Outpost of Freedom blog

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 – #12
Dave Bundy’s Two Citations

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 9, 2016

As mentioned in “Violence Begets Non-Violence”, Dave Bundy was arrested, taken to Las Vegas, spent the night, never saw a judge, and was cited for Failure to Disperse and Resisting Arrest. Then, he was released onto the streets of Las Vegas, over 80 miles from the Ranch, with no cash in his pocket. At the time that article was written, I was waiting on copies of the citations, to see what light they might shed on the incident. So, now we have the citations, and there are some interesting aspects to them.

First, in the “Place of Offense” box, both citations say “BLM lands on or near SR 170”. Now, if it was on SR 170, it is a state road, so we must wonder where the BLM presumes it has jurisdiction.  I haven’t contacted the Nevada Department of Transportation to determine the actual Right-of-Way (R/W) width of SR 170, however, in measuring the width between fence lines along the roadway, it appears that the R/W width is 66 feet (a common width for older roads). The pavement measures about 26 feet. So there is State Road R/W for about 20 feet off of the edge of the pavement. If Dave was “on” or “near” the State Road, he was probably on state land, not on federal land. So, we must wonder why the BLM can presume to have jurisdiction, first to tell anybody on the road to “Disperse”, and second, to presume the authority to arrest them.

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #12 – Dave Bundy’s Two Citations’ »

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”’ »

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?’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act II – Decade of the Nineties
Scene 2 – June 28, 1994 – February 20, 1997

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 11, 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.

After the appeal was denied, Dwight chose to pull out the big guns.  His attorney, on June 28, 1994, filed Notice of Appeal with the Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeal {20-24}, in Arlington, Virginia.

On July 18, The Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior, Northwest Region (Portland) filed a Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss the appeal {25-48}.

On July 15, 1994, the Office of Hearings and Appeals docketed the Appeal {50-51}.

On July 19, the Office of Hearings and Appeals acknowledged the receipt of the Motion to Dismiss and set August 5 as the date for Hammond to respond to that Motion {52}.

On July 21, Hammond’s attorney responds, citing the information contained in the Notice of Appeal as authority for the Office of Hearings and Appeals to hear the appeal {53-54}.

During this process, chronologically, another factor comes in to play.  Though the entire case is included with the documents, the Order for Summary Judgment {56-73} is included.  It appears that the Hammonds had filed against the Water Resource Department of Oregon and the Water Resources Commission, State of Oregon.  The action was to restore historical water rights at the “Bird Waterhole”. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 2 – June 28, 1994 – January 22, 1997’ »

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’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 17
“a speedy and public trial”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 29, 2016

Is it for the government to interpret the Constitution, or is it for We, the People, to interpret that document, which, as is so clearly stated in the preamble, approved by us, through conventions of representatives in all thirteen then independent states under the Articles of Confederation?

There can be little doubt that Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial, must, in many instances, determine the intent of the Constitution.  The same was true under British rule.  However, when the government interpretation reaches the point of a gross deviation from intent, we cannot leave it to the government for that interpretation.  For, to do so allows the government to bypass the Amendment Process described in Article 5, and simply pass whatever laws they want.  When that happens, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and we are subjected to nothing less than a despotic government, failing to be government created by the Constitution, rather acting as an oligarchy, with no regard to the limitations imposed upon them by the Constitution.

So, in a larger sense, it must evolve to us, when the government so grossly misapplies those powers and authorities granted to it by the Constitution, to take, again, the reins of government, and to force those who claim to represent us back into their limited authority, by whatever means necessary.

The events in Harney County, Oregon, have brought a rather interesting light upon the actions of government.  So, we will begin by comparing some of their actions to historically recognized abuses, and then the remedies evolving out of those prior violations of our natural rights. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 17 – “a speedy and public trial”’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 15
So, what is the Law?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 21, 2016

It is appropriate to start off with some Constitutional wisdom from the Father of the Constitution, before we proceed.

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 N^o 62

In the previous article, “Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“, we were focused on the original charge, violation of 18 US Code § 432, which was the charge in the original Indictment, dated February 3, 2016.  Though the government did the intimidation, the defendants are charged with that crime, there is nothing to demonstrate that the defendants intimidated or threatened anybody.

Just over a month later (I guess it took the United States Attorneys that long to try and find something a little more, well, tenable, to charge the defendants with), a Superseding Indictment was filed on March 8, 2016.  It is with Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment that we will be discussing, here, along with both logical and historical perspectives. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 15 – So, what is the Law?’ »

Wolf Trap – No Justice Here

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 7, 2016

William Wolf was convicted of having an unregistered firearm, that firearm being a machine gun and a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length.

In a couple of previous articles (The Setup and The Entrapment) some of the circumstances surrounding Wolf’s being targeted and entrapped were addressed. However, those were written before his trial.

The Judge, in this case, was Susan P. Waters. She has been an instrument of “obstruction”, throughout. Apparently, she places herself, with the aid of the law, above justice.

During the trial, additional evidence of outright lies by the prosecutor’s witnesses have come to light, as explained in the following letter that Wolf has gotten out to us. The letter was transcribed from a written copy, and is exactly as written:

* * *

The trial of William Krisstofer Wolf has culminated in three facts; the paid informant and Gray’s testimony and the infringement on free speech and a fair and impartial trial.

On December 18, 2014, in a debriefing of a recorded meeting, in Four Corners, Montana, the paid informant, Ed Gray, made the statement. I wanted a “Russian fully automatic shotgun, specifically a Saiga.”

That recorded meeting, by the FBI agent Greg Rogers, as entered into evidence, has NO such statement. In 22 months of FBI recorded statements, I ONLY ever request a “Russian automatic shotgun.” That is not an illegal request. If it were the, model 1911 .45 ACP, the old Army .45, would be illegal because the letters ACP stand for automatic colt pistol, which is NOT a fully automatic pistol. It is still used and sold today with no permits.

However, in those 22 months of FBI recorded conversations and meetings, there is NEVER a mention of a “Russian fully automatic shotgun, specifically a Saiga.” Therefore, the statement made by Ed Gray in the debriefing on December 18, 2014, can ONLY result in one conclusion; Ed Gray and I had a unrecorded conversations; NO audio exists of me mentioning a “Sega fully automatic,” yet on audio and testimony, Rogers and Gray say I do.

This evidence is supported by telephonic records, I asked my defense team to subpoena, that would prove there were unrecorded conversations. However, Ed Gray, on the stand, under oath, testified that there were no unrecorded conversations or meetings. As Gray testified that on December 18, 2014, I told he AND Agent Greg Rogers, I wanted a Russian Saiga fully automatic shotgun. The recording prove that testimony in the statement on December 18, 2014 debriefing, to be a direct lie under oath. Unrecorded deals defining conversations violate the wiretap rules.

The prevailing reason for my conviction is based on the verifiable, undisputed, recorded, perjurious testimony and debriefing statement by Ed Gray, which is paramount to Derivative Entrapment. This renders Ed Gray’s testimony uncredible and inadmissible.

To cover for the uncredible testimony and debriefing of Ed Gray, the Department of Justice, repeatedly presented testimony and evidence to establish a proclivity toward my bad character. However, FBI documents and recordings CLEARLY show that I had NO proclivity or predisposition to commit a crime. As a matter of FBI documents and recorded fact, it clearly shows that the FBI, through various informants, intended to induce me to commit the crime of manufacturing and distributing grenades, rocket propellant, RPGs, and explosives, as well as helping an FBI informant to acquire a Glock P18 fully automatic pistol.

I responded, on an FBI recording, that there was no need for a fully automatic weapon. This recorded statement establishes two things; one, I know the difference between a fully automatic and an automatic. Secondly, it clearly establishes that I had NO proclivity or predisposition to purchase and/or commit an illegal act of owning a fully automatic.

This harmful error occurred with the repeated inclusion of testimony and evidence by the Department of Justice, ultimately the exposing the jury to evidence that was persuasive, but inadmissible that it SO aroused the emotions of the jury, that calm and logical reasoning was abandoned; creating a biased and prejudicial jury, thereby denying me a Constitutionally protected fair and impartial trial.

That immaterial, irrelevant, harmful evidence and testimony created under prejudice, which caused my defense team to spend 500 hours trying to review for my defense.

However, this harmful, immaterial, irrelevant testimony, attacking my freedom of speech, expression, assembly with like-minded people, freedom of the press, and my right to redress of grievances without interference, infringement, or restriction by the government or government intervention, is Protected by Article 1 of the Bill of Rights.

Yet the agencies of the federal government did exactly that, as testified to by FBI agent Matt Deurmeir’s 25 month investigation and subsequently the Department of Justice’s introduction of my political views on government corruption; specifically, abuse of power, judicial and political misconduct, items that are not illegal to own or the historical and potential current or future use or open discussion, namely a flamethrower, my very lawful and constitutional redress of grievances and my views and opinions of current and potential futuristic patriotic events.

These Protected rights are NOT derived from recent groups like the Black Panthers, chanting, “pigs in blankets, fry them, like bacon,” which is a direct reference to flamethrowers and their hypothetical use; or Black Lives Matter, who said, “if you don’t start holding yourself accountable more like this will happen,” in reference to the execution style murder of a sheriff; or Louis Farrakhan: calling for 10,000 young men to do what is necessary; or Rev. Al Sharpton leading a chant in Ferguson, Missouri of “what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now,” who then gets invited to the White House for dinner. These Protected rights are derived from the founding documents; I quote:

“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. A repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury… We have warned them from time to time of attempt by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us… That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. But when a long train 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 governments and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Black’s law is very clear on a Right where a corresponding Duty is invoked. All the exercise of my free speech, that the Department of Justice used against me to prejudice the jury, is derived from that founding document unanimously declared on July 4, 1776. It is the Declaration of Independence, and it is the bedrock of America. You may not like what I have to say, that is my Protected Right, and shall not be infringed.

The use of this inflammatory, irrelevant, and immaterial testimony, along with the fact that agent Greg Rogers, as recorded by the FBI, NEVER definitively expressed that the firearm was fully automatic and only inferred that a fully automatic was illegal; in fact he went to the extent of invoking that the firearm was legally converted, not inverted, by have registered, licensed and federally regulated Class III dealer, conclusively bases actions Entrapment by Estoppel, thereby resulting in an illegal arrest. That action resulted in a prejudicial and unimpartial jury.

The facts, as evident in the FBI documents along with many others my defense team could not bring forth due to the 500 plus hours spent trying to prepare a defense against irrelevant, immaterial, harmful, and ultimately prejudicial testimony, as well as the proven lies under the oath of Ed Gray, deprive me of a constitutionally protected right to a fair and impartial trial.

This obvious harmful error can and should be corrected by this court. This very instant in compliance with its oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, as affirmed in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling and not passed over, ultimately turning this into a manifested Constitutional error, to a higher court.

I unequivocally declare my innocence in this matter and continue to maintain I was entrapped and ultimately denied a fair and impartial trial amounting to a Political Persecution because of the exercise of my free speech as targeted by the FBI.

                                                            /s/ Wolf
2/1/2016

* * *

[Note: Transcribed by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom. PDF of handwritten document at Wolf’s Letter.]

Those wishing to write to Wolf can do so to the following address:

William Krisstofer Wolf
Booking # 20151722
Housing Unit NOR2-N207
Yellowstone County Detention Facility
3165 King Ave. East
Billings Montana 59101