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 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’ »

The Bundy Affair – #16
The Legal Shotgun

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 28, 2016

In a related article, “Burns Chronicles N^o 30 – Officer? What Officer?“, I addressed a common element to the Indictments from Oregon and Nevada.  You may also want to refer back to that article to see how the federal government has, over the years, expanded its authority (jurisdiction) well beyond what the Constitution granted to that government.  The article covered the extent of the Oregon Indictment, but only the common charge of violation of 18 US Code § 372.  The Nevada Indictment goes a bit further.  It charges the accused with violation of 18 US Code § 371 and endeavors to provide some substance to the charge, which was not done in Oregon.

We will start with the charge of violation of 18 US Code § 371, which reads, in the Indictment:

COUNT ONE

Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)

Paragraphs 1 through 153 are incorporated herein in full…

So, what does US Code § 371 say?

18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It is interesting that this really overlaps 18 US Code § 372, the statute addressed in the previous article in that it says, “to commit any offense against the United States”.  Now, § 372 is an offense against the United States, so why is there a charge that is already incorporated in another charge?

My guess is that it is what I refer to as a “legal shotgun”.  In the Branch Davidian trial, Sarah Bain explained there were so many charges against the Davidians that the jury felt they had to find the Davidians guilty of something.  So they took the charge with the lowest punishment, and found them guilty of that Count.  So, if you throw enough peanut butter at a wall, some of it will stick.  Not a very good concept of justice, but the government knows how human nature works.  You could call it a “chicanery conviction”.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #16 * The Legal Shotgun’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 28
Public Trial
Mistrial? What stinking Mistrial?

Judge Anna Brown

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 19, 2016

A rather interesting what, and from a lay standpoint unjust, occurrence, happened both in the paper chase (at this point, nearly 1300 docket entries) and in the courtroom. It had to do with the testimony of the government’s first witness, Harney County Sheriff David Ward. It was a Motion for Mistrial.

An interesting note on the Motion is that we obtained a copy shortly before it was “SEALED”. This led to the admonishment that is addressed below.

It all began on the 2nd day of the trial (Wednesday, September 14), during cross-examination by Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Marcus R. Mumford is questioning Sheriff Ward.  Here are excerpts from the Motion, taken from the rough-draft transcripts:

Q.  And you had conducted some investigation, into Bunkerville?

A.  I had.

Q.  And did that investigation come – that was in the process of those meetings that you had with the U.S. attorney, and the FBI?

A.  I had – I had gone on to the Internet and googled it, it’s amazing what you can find on there.

I found videos from the things that happened at Bunkerville. I – I looked at a lot of different – lot of different things that happened, throughout that incident. And the thought that have happening in my community scared the hell out of me, where I saw armed people lined up on both sides, advancing, you know, with – with one side advancing against another.

I had learned some of unstable people who had left that situation, and killed two police officers, while they were eating lunch in a restaurant.

I think that there are – there are a lot of circumstances I was attempting to avoid in my community, sir.

Then, Mumford asked that some of Ward’s testimony be stricken:

MUMFORD: Your Honor, I would move to strike that.

THE COURT: Move to strike what, sir?

MUMFORD: The nonresponsive part of the –

THE COURT: I don’t know what you identify as nonresponsive.

The answer seemed responsive to your question, so be specific.

MUMFORD: Okay. Well – I think it was a yes-or-no question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there another objection?

Mumford, failing to make any progress, is simply abandoned by Judge Brown. However, Ryan Bundy, acting pro se (representing himself), jumps in, once the Judge recognizes that he, too, has an objection.

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: Yes, my objection, your Honor, hearsay, there, it alludes to events that were not necessarily related to – to the situation.

THE COURT: The court reporter is not hearing you, Mr. Bundy, because of your microphone not being on.

Would you –

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: The mic is on.

THE COURT: Let’s try again. The court reporter wasn’t hearing, would you please restate your objection?

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: Yes, hearsay.

He’s tying in persons that were not involved it (pause, conferring.)

Prejudicial, I change that to prejudicial.

About the folks supposedly killing people that were not associated with us.

THE COURT: Jurors, I’m going to ask you to disregard the witness’s references to events that occurred in Nevada that had to do with the police officers being killed, and whether they were or weren’t associated with Bunkerville.

The answer generally was responsive, in that it reflected the witness’s state of mind, but you’re not to consider that particular part of his answer in any part of your consideration of this evidence.

Now, the transcript is a “rough-draft transcript”, and we are told that there was an Order made by the Judge, referencing “Court’s Sealed Order 1141”. Then, she goes on to admonish Mumford for using quotes from the “rough-draft transcript” in his Motion.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 28 – Public Trial – Mistrial? – What stinking Mistrial?’ »

The Bundy Affair #15
Free Speech and Assembly v. Conspiracy

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 24, 2016

The Preamble to the Constitution begins with “We the People”.  The reason for such an introduction is perhaps a bit more intricate than most understand it to be.  There are two reasons for this introduction.  The first being that the Articles of Confederation and the government created by it, were created by the states.  It was a “perpetual union“, and could not dissolve itself.  However, going to the ultimate source, the People, they had every right to reject that government for one created by themselves.  The right is clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, to wit:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The People’s authority then is embodied in the document that had, just a decade earlier, justified separation from British rule.  It was called into play, once again, since strife and turmoil were beginning to undermine the relationship between the states under the Articles of Confederation — a government created simply to unify the fight for Independence.

The second reason is based upon who was to approve the Constitution.  Most of the states had created new governments, via their respective constitutions.  However, the constitutions, in most states, were created and approved by the legislative body.  Each had an amendment provision, though that provision allowed the successive legislatures to change the constitution through legislative enactment.  This meant that the constitutions were an ineffective safeguard against usurpation.  By the time of the Philadelphia Convention, most states had resorted back to the people for both ratification and amendment to their constitutions.  This concept had permeated the legislative bodies, including that Convention — and the authority of the People, though through conventions, the sole source of authority.  The government could not remove the constraints placed upon it by the Constitution.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #15 – Free Speech and Assembly v. Conspiracy’ »

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’ »

Montana Malfeasance
Jesse Newsom Sentenced and in Prison

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom
July 19, 2016

I had not heard from Jesse Newsom since our phone conversation, shortly before his arrest, back on July 10, 2015. However, to keep informed, I am on the FBI mail list, and received an FBI Press Email on July 25, 2015, with the following notice:

JESSE WADE NEWSOM, a 28-year-old resident of Cascade, appeared on charges of felon in possession of a firearm. If convicted of the charge contained in the indictment, NEWSOM faces 10 years in prison, $250,000 in fines and three years’ supervised release. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Since that time, none of the contacts I had that knew or were in touch with Jesse had any idea what had happened to him.

I had been checking PACER to see if I could follow the story, when I found the following minute entry:

07/31/2015 – Terminate Deadlines and Hearings as to Jesse Wade Newsom: Discovery ddl 7/30/15. (SLR, ) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

Then, all was silent until I receive a letter from an inmate in FCI Littleton saying that Jesse had read the article that I had written about him, and that he liked it. This lead to establishing communications with Jesse, both via email (CORRLINKS) and letter. Continue reading ‘Montana Malfeasance – Jesse Newsom Sentenced and in Prison’ »

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’ »