Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 14
Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 20, 2016

Sorry about the play on words, however, in looking for a title for this article, it seemed appropriate to choose the rooster instead of the chicken, as the rooster has a specific role in the relationship.  The egg, however, is a birth, a creation of something new — that will continue to grow, eventually replacing both the rooster and the chicken, in the scheme of things.

Perhaps a few words from the Father of the Constitution might be appropriate:

[The government] can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.  This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together.  It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.  If it be asked, what is to restrain the [Government] from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the [Government], as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

James Madison, Federalist No. 57

Now, the original, and then only, charge against those in Oregon that participated in the opening of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to the public, was 18 US Code § 372.  This law was first enacted during the Civil War.  It was the 1st Session of the 37th Congress Lincoln had already called for 75,000 and suspended habeas corpus {page 1 of pdf}, before the law was enacted.

The law was first introduced on July 17, 1861 {2}, just over three months after the war had begun), and:

“provides that if five or more persons within any State or Territory shall conspire together to overthrow, Or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States; or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay, the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States, against the will, or contrary to the authority of the United States, or by force, or intimidation, or threat, to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office of trust, or place of confidence, under the United States, each and every person so offending shall be guilty of a high crime.”

The act was supported by Mr. Trumbull {7} when he provides a couple of examples in which this law, being far short of Treason, is to punish those who have committed specific acts against officers of the government.  In one example, he speaks of a case in Missouri where “a number of persons, by threats of violence and intimidation, prevented a postmaster from performing the duties of his office.”  He provides another, more general, example, of “route agents” were deterred from performing their duties.

In both instances, there was a “victim”, either the “postmaster” or a “route agent”, and there were specific acts that kept them from their duties. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act I – Decade of the Eighties
Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 15, 2016

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

On May 6, 1987, David Johnson filed an internal memo {52-55} explain that he had received a call from Dwight Hammond, on April 27, and that Dwight said he was going to begin moving cattle the next morning, at 5:00 AM.. Johnson, because of 3 broken ribs, advised that he could monitor the trailing, but could not help. Dwight told him that if he was not going to help, he needn’t come. When Johnson and another employee arrived at 10:00 AM, the move had been completed and the Hammonds were on their way back to their ranch.

Johnson attempted to trace the route that the Hammonds had taken, and attached a map to show the route. His final statement in the Memo, “I did not see any significant resource damage as a result of this action.”

On January 18, 1988, Dwight Hammond sent a letter to De Bates {57-58}, which says, in part:

THE ONLY THING YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE IS WRITE LETTERS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROBLEM NO LONGER EXISTS, AND THAT THE PROBLEM IS BEING WORKED OUT. NOTHING PHYSICAL, (WHICH IS THE REAL PROBLEM) HAS CHANGED. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act I – Decade of the Eighties
Scene 3 – April 2, 1987 – April 15, 1987

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 2, 2016

Dwight writes to De Bates, April 2, 1987 {33-37}, providing some background from a good working relationship to the current untenable encroachment on the historical rights, the failure on the part of MNWR to follow a previous agreement (1975), and the subsequent consequences of that failure. A Map from 1975 is also included. Pertinent parts:

APPROXIMATELY A YEAR OR SO AGO, GEORGE CONSTANTINO TOLD ME COULD NOT GO THROUGH THE REFUGE, AS I HAD ALWAYS DONE. I REALLY DIDN’T TAKE HIM TOO SERIOUSLY, AS I KNEW THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY TO GO, AND I DIDN’T HAVE A CHOICE. I TOLD HIM THIS AT THAT TIME. WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS AFTER THAT, EACH TIME GEORGE TELLING ME I COULD NOT GO THROUGH THE REFUGE. THESE MEETINGS INCLUDED OTHER REFUGE PERSONNEL AND ALSO PEOPLE FROM THE BLM IN BURNS, OR. EACH TIME, HE WAS TOLD I COULDN’T GO ANY OTHER WAY. AROUND THE FIRST OF THE YEAR OR SO, WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING AND GEORGE PROPOSED A “PERMITTED” CROSSING THROUGH A PASSAGE THAT WAS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. AT THAT TIME, I TOLD HIM I WOULD GIVE 1,000 TO ONE ODDS, IF HE AND ANY NUMBER OF COWBOYS HE CHOSE, COULD GET CATTLE THROUGH THE REFUGE ON THE TRAIL HE WAS PROPOSING. IT WAS ASININE!!!!! AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, ON GEORGE’S PART, HE DECIDED THAT, INDEED, I COULD GO THE WAY I HAD BEEN GOING, HOWEVER, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT, AND BE SUPERVISED IN THE CROSSING. THIS IS NOT MY IDEA OF A “WORKING RELATIONSHIP”.

IN YOUR FEB. 20, LETTER, YOU WROTE THAT GEORGE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY YOU TO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT; THEREFORE, I FELT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A CONSTRUCTIVE MEETING ON MARCH 12. THE VERY FIRST PART OF OUR CONVERSATION WAS THAT GEORGE WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THIS, AGAIN, THAT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING HE WAS MISSING, AND WE SHOULD GET ON WITH THE MAKING OUT OF THE “PERMIT”. I WAS INFORMED, AS I HAVE BEEN AGAIN IN GEORGE’S LETTER OF MARCH 20, THAT HE WAS “IN CONTROL” AND COULD STOP ME AT ANY TIME THAT I DIDN’T COMPLY WITH ONE OF HIS WHIMS.

HAVE WASTED MANY HOURS OF MY TIME, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO PRODUCTIVITY AND I AM SURE YOUR PERSONNEL HAVE DONE THE SAME, BUT THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A FACTOR.

IN TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR LETTER, WE HAVE REVIEWED OUR PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, AND IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE EXPRESSED A NUMBER OF TIMES, THE IMPORTANT ISSUES CONCERNING OUR SIDE OF THIS PROBLEM, AS YOU HAVE YOURS. WE WENT TO PORTLAND, TO VISIT YOU, BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD SANDY WILBER WAS IN TOTAL AGREEMENT AS TO THE WAY GEORGE CONSTANTINO WAS HANDLING THIS SITUATION. WE DID NOT EVEN ASK TO SEE SANDY WILBER, FOR THAT REASON. THE SECRETARIES ROUTED OUR CALL THROUGH TO MR. WILBER, AND HE ASKED TO TALK WITH US SO WE OBLIGED, TO NO AVAIL. I STILL FELT THAT POSSIBLY WE HAD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PRESENT OUR POSITION, THUS MADE THE OFFER TO PAY YOUR EXPENSES TO PERSONALLY ASSES THE PROBLEM, HERE, ON THE GROUND, YOURSELF. WE ALSO SAID THAT WE WOULD PAY YOUR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE’S EXPENSES, AND OUR OFFER STILL STANDS, EVEN IF IT WOULD BE SANDY WILBER, AND WE HAVE LITTLE FAITH THAT HE CAN ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING BECAUSE OF HIS TOTAL, APPARENT AGREEMENT WITH GEORGE’S PAST POSITION. BUT, IF HE IS YOUR CHOICE, AND REPRESENTATIVE, SO BE IT. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THERE IS NO COMPROMISE LEFT IN US BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SITUATION HAS BEEN HANDLED, NOT EVEN THE COMPROMISE OFFER OF HAMMOND RANCHES FURNISHING THE LABOR TO REPAIR THE OLD, PRIOR TO 1975, BOUNDARY FENCE. WE HAVE LIVED WITH THIS SITUATION AS LONG AS IT IS POSSIBLE, AS WE HAVE STATED IN ALL OUR LETTERS. WE WILL NOT BE SATISFIED UNTIL THIS SITUATION IS RESOLVED THIS TIME, SO AS TO PROTECT CUR RIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE, AS OBVIOUSLY YOU PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED, AND ARE STILL NOT SATISFIED, AND IT SEEMS, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, ARE ON A LONG-TERM PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE OUR BUSINESS. IF YOU FEEL THAT SANDY WILBER CAN HANDLE THIS TYPE OF COMPROMISE, WE WOULD BE THANKFUL FOR HIS ATTENDANCE; HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, WILL NOT BE RESOLVED WITH LESS.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR RECOGNITION OF OUR HAVING TO USE THIS ROUTE TO TRAIL OUR CATTLE; BUT, WE FEEL THAT YOU ARE STILL BEING UNREASONABLE AS WE ARE NOT, APPARENTLY, MOVING OUR CATTLE TO YOUR SATISFACTION, AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE. THIS IS WHY WE FEEL WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO GO BACK TO OUR 1975 AGREEMENTS WITH THE REFUGE, BLM, OWC AND OURSELVES. I REALIZE I AM SOME- WHAT INADEQUATELY EXPRESSING THE SITUATION, BUT, I WILL TRY AGAIN WITH THIS ENCLOSED MAP, SIGNED BY THE BLM, AT WHICH TIME THERE WAS PRESENT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FOUR ABOVE GROUPS, AND WHICH WAS THE PRODUCT OF AN ON-THE-GROUND TOUR, CONDUCTED BY THE REFUGE, THUS VERIFYING THAT WE REALIZED THAT BRIDGE CREEK WAS A SENSITIVE AREA OVER 10 YEARS AGO. THE INSINUATION IN YOUR LETTER THAT OUR CATTLE HAVE DAMAGED THE BRIDGE CREEK RIPARIAN AREA IS ANOTHER JAB AT US WITH A SHARP STICK, THAT WE RESENT, GIVING US A BLACK EVE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY. HAD THE AGREEMENT OF 1975 BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AS AGREED, BY THE REFUGE, THE PROBLEMS WOULD NOT NOW EXIST. WE ARE THE MOST PROMINENT CONSERVATIONISTS IN THIS AREA, AS WILDLIFE, BIRDS, AND FISH ARE ALL BEING FED BY US, YEAR ROUND, AND WE ARE NOT PAID ANY TAX DOLLARS TO OFFSET THEIR CARE AND WELFARE.

BOTTOM-LINE OF THIS WHOLE MAJOR PROBLEM STEMS FROM YOU PEOPLE NOT LIVING UP TO THE AGREEMENT OF 1975, CREATING A SITUATION THAT WAS TOUGH TO LIVE WITH, BUT WE DID, UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE LOCAL GESTAPO’S EXERCISING HIS LAW-ENFORCEMENT ABILITIES (TOM DOWNS), GEORGE CONSTANTINO, HIS SUPERIOR, AND REFUGE MANAGER, AND SANDY WILBER, WHO IS BACKING HIM UP.

ALSO, IN REREADING OUR LETTERS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MAYBE THE IMPRESSION HAS BEEN MADE THAT MY “TRAILING” ACROSS THIS AREA ONLY HAPPENS ONCE A YEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THIS, IN THAT EVERY TIME I TAKE CATTLE FROM ONE SIDE OF MY RANCH TO THE OTHER, FOR WHATEVER REASON, I MUST USE THIS ROUTE.

I TOO AM VERY CONCERNED THAT YOU THINK MY RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR REFUGE STAFF HAS DETERIORATED TO ANY DEGREE. I HAVE SOME VERY OBVIOUS DEFINITE FEELINGS ABOUT THE ABILITIES OF TWO MEMBERS OF YOUR STAFF, AND OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH REFUGE PERSONNEL. UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO INCLUDE, IN YOUR NEXT LETTER, A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE INCIDENT YOU REFER TO IN YOUR MARCH 19 LETTER.

AGAIN, I AM SORRY THIS WHOLE THING HAS GOTTEN SO BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION, BUT I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FIGHT BACK, AND THIS TIME FOR A PERMANENT SOLUTION, THIS BEING THE REMOVAL OF THE NEW FENCE AND GOING BACK TO THE OLD BOUNDARY FENCE THAT SERVED WITH ZERO FRICTION FOR AT LEAST 40 YEARS, AND THE NEW (1975) AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE PRESERVED THE RIPARIAN HABITAT IN BRIDGE CREEK.

P.S. NOTE- AGAIN, NOT RELATED TO THE ENCLOSED CONFLICT, BUT PART OF THE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS THAT MAKE FOR POOR RELATIONSHIPS, AND SINCE, WHOEVER IS VISITING ON YOUR BEHALF MAY BE ENLIGHTENED, AND POSSIBLY INCORPORATE THIS KNOWLEDGE INTO THE VISIT, AND MAKE THIS A MORE PRODUCTIVE VISIT. OUR CATTLE, IN THE WINTER OF 1987 USE, HAD USED ALL THEIR ALLOTTED AUMS. THERE WAS STILL TIME LEFT ON THE PERMIT. WE WERE OUT OF FEED, AND WERE ASKED TO LEAVE, WHICH WE DID. AT THAT TIME, WE HAD ASKED TO USE EXCESS FEED THAT WAS IN A FIELD THAT WAS SITUATED WELL FOR US, AND WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS NO FEED FOR US IN THAT FIELD AS THEY WANTED TO PROTECT THE UPLANDS FOR NESTING HABITAT. APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LATER, ALL THAT FEED, THE UPLANDS AND WHATEVER, WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED BY THE REFUGE, THROUGH BURNING. THIS DID NOT CREATE ONE DOLLAR OF REVENUE TO OFF-SET THE TAXPAYER LOAD, BUT DID COST US. ALSO, THE EMERGENCY FORAGE BOARD HAS ASKED FOR ANY EXCESS FEED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FORAGE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER WATER IN THE LAKE. THE REFUGE HAS SAID THEY HAVE NO EXCESS FEED, YET THEY CAN STILL BURN AREAS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ECONOMICALLY USED AND COULD HAVE CREATED SOME REVENUE. ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE A FEW AREAS ON THE REFUGE THAT CAN NOT BE DEALT WITH IN ANY OTHER WAY, BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SEE AS THE NORM. WHETHER WE USE THE FEED, THE EMERGENCY PEOPLE USE IT, OR IT IS PERMITTED IN SOME OTHER WAY IS REALLY IRRELEVANT IF THERE WAS ONLY A TURN OVER OF A RENEWAL DOLLAR. PLUS, MAYBE THEN YOU COULD SE ABLE TO PAY OUR COUNTY IT’S FAIR SHARE FOR HAVING BEEN HERE, INSTEAD OF SHORT- CHANGING US YEAR AFTER YEAR, MAKING NO EFFORT TO BREAK EVEN.

WE REALIZE YOU BELIEVE WE ARE NOT BEING SINGLED OUT HOWEVER, JUST THIS WEEK WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT OUR GRAZING FOR THE UP-COMING YEAR IS BEING REDUCED, WHILE OTHERS SEEM TO BE GETTING INCREASES IN THEIR AUMS.

Note:  AUM = Animal Unit Month: This is based upon a 1,000 pound cow eating 25 lbs. of dry forage per day, or about 780 lbs. of dry forage per month. Grazing allotments are paid for by AUM assessments based upon available forage in an allotment.

Dwight lays out a good foundation for solution, by returning to the 1975 agreement, including a map signed by government officials. By that agreement, the subsequent environmental concerns would not have existed. He also points out that they have been environmentally conscious and have taken care of the wildlife.

In his P.S., he points to the fact that grazing lands that could provide revenue are burned by the Refuge, resulting in a loss of revenue, depriving the County of what would be their share had effective management been applied.

By now, it is quite apparent that the management at the Refuge, as suggested by Dwight, “are on a long-term proposal to terminate our business.”

In an internal memo, Sanford (Sandy) Wilbur reports to De Bates, April 14, 1987 {39}, on the results of his visit.

The immediate issue of Hammonds trailing cattle through the refuge appears to be worked out. No permit is being issued, as we are acknowledging their “historic” use of that trail, but David Johnson volunteered to accompany Hammonds on their drive to help out. It is the feeling of the refuge staff that passage through the refuge should not take over 6 hours. Right now, the first move of cattle is expected May 2 (255 head), with a second scheduled about June 11 (495 head).

Hammonds have raised several other issues of “unfair treatment”, but it appears to me that they are being dealt with the same as all other refuge permittees. The real issue is still the fence we built on the refuge boundary several years ago. The fence was built before either George Constantino or I were involved, so we cannot address anyone’s “intent” (Hammonds claim it was a “spite fence”, erected solely to inconvenience them). However, it clearly is a good fence in that it protects springs and riparian areas, identifies our boundary, and does not create an access problem for Hammonds as long as they can trail cattle through the refuge. During my phone conversation with the Hammonds, it was made clear that nothing would satisfy them except the removal of the fence. I asked again for clarification of what the specific problem was. The answer was that, if I didn’t know by now, I hadn’t been listening.

My instruction to the refuge staff was to continue to treat the Hammonds as they would treat any other permittee on the refuge. This involves documenting compliance with permits and attempting to resolve problems at the local level as they occur. I think the refuge staff does this very well, taking a low key and generally non-confrontational approach that works well in almost all situations. Because I don’t feel that Hammonds’ complaints are justified, I recommend to you that we move control back to the field as quickly as possible. I suspect that the Hammonds will call the Regional Director since they aren’t getting satisfaction from Refuges, so we should arrange a briefing for Rolf soon.

So, we see that the government has finally agreed to the historical trailing route. However, there is still a question as to the fence, and he feels that the Hammonds are not being treated unfairly, as Dwight had claimed in the previous letter.

On April 15, 1987 {41, 44}, De Bates, in response to Dwight’s “FOIA” request, provides copies of reports of abuse during a previous meeting. A handwritten note by Sandy suggests that the report by “Arlene” & “Ruth” not be included, however, De Bates includes all three reports.

Your April 2 letter regarding livestock use of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge requested that, under the Freedom of Information Act, we provide you with documentation of an incident in which you verbally abused and threatened refuge employees. That documentation is attached.

I understand that Mr. Wilbur was not able to meet you personally when he was at Malheur, but that he did talk to Mrs. Hammond by phone after he had reviewed the situation in the field. It appears that the immediate issue of moving your stock through the refuge this spring is being worked out with the refuge, but that you are still dissatisfied that we will not remove the refuge boundary fence constructed some years ago in the Bridge Creek area. Further evaluation of that situation confirms my earlier decision that the fence is in a desirable location and will continue to be maintained. If you have specific concerns about the fence as it affects your operations, please discuss them with Refuge Manager Constantino. Perhaps there is some accommodation that can be made.

If you choose to read the three reports {45-48}, you will see that Dwight was quite upset, according to Sandy, primarily over the interpretation of the Refuge policy on fencing (9RM3.1).

9 RM 3.1 Policy. It is the policy of the Service to construct fences on national wildlife refuges only when essential to management and protection of wildlife and refuge lands; and to assure that such fences are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes conflict with adjacent land owners and refuge objectives. Fencing merely to denote ownership by the United States is not normally justified.

It appears that Dwight is correct, in that it is intended to minimize conflict with adjacent landowners, and requires fencing only when essential to management and protection of wildlife. Normally, birds and deer seem to have no problem with fences, so it is difficult to see where the policy includes vegetation, as Sandy has, and will continue, to address.

The “abuse” reports are included {45-48}. However, it seems that only Sandy was verbally abused. Perhaps there is merit to Dwight’s call on the matter.

To Be Continued

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 1 – Introduction

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 2 – October 24 1986 – March 20 1987

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Decade of the Eighties- Scene 5 – May 2, 1988 – May 9, 1988

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

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 2 – June 28, 1994 – Feb. 22, 1997

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

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

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 6 – Feb. 25, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004

Burns Chronicles N^o 11
What are the III%?

Image from “The Minute Men“, by John R. Galvin

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 25, 2016

First, we must understand the significance of the oft-used expression, “III%” or “3%”. It is intended to suggest the percentage of the population who fought against the British during the Revolutionary War. Now, keep in mind what you just read. They fought in the Revolutionary War, whether they were militia, or Continental Army; They Fought!

Why would I bring this up? Well, a number of comments have come to me regarding my article, “Civil Defiance or Submission?” Many have suggested that they are III%er, and their duty is strictly defensive.

In a discussion with one of them, I asked if he was III%. He boldly told me that he was. Then I asked him if he was ready to fight, to do something. He said that his job as III% was strictly defensive. I asked him what he intended to defend. He told me that he was going to defend his bug-out location, his family, and his team.

My next comment was that his first stand would also be his last stand. When they come to get him, and they will eventually find him, he will fight and die, defending, or he will end up in the gray-bar hotel, for a long time.

There is little doubt that the first of the III%ers were militia. It was months before the Continental Army was formed, but the war had begun. People fought, and people died, on both sides, so the first few thousand were none other than Militia.

So, the first eighty-some men where under arms were, perhaps, defensive. Under Captain Parker, the Lexington Militia were gathered on the Green, though they were lined up along a side road that led to Woburn, the same route John Hancock and Sam Adams had taken when they left Lexington, once alerted by the alarm riders. The road to Concord was not obstructed, in the least. It was merely the presence of armed colonists, which led to the events that have now become a part of our heritage.

As the British continued to march toward Concord, word spread rapidly to the nearby towns, villages, and counties of western Massachusetts. It is what happened next that tells the tale of what the real III%ers were. As word spread, that the people of Lexington had become involved in a gunfight with the British, they did not ask why, they grabbed their muskets and headed in that direction.

There was no internet, nor telephone, radio, or any other means of notification other than the alarm riders. They did not stop to answer questions, they simply called to arms. It was sufficient that those who would soon be recognized as “Americans” had come under fire of the British.

The Militia, including that of Lexington, had transferred their “subordination to civil authority” from the Royal Governor to their local Committees of Safety. This had occurred during the previous years, as explained in “The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence“. Those Committees then gave orders to their respective Militia to march to Concord, as that was known to be the objective of the British.

Within hours, several thousand had arrived near Concord. They had come from other towns, from other counties, and some were on their way from other states. There was no consideration of the fact that those in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, were not from Massachusetts; had not been invited to take their arms and go to Massachusetts. They responded solely to take on the common enemy, the British. They didn’t hesitate, they were not concerned for their “bug-out location, family, and team”, rather, they were concerned for their Liberty, and their fellow colonists.

Within weeks, people from all of New England, all of the middle colonies, and some of the southern colonies had amassed around Boston, laying siege to the military might that then ruled the world. They had come to fight! They made no excuse as to why they should not go to Boston, because they were the beginning of the III%.

There were some Active Patriots (See “Active Patriots v Passive Patriots“) that came to aid those who had taken a stand in favor of the idea that public lands should be public, not treated as the private property of the government and the bureaucrats. There were Passive Patriots, those who might, as time went on, become Active Patriots and join the ranks to fight the common enemy. There were some False Patriots, whose work, while claiming to be in support of those in the Refuge, was more of a hindrance, and often served to provide more benefit to the government side than the patriot side.

Most importantly, however, was the absence of those who wear the badge of III%. Sadly, many who do wear the badge do so without due respect for its meaning, and who will find any excuse to avoid becoming involved, as only defensive, as was described above.

As I reflect on those who wear that III% badge and otherwise do not intend to serve the cause, rather, only to serve themselves, their families, and their team, I am reminded of those who receive an award simply for being there, not realizing that to wear the III% badge calls for the courage, conviction, and commitment — that which the real III% of 240 years ago had.

Burns Chronicles N^o 9
Civil Defiance or Submission?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 18, 2016

“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass, could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787) [North Carolina Supreme Court]

The unfortunate circumstances of January 26, 2016, which resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, and Brian Cavalier was a blow to an effort to expose the dishonesty of the federal government in its pursuit of acquiring land belonging to ranchers in Oregon.

In fact, the story behind what happened in Burns, Oregon actually goes much further. It had begun to show the underbelly of the beast we call the US government, its failure in obedience to the Constitution, the very document that created it, and its failure to abide by established judicial “due process of law”. Perhaps most significant is its absolute disregard for human life, and especially so if that life is of one who believes in the Constitution.

Now, many have said that what was happening at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was of no concern to them. Some have said, “We (the militia) are here to protect our state. What happens in Oregon is not our concern.” And, they are right, but only to an extent.

In the hours that followed the events at Lexington Green and Concord, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, Militia from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, marched on dirt roads to come to the aid of those from another colony. Within days, many more colonies had sent their forces to join those surrounding Boston. Of course, it was not their concern, though they did realize what had happened in Massachusetts would, eventfully, happen in their own backyards.

Many have stated that their greatest concern is that the government will come to take their guns, and that will be the time to act. However, they fail to respond to the slow and meticulous erosion of the Second Amendment, constantly progressing, bit by bit. But, they still have their guns, so there is nothing to worry about.

However, just a week after the Indictments were issued in Oregon, a Grand Jury in Nevada issued Indictments against five people who were involved in events at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada, in April 2014, nearly two years prior.

Both acts, Nevada and Oregon, were acts of Civil Defiance. Let’s be clear about that term. Civil Disobedience is a term applicable to participating in something that might result in ones arrest, or perhaps being assaulted by law enforcement. These activities are conducted with the hope of political change. They are, at best, inconveniences.

Civil Defiance, however, is an act in real defiance against unlawful authority. Whether firearms are used actively, or passively, there is no doubt that Civil Defiance has the possibility for not just incarceration, but death.

During the Bundy Ranch affair, hundreds of armed patriots stood defiant against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees and contractors who were trying to arrest cattle for grazing on public lands. The patriot weapons were simply for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. BLM was the aggressor, with force of arms and a “judge’s edict”.

In Oregon, once again, the patriots’ arms were for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. There is no instance of those at the Refuge, or away from the Refuge, ever threatening or intimidating anyone. In fact, they had a policy to let anyone venture into the occupied area, without threat, or harm. Their arms were for self-defense.

The government, in this instance, under the control of the FBI, was the aggressor, however, unlike Nevada, the aggressor chose to shoot and kill LaVoy Finicum. As can be clearly seen in the aerial footage, Mr. Finicum never had a gun in his hand. He was lured into an ambush and shot. He had no opportunity to defend himself, even if he had been armed. Quite simply, the government that he was exposing murdered him.

So, let’s put a little perspective on things. Whether you are in Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, or elsewhere, what you have been reading about is your future, as much as those who have been directly affected by those events. To “reason” that “it didn’t happen to me” is both acceptance of the legitimacy of the government’s proven practice, and submission to it. When it finally gets to you, those who had more courage than you, have already been taken by the forces of government, either to prison, or to the cemetery.

If you cannot stand up for your fellow patriots, and instead, make excuses as to why you did not come to their aid, whether by location or disagreement of purpose, then you have submitted, and you can clearly see your own future.

I was asked the question “Is there anything that we can do about this?” After some thought, I realized that the Indictment from Nevada was a message that the government is in the process of taking control. This raises the question as to whether we can back them down. If more of us begin standing up by occupying federally owned facilities, like the Refuge, or by taking other inspired actions, can we demonstrate that we are not backing down; that we are not willing to Submit to their unconstitutional activities, and that we will retaliate, as they have, by expanding our efforts in response to every unlawful or unconstitutional act committed by the government?

“In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!”

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Burns Chronicles N^o 8
Active Patriots v. Passive Patriots

image © 2016 Militia News

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 16, 2016

“…As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution’ it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies”.

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson      August 24, 1815.

I believe that Adams’s description of the Revolution, being the period in which the populace transitioned from faith in government to distrust of government, is probably appropriate for the 18th century as well as today.

Since Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas, we have seen a very substantial change in the attitude of large portions of our people, with regard to the government. The recent murder of LaVoy Finicum, with the full knowledge that those who murdered him will have absolute and complete protection from the government, is indicative of that distrust. The question, however, is not about that distrust, rather, which of us are truly Patriots, and which are only pretend patriots?

There was a transition, 241 years ago, where those who were loyal to the Crown and presumed that they would never fight against their government, found a moment in time had come to decide as to whether to maintain that obedience to the government, or take up arms against it.

On April 19, 1775, that time had come. Those within a reasonable distance of Lexington and Concord, thousands of them, picked up their arms and ventured out into the beginning of a struggle that would last for another six years. They left home and family, not knowing if they would ever return. They crossed the line, not because of what had happened to them, but rather what had happened to their neighbors, many of them from other colonies.

As word spread through the other colonies, many thought the problem was only between Massachusetts and the Crown. In time, they realized that the violation of the British Constitution and the loss of their “Rights of Englishmen” were in jeopardy, just as in Massachusetts. They, then, chose their course. They became Active Patriots.

The passive patriots that had not bought or drunk tea were split. Some became Active Patriots, while others remained passive patriots, throughout the Revolutionary War.

We are at that point in our history where we are facing quite similar circumstances. Some have already become Active Patriots, while others, though appearing to be active patriots, are, in fact, passive patriots, or worse.

The passive patriot simply needs to sit back and watch the world go by. Perhaps he might express support for the Active Patriots, or for their cause, or even make contributions to that cause, financially, or otherwise. But at best, he is a sideline supporter. Some might be more active by participating in interim forms of government, such as Committees of Safety.

Some of those passive patriots went to Burns, Oregon, recently. They were willing to demonstrate, carry signs, sound off in public meetings, and show support for those Active Patriots who had taken a step in Civil Defiance by opening the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration area to the public.

Of course, the Active Patriots went armed; the Second Amendment does provide for the “security of a free State”, which they had declared the Refuge to be. However, they made clear that the arms were solely for self-defense, and those who had the opportunity to visit the Refuge during these events found that the people inside were peaceful, unoffending, and courteous to all who visited them. They were not the haughty bureaucrats who normally occupied those buildings. And, those who visited them, without nefarious thoughts on their minds, were clearly passive patriots.

Now, there is a third side to this equation. We don’t find them in the historical context. But, we find them in proliferation in our current era of “revolution”. These are the ones that would have traveled to Concord to discourage colonists from firing on the Redcoats, diverted them to another activity (perhaps carrying signs or pitchforks), or perhaps even have told the British what the Active Patriots were up to.

Today, however, they are comprised of people who want to take charge; they want to control the situation; they may even want to help save the lives of Active Patriots by convincing them to submit to arrest. And, they will tell others that they were simply trying to avoid any bloodshed — even after blood had been shed. Let’s refer to them as false patriots. (See The Burns Community)

Those who went to Concord knew that blood was to be shed. The idea is to shed the blood of the enemy, and endeavor to keep your own from being shed, however, that consequence was a part of the effort.

During the course of events in Burns, there were many who contacted me, and others, asking whether the time had come. These were Active Patriots, simply waiting for that day we all know was coming, but not wanting to simply go to an event (Sugar Pine Mine; Montana Big Sky Mine) and camp out, away from family and digging into their own purses to act out a role. They really wanted to know if the British had fired on colonists, and if the colonists were going to fire back.

Some went to Burns. Some remain, and some have since left. They were insufficient in number to have any effect, because the false patriots had done everything that they could to divert as many as possible in the wrong direction.

If others are ready to go to a barricade and protest, or possibly for other purposes, they might divert them to over fifty miles away in a gesture of sympathy for a life lost. So, let’s look at the three, and put them in rather simple terms.

Active Patriot — One who is ready and willing to take up arms, regardless of costs, affect on family, or fortune, and is committed to the cause to that extent. These would properly be considered the real III% that are willing to take up arms.

Passive patriots — These are those who will go to varying extent to support the Active Patriot, by any number of means. They are the support every army needs, and they do so, willingly. Often, their activities might put their lives at risk, but that is inconsequential to the completion the efforts that they have begun. Time and money are their primary contributions. These are the Supporters of the III%.

Finally, we come to the false patriot. His actions tend to support the enemy, whether through disruption, diversion, intelligence gathering (frequent communication with the enemy), and often the attempt to discredit or ridicule those who are of the other classes. These people are not patriots; rather, they are, in fact, simply false. In years past, they would be referred to as “culture vultures” or “patriots for profit”, if their concern was primarily their monetary gain. However, others might be more accurately defined as “snitches”, “informants”, “spies”, or worse.

Since we have progressed from Civil Disobedience, where one might get arrested and spend a few hours or days in jail, to Civil Defiance, where we stand, firmly, against the enemy, and endeavor to turn the continued encroachment of our rights, then we can fully expect that the time will come, soon, in which the line is drawn and the point of no return has been reached. It behooves us to identify which role our neighbors will take. If they are to be Active Patriots, or passive patriots, then we are in need of both. However, if they are false patriots, then they need to be excluded from any aspect, no matter how mundane, of our work. They need to be expelled from our community, for they serve no useful purpose, except that purpose which serves the enemy.

Burns Chronicles N^o 7
What is Brandon Curtiss?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 15, 2016

I received a phone call from Ryan Payne, shortly after the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was entered by nine people, and restored to ‘open to the public’. Ryan indicated that there was a need for others to come join them, as they were concerned for the safety of such a small crew.

Now, many will question why they might be concerned for their safety, however, we need only consider the last few weeks to understand, as many patriots do, that the federal government tends to solve problems with bloodshed, unless all parties come out with their hands up, and submit to arrest whether there is a real crime, or not.

With the understanding that those who might enter the Refuge, since renamed Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), might find that the government would want to arrest them, it was felt by the Operation Mutual Defense Advisory Board (OMD-AB) that a caveat regarding that possibility be included in a call out.

Upon being advised, through other sources, that Brandon Curtiss, Idaho III%, had secured a 40-acre parcel for visitors to camp on, this seemed to be the solution to an alternate location for those who might otherwise not show up because of the caveat.

However, one of those inside of the HCRC expressed his concern that Brandon (“Brandon” will be used as a collective name for Idaho III% and Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), and the individual, as appropriate to the context), had stated that he was there, along with his following, to assure that there would not be another Waco, and suggested that “he would probably drop his gun and run, should things change for the worse”. It was with this in mind that I sought to contact Brandon, on behalf of OMD, and managed to do so through Pete Santilli, on January 10.

When I told Pete that I was trying to reach Brandon, he said, “just a minute”, and he handed his phone to Brandon. Brandon was cordial in the first part of the discussion, though he was rather assertive. “Any militia that come to Burns are under my command”, he said. That sounded like a sort of militia martial law, and Brandon, with 8 or 9 years of law enforcement experience, but no military experience, has taken command. But, then, I knew this was the “prime directive” when I called for Brandon. He also claimed to have secured forty acres for camping purpose, directly across from the Refuge, though I found out later that it was directly across from the Narrows, about six miles from the Refuge. Perhaps he “secured” it, or perhaps it was a fantasy, as he did not even know where it was.

I had been directed by the OMD-AB to ascertain whether, if Brandon decided to order everyone to go home, would he release those who came under the OMD banner? For him to understand what this question was being posed, seeking a solution, I prefaced it with the “drop guns” concern.

Can I say that I was surprised when he “dropped the phone and ran”? Well, I wasn’t as surprised as I might have been, since the first few minutes on the phone, I was mostly listening, while Brandon appeared to want to both ask and answer his question as well as the reason for my call.

Pete, endeavoring to get patriots to work together, reestablished communications by having Brandon call me. This time, however, it sounded as if we were on speakerphone, and additional parties were present, including Eric Parker and Brooke Agresta.

I tried to explain that I am old school, and when you seek a solution, you must understand the problem. I don’t believe that they ever fully digested that thought, as they spent quite a few minutes berating me, telling me what I said, which is not what I said, since I didn’t have the opportunity, and finally concluded with Brooke telling me that she would destroy me in the patriot community if I didn’t do something (I don’t recall what) in the next three minutes, as she spoke for the next two minutes and then hung the phone up.

Well, that discussion didn’t go to well, so I had to find an alternative for those who didn’t want to risk the possible consequences of staying inside of the HCRC. That, however, would have to be put off to another day.

That was my first ‘introduction’ to Brandon Curtiss, though his name had come up earlier. In a report given by Ryan Payne to an OMD-AB special meeting, November 19, nearly two months before the above incident, Ryan Payne explained some circumstances surrounding the meetings held with both the Hammonds and Sheriff Ward. The report, though second hand, bears out what subsequent events tend to substantiate. The pertinent part of the report can be heard in this 12: 30 – clip, Ryan Payne speaking.

The foundation for subsequent activities by PPN, Idaho III%, and to some degree, OathKeepers, is clearly established.

My next dealing with Brandon Curtiss occurred on January 28, two days after the murder of LaVoy Finicum. Due to the arrests made during the Ambush, I no longer had access to people and information that were necessary to what I intended to write. Though my room was booked for another night, I had decided to return home where I am accustomed to writing. So, I began loading my truck for the return journey.

The evening before, I had written a call out (explained in Stand Up; Stand Down). In that call out, I had recognized the necessity of an immediate response, and that response would have to come from the Harney County area, to be effective. What it said in part, was:

“Attention all Oathkeepers, Idaho Three Percenters, Pacific Patriots Network, especially Brandon Curtiss, Joe Rice, Eric Parker, and Stewart Rhodes.

. . .

You have an obligation to proceed to the Harney County Resource Center (the wildlife refuge), immediately, in order to protect the patriots still there. If you fail to arrive, you will demonstrate by your own actions that your previous statements to defend life, liberty, and property were false.

As I was carrying some things to the truck, a man walked up to me. I recognized him as Curtiss, and I noticed that there were 4 other men with him, all in their twenties or thirties, and 3 of them quite husky. Brandon introduced himself, and as is my habit, I extended my hand. He replied that he would not shake my hand and then accused me of calling him a coward. Now, the circumstances didn’t warrant, in most cases, my attention to exact words, however, my reply was something along the lines that I did not call him a coward, only his action, or lack thereof, would make that determination.

One of the, let me call them, “goons”, was taking video with his phone, so there exists a record of these dealings. So, if I am in error, let them come forward with the entire video.

As I continued to go to the room and return to the truck to load it, Eric Parker challenged me, as well. They tried to block my passage, and I had to walk around them. At one point, I was putting things in the back seat (4-door) and when I turned around, Curtiss had blocked as much of the area between the door and bed of the truck as he could block. There is no doubt that he wanted me to “push” my way through, and then claim that I had assaulted him. However, I turned sideways and managed to slide out and go about my business.

During the course of my coming and going from the room, I called the manager and asked him to call the cops; that I was being threatened and harassed. It might seem ironic to some that I ended up calling the cops on someone who spent 8 or 9 years as a cop, but why not give him a taste of his own medicine?

While the harassment continued, and threats were being made, I heard a voice from behind me saying, “Leave him alone!” One of the beefier goons went up and faced this rather short, wiry guy. When I glanced back over that way, a few seconds later, the goon had decided not to take on the little guy.

The manager walked by and told me that he had finally gotten through to the police. Just a minute or so later, Brandon offered me his hand. I told him that he had his chance, and chose not to take it. At about the same time, the little guy said, quite loudly, “Don’t do it”, meaning don’t shake his hand. I was really beginning to like this guy.

When I had the truck nearly loaded, I went over to see who this supporter was. I asked him if I knew him. He simply replied, “Wolf”. He explained that he was a friend of KC Massey, and it struck me that I had interviewed him when I did the story of the shooting by the BPS agent. I couldn’t recall, at that time what his real name was, and now that I do, I think I’ll just leave it at “Wolf”.

He told me that he had been asked to go to Burns to protect me, though he refused to say who gave him those instructions. So, that will remain a mystery to both the reader, and me but it was nice to know that someone, besides my family, was concerned for my safety.

While still talking with Wolf, the police finally arrived. I explained what had occurred to the officer. In the meantime, another patriot that I had met the night before had been watching from the second floor balcony, and he came down and joined us. Both he and Wolf confirmed what I told the cop.

Meanwhile, other cops were interrogating Brandon and the goons, so that head cop, the one that I had spoken to, went over to put the pieces together. Soon, he returned and said, “Everything has been taken care of. You have nothing to worry about. If there is a problem, call us and we well be here, right away.” I thanked him and wished him a good day.

Meanwhile, the second floor patriot was joined by his girlfriend. I offered to take all to breakfast, but Wolf decided it would be his treat. We went to a local truck stop and had a great breakfast, and a wonderful conversation between real patriots.

Interestingly, my dealings with Brandon Curtiss were not over. On February 4, just after 11:00 AM, I received a Facebook PM from him. It started out, “All bullshit aside with our differences, I am not planning on storming any barricades. That would be insane. This is getting spun up and out of control.”

This led to a rather extended PM exchange, and a phone call (identified in the PM), that led to what I thought would be a resolution of our differences and beginning to work together. It had to do with a conversation that I had earlier with someone who contacted me as he was traveling to Oregon.

The post in question, which will also appear in the PMs, states that PPN “will march through the barricades and through the FBI.” This information was passed on as unconfirmed, but would be necessary for the person to get to the Narrows and be prepared to bring those who were not affiliated with PPN to join them, if it were true.

My team continued to track the source of that information in an effort to confirm, or deny, the “information”. It had become quite apparent that many absurd stories had been circulating, by that time.

At 11:03 AM, February 4, I get a Facebook PM from Brandon Curtiss.

At 11:27 AM, begins the explanation as to what had occurred, and what the OMD position was in the matter. To aid the four inside (Fry, 2 Andersons & Banta), we wanted to see if we could get them some relief so that we could be sure of “holding the fort” long enough to put out a general call, hoping for many more to come to Burns to assist in keeping the public lands open to the public.

At 11:32, I suggest that we begin working together. Brandon agreed. Then, I indicate what the OMD position is, that we need the relief to get in to the Refuge.

At about 12:30 Brandon wanted to go telephonic. Not yet being sure that I could rely on what he said, based upon the previous experience, I recorded the call. A timeline to key parts of the conversation follows:

0:24 – 4:00: Explanation of how we can hold the ground. Brandon builds obstacle to discourage any real action. Then, he explains that he got a call from Oregon State Police (OSP) — based upon what he had sent me (in PM at 11:18 AM). So, I have to wonder why they called him. They didn’t call me, though I appear to be an instigator. Does Brandon have some special relationship with the OSP? Did they call him to get him to thwart any action that might provide relief to those inside?

5:06 – 7:50: He suggests that this would be a “point of no return”. Darn, someday, if we want constitutional government restored, there will be a “point of no return”. He thinks that we would need a thousand “well trained patriots”. To form the battle line that has been suggested would only require discipline. If we cannot get our country back without “well trained patriots”, then we just might as well put our hands behind our backs and back up to the nearest FBI agent. That is nothing more than an obstacle, really, an obstruction — which has little merit. When you have to fight, you fight with what you have. Patriots have been training for many years. Do we train into oblivion? However, I continued to discuss a tactic that has been presented, as that tactic would be both unanticipated and difficult to defend against.

8:29 – 9:00: Brandon talks about the call outs that they have done. Those call outs will be discussed, elsewhere, but they have been absent any show of force, rather, they are intended to just get people to Burns and let them be a burden on the town (See The Burns Community). Quite frankly, what he had, and continues to call for, has hurt far more than it helped those in the Refuge. He then states that those who had come to Burns, and the Refuge, scattered after LaVoy was shot. The cause and effect of that reaction is discussed in “Stand Up; Stand Down“, and there were persistent phone calls and text messages, from PPN, to those inside, to abandon their positions. This resulted in only 8 or 9 defenders by the next morning.

9:01 – 10:29: Discussion of passive and active support. Brandon seems to prefer passive (demonstrations), though he is Idaho III% (III% is the John Adams estimate of how many colonists FOUGHT, like with muskets, against the British). This is also the difference between Civil Disobedience, which might get you arrested, and Civil Defiance, which is defying the presumed authority with arms, as at the Bundy Ranch in April 2014. Then, he mentions LaVoy, and says that he doesn’t “want anyone else losing their life.” So, now we step into the world of “peaceful resolution”. That was the mantra of the FBI, Sheriff Ward, Judge Grasty, and, apparently, PPN, Idaho III%, and the OathKeepers.

13:40 – 16:40: Brandon explains that he spoke with Ammon and Ryan about letting them (Brandon) know when they were going to be “out and about” so they could be “over watch and scouting around”. So, they (Brandon) took a lot of hits since they weren’t there (at the shooting). However, the run into town has no good place for an ambush. It is wide open. Now, if someone wanted to provide “over watch and scouting around”, there was no reason for Brandon to drop that mission, since he should have known that the road to Grant County went through the Malheur National Forest, with plenty of trees, rolling country, and many curves — ideal for an ambush. As far as not being notified, the meeting in John Day was well advertised as much as a week, or more, before that fateful day. However, it is probably much easier to be sitting in a restaurant, enjoying a meal paid for by contributions made to support the operation, than to take the initiative and scout the route. If they had done so, it is quite apparent that the ambush location was established at least a day before, when branches were cut from trees to facilitate firing positions, snowmobile tracks, and the entire ambush area prepared, and probably quite obvious, at least to someone who could “scout” an area — before, not after, the fact.

18:25 – 19:10: Brandon has both numbers and was going to give them to B. J. Soper, presumably to let him know that we are “working together”.

21:44 – 22:04: Here, Brandon includes the FBI, along with OSP, as having contacted him. Why they have so much faith in getting answers from Brandon is a matter for speculation, at this point.

22:32 – 23:22: Brandon says, “Well, we will work through it. It’s okay. And the, by all of us coming to gather, and then working together, it just makes us stronger”…. We then, finally, “shook hands”, over the phone — that is the honorable thing that real men do. Then, he says, “This is what we all need to be doing, working together and building our network, you know, larger.”

So, we end the conversation with what should be a good and honorable working relationship.

On the morning of February 5, I discovered that, without notifying me, nor having received that call that Soper was supposed to have made to me, the “Call to Action” at the blockade had been changed to a demonstration at the site of LaVoy’s murder. Though I don’t have the original message that I received that morning, the following is the wording from pacificpatriotsnetwork.com:

So, what had been discussed (above) was simply tossed out the window, the location changed, and raises the question as to the sincerity of Brandon Curtiss, as we have learned to expect from government officials.

My comment, with regard to this “working together”, then continues the PM conversation. Needless to say, Brandon Curtiss’ true colors were amply demonstrated, not only by this most recent episode, but not in the least, inconsistent with what was reported by Ryan Payne, Brandon’s asserting authority over any militia that came to Burns, his abrupt rudeness and unwillingness to talk in the early conversations, and finally, this attempt to obtain information, suggest that he was honorable, and then assigning the responsibility, not on himself, as leader of Idaho III% and PPN, but on Soper, who was probably never informed of the telephone conversation and the agreement to work together.

NOTE: Though one of the comments (Matt Grove) below links a questionable business practice, reports at the following link refers to Brandon Curtiss’ business, Curtiss Property Management, where there are two other reports filed explaining his character. They are not inconsistent with what is presented, above. He is, it appears, simply a “con man”, both in real life and as a “patriot”.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/specific_search/Brandon+Curtiss

Burns Chronicles N^o 6

Is There a Peaceful Solution?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 09, 2016

I have heard professed patriots, such as Melvin Lee (especially, beginning at the 19:27 mark), on behalf of Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), claiming that what was accomplished by Ammon Bundy and others was wrong, that there is a peaceful way to achieve what they were trying to achieve. When what Ammon did is compared with our own history, they argue that there was no Constitution then, but there is one now, and we must abide by it.

So, let’s set the record straight by starting with the Constitution. There was an English Constitution, however, it was a compilation of acts and court decisions, beginning with the Magna Carta, and insuring the “Rights of Englishmen”. It was the Crown’s refusal to recognize the rights of the colonists, as they were enjoyed in England that led to the Revolution.

Our Constitution is written in a single document, with amendments in addition to the original. However, the Supreme Court will not pass on the constitutionality of a matter before it “unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case”. In other words, only as a last resort. This was explained to the country in a 1936 Supreme Court decision, Ashwander v. T.V.A.

Lee also claims that there is a peaceful solution, suggesting demonstrating, petitioning politicians, etc. Well, those are fine words; however, they are nothing more than words. But, I don’t want you to take my word for it. I think that the best source would be a person, Representative Greg Walden, who had firsthand knowledge of the abuse by the administrative agencies, even though an act of the Congress was passed to set some rigid rules against such abuse. If our lawmakers pass a law and the agencies ignore, or circumvent, the law, perhaps you can explain to me just how a peaceful resolution can be achieved. Listen to the entirety of his Speech on the Floor of the House of Representatives (Published January 8, 2016 – 24 minutes).

So, what can we do to change things, peacefully? To get government back to being the servant rather than the master? I have read the OathKeepers post where they are trying to get Ammon and his people to leave. They suggest that a “lateral move” to another, friendly, county, would solve the problem. Well, it surely would have gotten them off the Refuge. And, we heard both the Sheriff and the FBI constantly touting that they were seeking a “peaceful resolution”, but, then, we have the aerial footage showing just how that turned out for LaVoy Finicum, Ryan Bundy, and the others who are currently facing 6 years of “peaceful” solitude.

Surely, had Ammon done so, they would have gone directly into the hands of the feds, or ended up being murdered, as happened to LaVoy Finicum on the 26th. So, words, whether from the feds, law enforcement, or professed patriots, mean nothing. Only actions speak loud enough to generate the attention, and the support of other freedom loving Americans. Consider, too, that we have passed the point of even thinking that words, unless backed up by the threat of defensive force, are worth any more than the words of those who are destroying our country, and those who seem to, under the guise of “patriotism”, support those deceptive words.

Burns Chronicles N^o 5
The Burns Community

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 8, 2016

I arrived in Burns, Oregon on Sunday evening, January 24. After checking into the Silver Spur Motel, I drove down to the Refuge. At the gate (a truck blocking the roadway into the building complex), I was questioned. I mentioned both Ryan Payne and Ammon Bundy, as they both knew that I was coming up to write some articles about subjects peripheral to the story that was currently hitting the news, social media, and anywhere a listener or reader could be found. Unlike Waco, where fax networking was the patriots’ media, this modern age has made information access a whole new world. I was more interested in the back stories than what was readily available.

After a few radio calls, I was escorted down to the Admin building, then directed to MOB (Militia Operational Base), where I found Ryan. I was welcomed, warmly, and assured that access would be less difficult, in the future. It was mid-evening, so I returned to Burns and got a good night’s sleep.

I had picked up an ATT phone on the way up, but was unable to “initiate” it, so the next morning, having learned that only Verizon service is available at the newly named Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), I went to the local Verizon store and purchased a phone and a month’s worth of unlimited calls.

While waiting for nearly an hour to get my phone, another man that was waiting for service went outside to have a cigarette. I joined him and asked if I could interview him regarding what was happening in Burns. He agreed, so I got my recording out of the truck, and began my first, and only recorded, interview. His name is Chuck, and he had lived in and around Burns for over forty years. He drives a truck for a living.

When asked what he thought about what was going on down at the Refuge, he said, “I think those guys are on the right track.”

What about what is going on here in Burns? “I stopped at the airport yesterday and got treated like I was flying the ISIS flag, when I drove up there.”

Same thing when I went to the Courthouse. All I wanted to do was talk to a state cop. I had a horse missing. I had guys pointing guns at me; FBI agents pointing guns at me. I said, ‘Guys, I’m not packing’. They wouldn’t back off. You probably won’t print this, but they are a bunch of assholes. They need to back off from treating us locals like we’re gonna shoot them… I don’t want to be treated like an outlaw just because I live in this town.”

I asked him about the influx of Oregon State Police and the Sheriff’s deputies from other counties. He said, “They need to go home. I don’t want to be paying these federal agents and all these extra County Sheriffs and all of the State Police, when those guys out there are on the right track. All they need to do is go out and talk to them. We just don’t need them.”

I asked him if he believed that the federal government ever gave in, once they had made up their mind. He answered, “I don’t think so. If the jerk-off in the White House would just release the Hammonds, like he has done with all of the drug dealers and all the other federal prisoners — just sign a pardon. All they did is light a fire to protect their ranch. Just sign a pardon and let them go. This would all settle down.”

What about the aspect that those at the Refuge want the land to go back to the people? “I think that is where it ought to be. Not only in the Refuge, but in the Forest Service, and the BLM. I go out here and try to ride my 4-wheeler, I can’t. Cause every time I jump my 4-wheeler out of the back… Here’s the BLM cop telling me he’s gonna write me a ticket; because I’m going to ride me 4-wheeler on public land.”

You’ve seen the signs that say, ‘Enjoy Your Public Lands’, haven’t you? “No, no, not in this county. I’ve seen them. They’re bullshit. You wanna camp, you have to camp in one of their campgrounds that you gotta pay them to camp in. Then, they come and harass you. You can’t go to the woods anymore, cause they burned all the timber off, so now they got it all blocked off so they can do their experiments, or whatever the hell they are doing up there.”

Did they burn some timberland here, in Harney County? “Oh, hell yea. They let the first get away, and then they come in and build backfires twenty miles away from the fire that was going. And, the two fires never, ever, got together. Thousands of acres have been destroyed by the Forest Service. One time, they brought in firefighters out of Georgia and they went out and built backfires along the roads, twenty miles from the original fire. They didn’t even fight the fire. And, they burned all of the timber off. I think they burned the timber off because they don’t want any logging. It’s not job security for these loggers to go out and log it. If they log it, we don’t have wild fires. We used to log this country and keep that timber thinned out and moved back, and the brush was kept down. Them loggers would replant, but they never clear cut. They go out and selective cut after the Forest Service marked the trees they wanted out. And, they would go out and they would cut them, drag ’em out, knock the brush down. We didn’t have fires. Now, we don’t have loggers, but we got fires everywhere; All the time.”

He continued, “There was a big fire out here towards John Day. It burned all of that country off, cause it hadn’t been burned in fifty years. The Forest Service just won’t sell the timber. If they won’t sell the timber, the loggers can’t have it. What’s the Forest Service got to do with selling timber? They don’t own those trees. It belongs to us. They won’t sell the timber. The timber revenue used to pay for our schools. There is no timber sold, anymore. There ain’t no logging goes on here. The mill is shut down, it’s gone.”

What do you know about ranching and cattle?

“I know a little bit about it. Most of the ranchers around here, they deal with them, because they have to.

I’ve lived here my whole life. I like to take my 4-wheeler out and ride. And, I can’t, anymore. That’s what’s got me siding with the guys at the Refuge. The Forest Service and the BLM are the gardeners that we hired to take care of our garden. They are not the law enforcement, they don’t own it. And, they need to quit telling me what to do on our property. They should just go out there and tend to our trees, go out there and tend to our water holes, make sure that grass is growing, and shut the hell up.

“It’s really not just my 4-wheeler, it’s that they think they own it. Many years ago, the first Forest Service cop I saw, she was in the county parade. She’s riding a horse and all Ramboed up; guns, tazers, all the Rambo BS, and she’s setting on a horse, and I asked her, what the hell does the Forest Service have that’s worth shooting somebody over. And, she says, ‘Well, I have to protect myself.’ So, I said, ‘Well, if you weren’t an asshole when you walked up to someone in the woods, you wouldn’t need protection. You wouldn’t need a gun to protect yourself. If you walked up to someone who was cutting a tree down, to burn in their house, and you weren’t a jerk about it, you wouldn’t need protection, you wouldn’t need a gun.

“It’s like these jerks up here. You know, treating me like I’m an outlaw walking up to the Courthouse. That’s my Courthouse up there. I paid for that Courthouse and the Sheriff’s Office. I can’t even go to the Sheriff’s Office. Can’t get anywheres close to it. I pay that guy’s wages. I pay for his building, I pay for his heat, we pay for all of that. But, we can’t go up there, because that idiot FBI agent has got it all surrounded. They challenge me with automatic weapons. They’ve got it surrounded up there. You can go to the Courthouse, but you got to get through FBI agents to get into the Courthouse. The Sheriff’s Office is right behind it, but you can’t go to the Sheriff’s Office. That’s my Sheriff, and I had a horse out. I went to the Sheriff’s Office to see if see if I could just get somebody on patrol to just watch out for it. State cops, and the Sheriff’s deputies. I wanted to talk with the State Police, but I had to have the cop come outside of the barricades to talk to me because I couldn’t go inside of the barricades to talk to him. A cop that I’m paying for. It’s horseshit, it is all horseshit!”

What about Judge Grasty? “He needs to be in the Sheriff’s jail. I don’t know him all that well. I know who he is.”

I did interview others, though more informally. At restaurants, standing in line at the Safeway, and a couple of them just stopping someone on the street.

The interview with Chuck is consistent with most of what I heard. There were some common aspects, as everybody I interviewed had no problem with what was happening 30 miles away, whether they agreed with what they were doing, or not. Thirty miles distance had no effect on the Burns community, except a little additional business, such as more outsiders in the motel and at the local diners.

Their concerns, apprehension, and “fear”, as expressed by Sheriff Ward, had nothing to do with those at the Refuge. There was concern over the FBI and multitude of Sheriff’s deputies from other counties coming into their community, setting up barricades, and otherwise the presence of so many law enforcement people in town. However, the greater concern seemed to be the number of people walking around their otherwise peaceful community, armed. These would be those who professed to keep things peaceful, and avoid another “Waco” at the Refuge, while arrogantly walking the streets, almost like the gunfighters of the past, though holstering automatic pistols instead of Six-guns.

Though both sides blamed the peaceful occupants of the Refuge, they chose to impose upon the community rather than direct their efforts at what they claimed to be the problem, or those to be protected.

When I asked if they had been to the Refuge, most answered that they already had, or that they intended to go down and meet the people that were standing up for their rights.

Burns Chronicles N^o 4
Stand Up; Stand Down

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 7, 2016

On the morning of January 26, 2016, I traveled to the Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), formerly known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, from Burns. I had arranged to get the necessary information for some articles I intended to write.

When lunchtime came, I went to the mess hall. The Sharp Family had just begun with one of their songs, and I saw Ammon Bundy sitting with others at a corner table. I walked up and asked if I could sit at that table, and Ammon, graciously said, “Yes, please sit down.”

I had spoken with Ammon a number of times, in the months prior, though we had never met. As I introduced myself, I realized that he had been looking forward to our meeting, as I had.

We discussed the stories I intended to write, and he was fully supportive of the story lines, especially the one that would be about the people of Burns and their reactions to certain events, both in and out of town.

Before I left, the Sharps began another song. I had heard audio tapes of their singing during the Bundy Affair, but they didn’t compare to the live performance I heard that day.

After lunch, I located Ryan Payne. We had spent over a week together in November finishing a PowerPoint Presentation for Committees of Safety (CoS). This presentation had been used to explain the concept of CoS to some of the residents of Harney County. They then formed their own Harney County Committee of Safety.

I gave Ryan an inscribed copy of a biography of Robert E. Lee, which now still sits where he placed it. I had also forgotten to bring long johns, and needed some bottoms. Ryan went to the storeroom and retrieved a pair, explaining that they were from the delivery made through III Percent Patriots, just a few weeks before.

Both Ammon and Ryan had expressed their interest in the upcoming meeting at John Day, Grant County, and another meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer. Little did we know, then, what was soon to come.

I returned to my room in Burns and began writing. About an hour later, I received a phone call that reported that there had been a shooting and that LaVoy Finicum and Ryan (later to learn it was Ryan Bundy, not Ryan Payne) had been shot. About 15 minutes later, after some confirmation of the shooting, I headed back down to the HCRC. Realizing that most of the leadership at the HCRC was traveling to Grant County, and recognizing that it was imperative that some additional forces might be necessary to retain the public lands open to the public, I picked up my role of Public Relations for OMD. We had previously discussed and approved a call out to bolster the efforts at the HCRC. We felt there was time to prepare a call out, but suddenly, that call out became imperative.

I contacted my team (not a part of OMD, rather some wonderful, unpaid, people that assist me in research, audio/video editing, and other mundane tasks) and began dictating a call out, as I drove the thirty-three miles to the HCRC. Though not properly proofread, it was prepared and the remaining requirement was to get affirmation from those at the HCRC — that they wanted their forces supplemented.

Upon my arrival, I found a number of team leaders and other higher-level members discussing the shooting, the determination to hold their ground, and a refusal to accept orders from outside. It seems that a lot of people calling the individuals tried to talk them into abandoning their mission. I asked if they wanted a call out, and to a man, they said, “Yes”. So, I instructed my team to spread that dictated call out around the Internet. It was sent out at 7:56 PM PST, January 26, 2016:

From Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom in Burns, Oregon.
Attention all Oathkeepers, Idaho Three Percenters, Pacific Patriots Network, especially Brandon Curtis, Joe Rice, Eric Parker, and Stewart Rhodes.

This is a call-out to the membership of Operational Mutual Defense (OMD) and friends.

You have an obligation to proceed to the Harney County Resource Center (the wildlife refuge), immediately, in order to protect the patriots still there. If you fail to arrive, you will demonstrate by your own actions that your previous statements to defend life, liberty, and property were false.

To members of Operation Mutual Defense, this is an emergency. The purpose of Operation Mutual Defense is to respond to overbearing actions by the federal government that has become threatening to life, liberty, or property. Lavoy Finicum has been murdered by the FBI, and Ryan Payne [Bundy] has been shot.

They were en route to a meeting where had been invited by the Grant County sheriff to address the citizens in Grant County, a peaceful mission.

The time for all good men to come to the aid of their country has come — to the Harvey County Resource Center, which is 30 miles south of Burns, Oregon.

Stand by your oath. God Bless America.

You will note that it was directed at certain organizations present in Burns since January 2, or earlier. Though we didn’t know what the government’s next step would be, time was of the essence. There were a number of members of those organizations just 30 miles away, and they were absolutely necessary if the HCRC was to be held. They were present in order to discourage a “Waco type” raid, according to all of their public statements.

In my haste to get to the HCRC, I had failed to take my computer. I had mail lists that went to upwards of 800 people, and getting the call out to them was imperative. The “hot spot” at the refuge was no longer active, but efforts were being made to get it reestablished, so I opted to return to Burns to get my computer. When I returned to HCRC, I learned that women and children, as well as many of the men, especially from those organizations, had left. However, there was hope that they would soon be replaced by some of those who had been staying in town.

I had stopped at the bridge on Sodhouse Lane (the road to the HCRC) where a front-end loader had been placed on the bridge to prohibit traffic. Jason Patrick was there, as was a wonderful “young” lady named Barbara Berg. I found that the hotspot had not been restored, so I decided to wait in the press area (west of the bridge) and assist Jason in coordinating interviews with the various press. This task ended up going until about 7:45 the morning of the 27th.

Shortly before, a press crew had come in and said that a roadblock had been set up on SR 205, the direct route to Burns and the last of the available roads out from the area. They had been told that once you go out, you could not return.

At about 7:45, a lady from ABC called the press together and explained that she had received a call from the FBI. They had told her that there were “armed forces” on each side of us, and that the FBI could not provide for anyone’s safety, unless they left the area.

About that time, a friend called and said that she had been told that I would be assassinated when I left. I knew that the government did not like my writing, but I shrugged off the warning. However, that message remained in my mind and created a bit of apprehension.

I had intended to go to the Narrows (restaurant, store, and campground) about six miles west and cover what I could from there. Instead, I decided that I might be better off returning to Burns, though I was still a bit anxious about the message. I determined to place discretion ahead of valor, and return to Burns.

I asked one of the press members who I had spoken with, before, if I could leave with him so that there was someone present if the rumor were true. He said that he could not ethically do so, but informed me that he would be leaving shortly.

Most of the press proceeded to the Narrows, where he and I also went. When he was ready to leave, I pulled out behind him. At the stop sign, he remained conspicuously longer than necessary, so I pulled around him as he nodded at me.

As I approached the checkpoint, I saw that the woman in front of me had gotten out of her car, held up her hands, and walked toward the motioning agent. I was behind her about 50 feet, where the first stop was implemented. I removed my bulky jacket, not wanting to appear to have any place in which to hide weapons.

Finally, her car was driven forward by an agent, and I was motioned to the next stop. I arrived with head and hands out the window, except to the extent that I had to steer the truck. I then exited, walked across the road, then forward, hands raised, to the awaiting agent. I was patted down, asked my name, did I have weapons, and showed identification. He asked if I was press, I told him yes, he asked for my press credentials, I told him they were on the dashboard of my truck. Another agent verified that they were there.

Then, on to what was referred to as “Clearance #1”, where I was again questioned. By then, I was shivering; perhaps both from cold and apprehension, and the agent asked if I wanted a coat out of the truck. I affirmed, and as the agent drove my truck by, I was able to retrieve both coat and hat.

My truck, again, left me, and I was escorted up to “Clearance #2”, where I stood and talked with the agent. He was from the mid-west, and I asked him where he was staying. He said he had just arrived and immediately went on duty.

Finally, he received a report that I had passed clearance at #2, and I was allowed to go to my truck and drive up to “Clearance #3”.

At #3, I found that the agent was from “up north”, and had not stayed in Burns. So, it appears that they were deployed from their home bases directly to duty. This would explain why there were so few battle dressed agents staying in Burns or at the airport.

While waiting for my final clearance, the reporter behind me was passed through, drove around me and up the road. About 600 feet up, he stopped, and both he and his partner got out and took pictures, showing that I was still alive at Clearance #3, and the last of the checkpoints.

However, his passing me was a cause for apprehension. This was heightened when the next vehicle behind him was cleared and drove by me. I had been at #3 for almost twenty minutes, when I was finally cleared when he repeated what had been transmitted through his radio, “White hat is cleared”, and allowed to continue on toward Burns. A total of fifty minutes, filled with rising anxiety, and finally relief.

I had agreed to an interview with a reporter, in exchange for lunch, but first, I had to attend a press conference at eleven o’clock. After the press conference, we did the interview, and I returned to my room and a mountain of phone calls. After returning the calls, I was finally able to, after 34 hours, lie down and get some sleep.

When I awoke, I found that nobody had shown up at the HCRC to bolster the force, and even worse, that more had left. Concerned that many might be driving toward Burns, and not sure how long the few remaining there (down from the 8 or 9 that had been there at last report), I realized that circumstances, as they were, could not be improved by additional people arriving, with no place to report to, and the final door being shut. That 12-hour window when people could easily enter the area was closed. So a stand down was in order. I sent out the following at 9:21 PM PST January 27, 2016.

From Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom
In Burns, Oregon

Based on existing circumstance, support is too late, and would be dangerous, or at least result in your arrest if you attempted to get into the Refuge.

As I left the Refuge, this morning, troops were still arriving, according to those I talked with were arriving from various points as far east as Iowa, and further north. They appeared to have been staged at their home bases until they deployed directly to their field assignments. My estimate of perimeter troop strength would be 200-300, and one of these that I spoke with explained that he was “external perimeter”; they had even developed a protective perimeter concept, so that there were two lines that had to be overcome to gain entry.

At this point any effort to provide support for those inside by joining them would serve no useful purpose, and would be a fool’s errand.

OMD is currently working with others to establish a foundation upon which to build, so that the work begun in freeing public lands can be completed.