Independence Day 2016

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, in the year of our Lord, 2016, and of Our Independence, 241

“But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.”

Thus wrote John Adams, to his wife Abigail, on July 3, 1776. The Independence from Britain had been approved the day before he wrote to Abigail, yet the final wording of the Declaration of Independence wasn’t completed and its final form wasn’t approved until July 4, 1776.  John Hancock did sign the document on July 4, though it was many months later when the final signatures were affixed thereto.

Now, 240 years after those men were willing to “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”, most have lost sight of what their intentions were, what was created from their fortitude, and what so many have died in the cause of, until recently.

Six years ago, I set out to identify what that Declaration would look like, today, should we, once again, cast off the yoke of despotism. I did not refer to it as a declaration of independence, rather, as a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, since we still have a Constitution, and there is no government that we want independence from — only a return to the limitations imposed upon that government by the Constitution that created it.

The grievances that were set forth in that document were as follows: Continue reading ‘Independence Day 2016’ »

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 21
The Public’s Right to Know

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 16, 2016

We all know that when there is an alleged violation of one’s rights, the freedom of the accused, while somewhat curtailed, is usually respected, and this is known as part of due process. Absent due process, judicial behavior often falls into arbitrary decision-making, biased juries, and the rail-roading of political undesirables, straight into prison. Lack of judicial transparency is usually a clear sign that whatever vestiges of a republican form of government may still be there is waning, and quickly; should the public’s right to know not be reinvigorated, then posterity will likely never know true freedom.

A Person accused of a crime, according to the Sixth Amendment, has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him“, and, “to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor“.

The government, of course, has the right to search with a warrant, and the subpoena power to compel witnesses. Clearly, they have a right to know.

The accused has the power of the subpoena, to compel witnesses on his behalf. He also has a right to discovery, to see what the plaintiff has, in the form of proof, and to introduce evidence on his behalf.

Historically, trials were public. Often crime scenes were photographed by news reporters/cameramen, often with victims still in place. Reporters were given all but the most critical investigative results, and all of this was to assure the public that there really was a crime in their community. Witnesses told what they saw, to investigators (public and private), other people, and the press. Those charged and arrested were able to talk to anybody and often did press interviews from jail. If they were released from custody, they could speak as freely as any other person. Thus, the public was always aware of the accused’s explanation of events.

When the matter went to trial the courtroom was open, so long as the observers behaved, and the press had every opportunity to report on all aspects of the case, including evidence and testimony. For the most part, all of the facts were laid out to the public, by one means or another, even before the trial began.

When the trial was over, regardless of the outcome, the community was fully aware of what had occurred, what the government did to bring justice, and whether the person that had been accused was vindicated of the charges, or convicted.

So, let’s look at what a trial really is. The first element is comprised of the facts of the matter. This includes evidence, recordings, writings, photographs, and the testimony of witnesses. However, that is just the beginning. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 21 – The Public’s Right to Know’ »

The Bundy Affair – #11

“Violence Begets Non-Violence”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2016

It was on April 12, 2014, when mostly unarmed supporters gathered at the Toequap (Toquop) Wash, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, between Exits 112 and 120 on Interstate Highway 15, stood down the federal government with regard to cattle been “impounded”, readied for transport, or killed.  However, since the government has brought the matter up, again, we may want to revisit some of the incidents and circumstances that led to the Unrustling of cattle by these supporters of the original American Way of Life.

It was April 6, 2014, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, when Dave Bundy had stopped to take pictures of the 20, or so, vehicles coming off a road from Gold Butte Mountain.  It was rather odd to see so many vehicles in that location, so Dave had decided to record the event.

Other Bundy relatives were present and reported seeing four snipers, one of them about 30 feet away from Arden Bundy.

The men in the vehicle convoy stopped, exited, donned tactical gear (pictured above) and told those present to “disperse immediately”.  The other Bundys began to disperse, or remained in the vehicles to watch what was transpiring, however, Dave continued taking pictures.  Understand that Dave, and the others, were on a public road, simply wondering about, and recording, what was going on.

1. As Dave continued, some armed men approached Dave, grabbing him and throwing him to the ground, then rubbed his face in the gravel as they handcuffed him.  He was then placed in one of the vehicles and they headed toward Henderson, Nevada.  One of the government players, Lisa Wilson (Load/Hold Team, one of the Rustler’s teams, (775) 229-2722, see Government Agents at the Bundy Ranch) began to question/ interrogate Dave, who refused to provide any meaningful answers, as he had done nothing more than take pictures from a public road.

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #11 – “Violence Begets Non-Violence”’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act II – Decade of the Nineties
Scene 5 – June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 25, 2016

This series is not about the two fires and subsequent conviction of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  It is about the abuse, by government agencies, in the two decades prior to the first fire.

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

During the course of the constantly revised Opinion (final version, below), on June 30, 1997, Barbara Scott-Brier, Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region, Department of the Interior, who had been working on the Draft (see Feb 28 & May 22) sends a letter to Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management {215-216}, requesting information relative said Draft. The request is for: Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 5 – June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act II – Decade of the Nineties
Scene 4 – May 22, 1997

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 21, 2016

This series is not about the two fires and subsequent conviction of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  It is about the abuse, by government agencies, in the two decades prior to the first fire.

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

On May 22, 1997, Bob Hiller, author of the draft opinion dated February 27, faxes a revised draft {163-171}. The revised draft is as follows: Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 4 – May 22, 1997’ »

The Bundy Affair #10
Again?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 18, 2016

My last article in “The Bundy Affair” was published on October 31, 2014.  That article was “The Revenge of the BLM“, when the Bureau of Land Management tried to promulgate new rules, in favor of critters and against the People of this country.  Their effort failed, and, well, I thought that was the end of the story.

Unfortunately, the government, like a spoiled child, does not like to lose, even when they are wrong.  It appears that we have returned to that age when the King can do no wrong, and when the people do stand up to them, forcing them into compliance with the Constitution and the limitations imposed on them by that document, their vindictiveness does not abate. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #10 – Again?’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act II – Decade of the Nineties
Scene 3 – February 28, 1997 – May 21, 1997

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 14, 2016

This series is not about the two fires and subsequent conviction of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  It is about the abuse, by government agencies, in the two decades prior to the first fire.

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

So, now that R. S. 2477 has been brought to their attention, FWS Portland has to deal with this significant disruption to their plans. On February 28, 1997, a cover sheet and draft opinion {97-102} directed to Forrest Cameron at Malheur. The draft was prepared by “Chief, Division of Realty”, in Portland. It has notations, apparently made by those at Malheur.  I think that the entire “draft opinion” is worthy of our attention.

Memorandum

To: Refuge Manager, Malheur NWR

Through: Refuge Supervisor, OR/WA/ID

From: Chief, Division of Realty

Subject: Malheur NWR Realty Opinion No.  2  Hammond Ranch Stock Driveway: A Revised Statute (RS.) 2477 Claim ? Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 3 – February 28, 1997 – May 21, 1997’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act II – Decade of the Nineties
Scene 1 – February 18, 1994 – June 9, 1994

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 8, 2016

This series is not about the two fires and subsequent conviction of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  It is about the abuse, by government agencies, in the two decades prior to the first fire.

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

Six years prior was the last record in the eighties.  The first correspondence in the Nineties, dated February 18, 1994, refers to a letter dated June 1, 1993 {2}, from Forrest W, Cameron, Refuge Manager.  However, the records obtained have no copy of the June 1 letter.  The February letter suggests that the June letter had responded to a violation of the conditions of a Special Use Permit, and the because of that violation, that no Special Use Permit would be issued for the 1994-95 grazing season.

This letter is to notify you of my intent to not reissue a Special Use Permit to you for haying and grazing privileges on Malheur Refuge. This decision will be effective beginning with the 1994-95 haying and grazing season.

My proposal to make this decision is based upon a pattern of lack of compliance with refuge regulations over several years, and more recently the trespass of several hundred head of your cattle and your total disregard for the integrity of the new boundary fence in the Webb-Knox Spring area of Malheur Refuge. After a formal warning to you in my letter of June 1, 1993, stating that further violation of any refuge regulations could jeopardize your refuge permit, you have violated those regulations again. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 1 – Feb. 18, 1994 – June 9, 1994’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 18
1984

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 4, 2016

Count 5 of the Superseding Indictment reads:

(Theft of Government Property)

(18 U.S.C. § 641)

On or about January 15, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants JON RITZHEIMER and RYAN BUNDY, willfully and knowingly, did steal, purloin, and convert to their use and the use of another cameras and related equipment, the value of which exceeded $1000, which is property of the United States government, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641.

The Statute cited is:

18 U.S.C. § 641: Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted –

It is important to understand what the government has charged Jon Ritzheimer and Ryan Bundy with.  It may be clear from the Statute that the requisite for it to be a crime is “to convert it to his use or gain.”  So, to be sure that we are looking in the right direction, here are a few definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Steal.  The term is commonly used in indictments for larceny (“take, steal, and carry away”), and denotes the commission of theft, that is, the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, and without leave or consent of owner, and with the intent to keep or make use wrongfully.

Stolen.  Acquired or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act of taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership (or possession) permanently.

Theft.  A popular name for larceny.  The taking of property without owner’s consent.  The fraudulent taking of personal properly belonging to another, from his possession, for from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person talking it.

Larceny.  A rather lengthy description, with the significant element being “felonious intent“.

So the taking of the property must be for keeping, depriving the owner of the benefit of ownership, and must be felonious in intent. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 18 – 1984’ »