Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 27
Public Lands – Part 1
It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 2016

Thomas Jefferson had proposed an ordinance to deal with the lands won along with independence from Britain in 1784, and not belonging to any State, any lands that might be relinquished when considered to have been granted by Royal Charter.  The Continental Congress ratified the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 on July 13, 1787.  The First Congress under the newly ratified Constitution, which met from March 4, 1789, to March 4, 1791, then reaffirmed that same ordinance.  This slightly revised version reaffirmed on July 13, 1789, and is known as the Northwest Ordinance of 1789.

The Fourth Article, unchanged in the two versions, reads, in part:

Article the Fourth.  The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America…  The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.  No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; and, in no case, shall nonresident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.

Note that “primary disposal” seems to be the objective of holding the land.  That disposal would serve two very significant purposes in the creation of a nation that would grow from those first thirteen states.  First, it would raise revenue for the payment of the debt incurred because of the War of Independence, and it continued to provide revenue for the fledgling nation.

Second, it would provide land for people to populate the barren regions, first, across the Allegheny Mountains, then on to the Mississippi River, next to the Rocky Mountains, and finally to the Pacific Ocean.  With each of these principal movements, as those people moved westward, the resources of the most resource rich country in the world would develop into the greatest nation in the world.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 27 – Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 26
Firearms Not Allowed

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 29, 2016

What happens when one law says that you can and the other law says that you can’t? Well, let’s enter the world of Perplexity and see what we can find.

To begin, we have to look at Count II of the Superseding Indictment. In the Indictment, it reads like this:

(Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities)

(18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)

On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants [lists names of Defendants], and aided and abetted by each other and by others known and unknown to the grand jury, did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof, with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2.

So, let’s put that into English, in simple terms, “On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016… [The Defendants] did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372.

The first cited statute, 18 US Code §930(b) reads:

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Did those who occupied the Refuge “intend” to shoot anybody; use firearms to force people to leave their duties (18 US Code §372); or, have any other intent than to protect themselves? They had no intention of robbing the place, they had no intention of damaging the facility (instead, they improved it), and, there was no one present for them to impede. This was discussed in a previous article, “Burns Chronicles N^o 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“. From all appearances, and absent any evidence to the contrary, their purpose in having firearms was solely one of self-defense (But more on that, later.).  Civil Disobedience, and even Civil Defiance (See Resistance Has Begun), might put one at risk, but then that person has every right to defend himself against an overzealous attack by an overarching government. Absent a lawful warrant: not even the government is justified in shooting someone except in self-defense.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 26 – Firearms (Not) Allowed’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 25
Juror Shopping & Secrecy

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 22, 2016

The government may have given the Grand Jury sufficient information to properly find “probable cause”.  It is also possible that they may have simply convinced the Grand Jury to find “probable cause” based upon explaining to them that they had given them enough information for them to indict the 26 people charged in the final (third) Grand Jury Superseding Indictment.  We will be looking at the Indictment, Case Law, the Grand Jury selection process, and the information provided to the Grand Jury.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 25 – Juror Shopping & Secrecy’ »

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’ »

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

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act II – Decade of the Nineties
Scene 6 – Feb. 25, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 20, 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 February 25, 1998, Steven Hammond wrote a letter to the Oregon State Police regarding trespass and hunting in a no hunting area {351-352}. It appears that the OSP had stopped issuing citations to violators after speaking to Refuge personnel. This led to a follow up letter to Dick Munoz, FWS, Portland, addressing the concern and the failure of Malheur FWS to enforce the hunting regulations {353-354}.

On May 12, 1998, Dave Stanbrough faxes Munoz telling him he will draft a response to Steven Hammond’s letter {356}. Munoz implies that the decision not to prosecute the trespassing hunters was in the hands of the OSP, not the Refuge {357-358}.

July 6, 1999, the Bureau of Land Management in Hines, in a letter to Dwight Hammond, advises him that, in response to Dwight’s request of June 9, 1999 (No copy of the request in the obtained documents), they are denying him permission to use his own fencing to control cattle crossing Bridge Creek to get to the Mud Creek Allotment {359-360}. Dave Ward, “Rangeland Management Specialist” in this correspondence.

[Note: This is not the David Ward, Sheriff of Harney County.]

In an undated memo, from Anne Sittauer, MNWR, to Dave Stanborough, a third party report of a meeting on site between Dave Ward and Steven Hammond was supposed to have resulted in a written report by Ward {361-362}.  Steven never received the report but was told that he could not be allowed to trail his cattle to get to the “next allotment”.  Steven did agreed to give 24 hours notice of trailing, but refused to sign any request to trail. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 6 – Feb. 25, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004’ »

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 22, 2016

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

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

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

Burns Chronicles N^o 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’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 20
Who Owns Your Video? Who Owns Your Voice?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 28, 2016

In light of the many complaints filed against the Arnold Law Firm, attorneys for Ammon Bundy, over their method of raising funds to pay for a legal defense against a government back by hundreds of attorneys and millions of dollars, perhaps there is another side to this story that needs to be looked at.

Shawna Cox had the wherewithal to begin recording the events, from the first stop to the murder of LaVoy Finicum.  In so doing, she recorded a moment of history that cannot be duplicated.

We all know that if you are in a position to have exclusive footage of an event of such magnitude, there is some value, to some news agencies, for exclusive use of such footage.  How often have you seen “Exclusive to XYZ News”, or something similar?  Well, it would not be “exclusive” if it were freely put out in the public domain, for the use of all. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 20 – Who Owns Your Video? Who Owns Your Voice?’ »