried, desperately, to prove “intent”, they saw an “effect” in the matter of government employees failing to go to work during the occupation.  Interestingly, as explained in another article, “Burns Chronicles N^o 30 – Officer?   What Officer?“, the law that was cited in the Indictment applied only to “officers”, not “employees”.  So, the jury being denied that information, what the law really is, still found no cause of intent, on the part of the defendants, to have kept any employee from doing their duty.

Before we move on to extreme joy, we will lay a foundation for a better understanding of what led to the exultation.  And, it is mostly predicated upon the various government bureaucrats’ reaction to the verdict.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 36 – Words from the Poor Losers’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 35
From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 25, 2016

Having obtained a copy of the Jury Instructions, as given to the jury in the U. S. v. Ammon Bundy, et al, by Judge Anna Brown.  I had sought them, as I was curious as to whether the instructions, at least, conform to the laws.  In Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute, an example of what is referred to as “Pattern Jury Instructions”, and how the wording of the instructions is contrary to the wording of the Statute.  So, let’s delve into Anna Brown’s mental state and cognitive abilities in advising the jury on the “letter of the law”.  (A PDF format of the Jury Instructions.  References will be to {page} number.)

What is the Law?

Regarding the obligation of the jury, with regard to their deliberations, on {4}, she says:

“Upon your return to the jury room, it is your duty to weigh and to evaluate all of the evidence calmly and dispassionately and, in that process, to decide what the facts are.  To the facts as you find them, you must apply the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with the law or not, which is just as you promised to do in the Oath that you took at the beginning of the case.”

John Peter Zenger was tried in a New York court, in 1735.  He had violated the written law on sedition by an article he had printed.  Though in violation of the working of the law, the jury acquitted him, and in so doing, vacated the law.

Later, when the Constitution was written, the jury’s action in that trial provided an understanding that the People were the final arbiters of the laws enacted by Congress, as the colonists did with regard to Crown written laws.

Now, I do not intend to discuss FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), though I would suggest that you would find them a source for what was intended to be the role of a jury in our justice system.  I am going to provide an historical context as to what “jury” meant in the age of the Founders, and what one State did to assure that the original intent would be adhered to.

Maryland ratified their Constitution on November 11, 1776.  From that Documents Declaration of Rights, we find:

III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances

XVII. That every freeman, for any injury done him in his person or property, ought to have remedy, by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.

XIX. That, in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the indictment or charge in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; to be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses, for and against him, on oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.

Now, those are the only references to juries, and I will suggest that it was understood by everyone, in all of the colonies, that the jury could judge both facts and law.  To support this, we also find that the People are the ultimate authority under that Constitution.

I. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.

II. That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof.

But, I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it, so let’s look at their 1867 Constitution.  This was ratified after the chaos and turmoil created by the Civil War.  Apparently, concerns over the acceptance of the past understanding of both the jury process and the authority of the People, we find these changes in the new Constitution, ratified on September 18, 1867.  Again, from the Declaration of Rights:

Article 1.  That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

So, they have the right (not the Legislature) to alter or reform.  However, it does not say how that would be accomplished.

So, since the power resides with the People, they have provided, and reinstituted, a means by which those laws enacted by the legislature can be judged by the people.

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

For a final affirmation of what was intended, and readily understood, back in 1852, we have an “Essay on Trial by Jury“, by Lysander Spooner.  We find Spooner’s explanation of the right to judge the laws in Chapter I, Section I (page 4 of the PDF.):

“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”

He goes into a greater explanation, though I believe that this is sufficient for our purposes.  Unfortunately, today, the Rules being used by the Court allow the Judge to deny that which is in the Constitution, by the intent of the Founders, and clearly what was understood to be the right of the jury, without question.

However, as we see by the instructions, the Rules and the words of Judge Anna Brown obviously circumvent the intent of the Constitution.  And, isn’t that what this trial is about?

Later, on {4}, she says:

“Because you must base your verdicts only on the evidence and on the Court’s instructions, it remains essential that you not be exposed to any information about the case or to the issues it involves beyond what has been received here in open court in your presence and the presence of the parties.”

She reaffirms that her “instructions” must be obeyed, and, by the way, don’t think very hard.  I’ll do that for you”.

Government’s Use of Informants

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 35 – From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”’ »

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

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

James Madison, Federalist #62            

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

Gary Hunt, October 17, 2016               

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burns Chronicles N^o 34
“shall enjoy the right… to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

As I watch these events unfold, I often compare them to the Constitution, as it is written — so that any man could understand it. But, when I try to fit the puzzle pieces into that image of what our Founding Fathers envisioned for us, they just don’t seem to fit.

The had decades of experience of the British government, whether Parliament or the Ministers, slowly encroaching upon their historical rights. So, when it came time to leave the Articles of Confederation behind, and to form a new limited government under the Constitution, they reflected on those encroachments, and both within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, provided such limitations as they saw fit. Their purpose was to exclude any governmental authority that could subordinate those rights.

In this instance, the amendment that we should concern ourselves with is the Sixth. It reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused [not defendant] shall enjoy the right… to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.

Putting that aside for a moment, we need to consider a couple of phrases that are probably well recognized, with regard to legal proceedings. First is “preponderance of evidence“, which is most often associated with civil actions, where there is not a crime, rather, a determination of which side is most likely to be correct in their claims.

Next is “beyond a reasonable doubt“. Now, this is only applicable to criminal cases and requires that the jury is unanimous in their determination of the guilt of the accused party. However, this doesn’t mean that when a criminal trial has “facts” that are in question, that the preponderance method shouldn’t be applied.

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose Witness “A” says that the Accused did something, and then Witness “B” says that they did not. Both are supposed to be relying on their personal knowledge, though there is always the question of the interpretation of an observation. Now, with both “A” and “B” providing conflicting “facts”, which shall the jury accept as proof?  Suppose, however, that there were a number of other observers to those facts. Let’s say that we have Witnesses “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, & “G”. Wouldn’t their testimony provide the jury the means to more readily make a determination as to what appears to be the correct “fact”?

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 34 – “shall enjoy the right… to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”’ »

The Bundy Affair – #18
Sheriff Wehrly v. CCA and the feds?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

I was asked to forward the following document to Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly. The concern was that if it was sent out by an inmate in the Southern Nevada Detention Center (SNDC), a CCA (Customer base: U.S. Marshals Service – Facility Type: Medium, Owned since 2010) facility, that they would have no way of determining whether it was received by the Sheriff, or not.  It could simply end up in the trash bin, or on the desk of the US Marshal Service (USMS).

For the record, it went in the mail about the same time this article is being posted.

So, being the curious sort, I wanted to find more about the SNDC, a went searching for the contract between the CCA and the USMS, or whoever was the party on the government side. I was able to find the highly redacted Solicitation and Contract for the construction of the facility, with an initial price tag of $122,250,660.00. The solicitation also included construction, maintenance, control, prisoner requirements, and a number of change orders -which, obviously allowed them to exceed the $122 million price tag. However, any per bed cost was redacted, as were the other prisoner related expenses.

What is quite clear is that the federal government pays for 750 beds per day, whether occupied, or not. Any additional beds are paid for as long as they are used. Well, that means that until the 750 beds are full, the government is simply throwing away our money. However, being conscious of that, it may well be that they endeavor to keep as many of those beds filled, all of the time.

This, then, would mean that if they can declare someone a “flight risk” or a “danger to the community”, instead of allowing them out on bail, or a more realistic “pre-trial release”, they are not saving many, but they are making CCA earn our money.

However, in reviewing the information I had gleaned and from the letter (below) the is being sent to the Sheriff, other questions arose that I wish to lay before you, the People.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #18 – Sheriff Wehrly v. CCA and the feds?’ »

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 13, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burns Chronicles N^o 31
Public Lands – Part 3
The Queen Has Ruled – Off With Their Heads

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 29, 2016

In two previous articles, Shawna Cox brought the matter of Jurisdiction to the Court.  The first, explained in “Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, was filed in response to the government’s “Motion for Judicial Notice” (1229), providing proof of ownership of the land upon which the MNWR headquarters sit.  In that Motion, filed September 9, 2016, they cited no previous motion to which they were responding.

Shawna, based upon a chain of title that she had received, had no dispute with the ownership.  However, neither the government’s request for judicial notice and attached documentation nor the chain of title provided any indication that the land, which both parties agreed, had been in private hands before the government reacquired it, had been ceded back to them by Oregon.

Shawna then filed her “Response to and Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area” (1245).  In that Motion, she stipulated the government’s ownership and asked the Court to take Judicial Notice that the subject lands had not been ceded back to the federal government by Oregon.  The Motion was quite simple and simply stated that since no proof of ceding had been provided, the Judicial Notice was in order.

The government then filed its Response (1272) to a number of motions, including Shawna’s Motion.  Geoffrey A. Barrow, the attorney that signed the Response, apparently has a reading disorder.  Shawna never contested the government’s motion for judicial notice.  Instead, she stipulated that they did own the land.  However, he chose to read into her motion what he thought the Judge might like:

Cox opposes the government’s request (ECF No. 1229) and, in turn, moves for judicial notice consistent with the separately filed McIntosh Declaration (ECF No. 1252). McIntosh repeats the adverse possession theories that this Court has already rejected many times, although he reads the government’s Houghton Declaration (ECF No. 1230) as further support for his views. McIntosh’s theory is that the federal government simply could not have obtained lawful title to the MNWR absent permission from the state. His theories are contrary to the law that this Court has already recognized controls this issue, and his stated credentials (i.e., his stated directorship of two web-based, environmental-sounding organizations) reveal that he is an advocate who shares defendants’ misguided views. (One organization promises to give a “strong voice that will dominate and control state and federal bureaucrats”).
Cox’s counter-Motion for Judicial Notice should be denied.

Now, Shawna never mentioned “adverse possession” in her motion – she simply sought judicial notice that the land had not been ceded back to the government.  This is quite consistent with what the government had cited in their judicial notice, when they said:

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits this Court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.” The Advisory Committee Note to the rule explains that “adjudicative facts” are those that “relate to the parties, their activities, their properties, their businesses.” Courts routinely take judicial notice of recorded property records.

Now, the government has proffered no argument establishing that Oregon had ceded back jurisdiction to the federal government.  If it had been ceded back, then it would have, as required by the Statute of Frauds, been recorded in the public records.  There is no argument, except the false association with Ammon’s motion, which would be cause for the Court not to take “Judicial Notice”.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads’ »