Outpost of Freedom blog

Liberty or Laws?

Who Are the Enemy?

The Government?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 8, 2016

But when long trains 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 government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776

This revised version of Sons of Liberty #14, first published on August 22, 1995, is focused on two of the forms of dissolution of government that John Locke wrote of in his Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 19. Those forms, the second and third, are the ones that are quite demonstrable in the current presidential election, and are the most subversive form of dissolution.

Governments can be dissolved by a number of means. What used to be the most common was forceful encroachment by a conquering army. The effect was dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of the society, for every nation is composed of both government and society. Generally, under these circumstances, society was disrupted and scattered to the winds. This form of dissolution has not existed for quite some time.

Another is when an enemy dissolves government, and replaces that government with a government of their own choosing. The result, in this instance, is dissolution of government by non-violent means, and subsequent dissolution of the society, which is replaced, through a slow transitional process, by a society unlike the one that was the source of the original government.

We must not assume, in this circumstance, that the dissolution of government will, necessarily, take a forceful effort. The likelihood, in modern times, is that the dissolution of government, and subsequent dissolution of society will go unnoticed until history is revised and the transition is lost from existence, without a notice of its demise. Unless, of course, the efforts to dissolve the government and society is recognized in sufficient time to cast out the encroachers and restore both the society and the government.

If the form of government within a nation has any form of representative capacity, the means by which dissolution may occur will take one of three forms. First, the executive may begin to arbitrarily impose his will on the elected representatives and the people. Slowly the rule of law deviates from its original intent, and the dissolution process slowly occurs.

Second, by delivery of the people to the influence of a foreign power. Eventually, the legislative body finds themselves subjected to a set of rules not of their making, but to which they must adhere. Again, results in the demise of the government, as was originally intended, and the society as it becomes subject to that foreign power.

Third, when the trust bestowed upon the Legislature is betrayed, by whatever means, these same results of dissolution will occur. That trust, generally in the form of a constitution, forms a set of rules by which the government is empowered with the belief that it will abide by such contract. Faith is necessary because there is a need to pass power to government so that it can conduct its business. When that power is directed in violation of the trust, ultimately it will be used to dissolve the society. The question here is, is the government dissolved as well?

Governments, by the nature of its legislative authority, are created by, and subject to, the will of the people. They are creatures of the will of the people, and their purpose for existence is only to administer the rights of the people, to the extent delegated, for the preservation of property and the protection of the rights of the people.

There is no other purpose for government whose authority is of the people,
than the preservation and protection of the People’s rights and property.

. Continue reading ‘Liberty or Laws – Who Are the Enemy? – The Government?’ »

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 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’ »

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 32
Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 12, 2016

{October 6, 2015}

On Friday, September 30, 2016, I received a phone call from someone I had spoken with before.  This call, however, brought to light the extent of the government’s efforts, often misguided, to do what the country used only to do to foreign nations and enemies.  Now, it has become a modern practice of government to pay people to infiltrate and inform.  It works even better when infiltration is not necessary, as that person is already considered a member of the community that is the target of the spying.  Now, that is a rather harsh word, but the tactics of government can be considered nothing less than any other form of spying, throughout the ages.

Nowadays, they have access to almost all electronic media, where the can grab phone conversations, emails, Facebook pages, and any other internet communications.  They have parabolic microphones that can listen to conversations from over 100 yards away.  They have bugs, electronic listening devices that require no wiring and have a battery life of days, weeks, or even months.

They still, however, want someone who can testify, when necessary, and gather information that is not random, as with other methods, but can be directed, by asking questions.  And, this is about one of those human resources, aka “CI” or confidential informant.

That phone call and some email correspondence eventually resulted in a  quasi-affidavit as to the role that this person played in the recent events of Burns, Oregon.

Now, don’t jump to conclusions.  It is rather ironic that the government subsidized a patriot’s trip to Burns to cook for the very people that were to be spied upon.  All expenses were paid, and at the conclusion; a cash windfall was also provided.

But, let’s hear the story from the other party in that phone call.  This is her story:

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 32 – Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 24
To Plea, or, Not To Plea

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 16, 2016

As some of those staunch defenders of our rights, in both Burns, Oregon, and Bunkerville, Nevada, decide to make a plea agreement with the prosecutors, the Internet has both armchair quarterbacks damning them and sympathetic supporters who will stand by their decision.  However, perhaps it is necessary to look a little deeper into who those people, at both the Ranch and Refuge are, and to consider their respective objectives.

We can categorize those who participated in both events by comparing them to those who stood up against the British, 240 years ago.  In so doing, there are three general categories, so that we can consider them in a contemporary context.

The first category is, for want of a better term, the politicos.  Historically, these would be those who served on local and Provincial Committees of Safety and, those who went to Philadelphia and served in the Continental Congress.  There may be others, such as newspaper editors and others who were outspoken against the British, so that we can lump them into this category, as well.

Now, in the past two years, we have, likewise, the politicos, those whose involvement is to challenge the government concerning both rights and that which should be right.  Their objective is educational as well as political, desiring to provide understanding to other citizens as well as to attempt to get the government to stay within its limits and to remain obedient to the Constitution.

The second category is those with military inclinations.  For the most part, they had prior military and leadership experience in the French and Indian wars.  Their purpose was to use military force to protect the rights of Englishmen and defend against forces thrown against them.

In the contemporary context, it would include those with military and leadership experience who have taken the task of protecting those politicos against attempts at violent suppression of their right to seek redress of grievances and to speak freely on subjects of concern to others.

These first two categories can easily be equated to the First Amendment, for the politicos, and the Second Amendment for those with military inclinations. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 24 – To Plea, or, Not To Plea’ »

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 11, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 10, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the same Declaration of Rights, we also find:

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 3, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINISH

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

REFERENCE

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

THE SERIES

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