Outpost of Freedom blog

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 23, 2016

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

In a letter from Fish and Wildlife Services, dated May 22, 1988, on letterhead, though, apparently never sent {107-109}.  It is a response to Dwight’s plight, after his meeting with Shallenberger, and references that meeting. There is no indication of who edited the document. The strike outs (light and by pencil) in that draft that are quite telling:

I am writing in response to your formal appeal regarding actions taken by the Service to regulate Your cattle trailing operation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I have reviewed the correspondence surrounding this issue and have discussed the topic at length with staff from the refuge and Regional Office. I have also discussed it with Rob Shallenberger following his visit to your ranch. I’d like to express my appreciation for the courtesy you showed Rob and the information you shared with him. I’m sorry that I did not have the time available in my schedule to make the trip to Malheur myself.

After thorough review of this situation, it appears that there are some points on which we agree and others on which we do not. The Service acknowledges that the trailing route around the lower (west) end of Bridge Creek has been used historically, dating back well before you acquired the adjacent BLM allotment. We also agree that the movement of the boundary fence to the legal boundary has made your trailing operation more difficult and more costly. I will also agree that the Service took action to construct the new fence without full consultation with you and in conflict with what you believed was appropriate. I will also agree with you that the recent cooperative reseeding program with the State has the appearance of being initiated to bolster arguments in favor of maintaining the boundary fence. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Decade of the Eighties- Scene 5 – May 2, 1988 – May 9, 1988’ »

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?’ »

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’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 13
Ambush – Part 2
“We Feared for Somebody’s Life”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 14, 2016

Just over 246 years ago, on March 5, 1770, eight British Soldiers shot and killed four colonists.  They and their Captain stood trial, even though they were the property of the King.  All stood trial, even though only two were found guilty of manslaughter.  The people, in a jury trial, determined who was innocent, and who was not.  That is the judicial system we were supposed to have inherited from our British ancestors.  The Revolutionary War may have started even earlier, had not these simple rules of justice been applied — had the King decided that his forces would be judged by the King, or his appointee, rather than by the people.

An overview of the events that led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum was presented in a previous article, “Ambush“.  However, as a result of a press conference given in Bend, Oregon, on March 8, 2016, we have more detail to fill in some gaps in that previous article.  It is worthy of note that the detail is provided by Shawna Cox, one of the victims (Shawna Cox’s video synchronized with aerial footage, complete).  This article will address primarily the information given out at that press conference.

As we continue, you will note the extent of preparation for the event that was planned, probably as much as a week before the date of execution. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 13 – Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life”’ »

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1, 2016

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

On October 24, 1986, Dwight Hammond met with the Tom Downs, Dave Johnson, and the Assistant Refuge Manager, to discuss stray cattle and “trailing”, the means of herding to move cattle from one location to another. Dwight discussed his practice during round up, and what he did with strays that were collected with his herd. {2-3} He didn’t think that he should notify people when he trailed his cattle, based upon “past prior rights and/or privileges”.

Apparently, a new policy was being implemented that placed even more obligations on an already hard working rancher.

When on the Refuge land, Dwight would allow his cattle to rest, and when they did, they grazed on grass that was not on his allotment. A Telephone Conversation Record, dated Feb. 13, 1987 {4}, provides notes of the conversation, within the agencies.

In a letter from Lawrence W. De Bates, Assistant Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) {10}, dated February 20, 1987, based upon a meeting on the 17th, the follow-up implies that Dwight must move his cattle at a pace determined by the Refuge, and they should not graze off the assigned trail. He further defends the fencing within the Refuge “for wildlife management purposes”. Finally, he requires Dwight to get a permit to trail his cattle on the reserve. This is the first instance of requiring a permit to trail his cattle.

Dwight Hammond replies to the letter from De Bates, in a letter dated March 7, 1987 {14-15}. He explains that they had gone all of the way to Portland, with maps, to explain to De Bates what the problem was. He said that since the Refuge had stated that it had to be resolved at District, that the meeting was the only way to resolve the problem. He also questions whether De Bates was really paying attention, as he appeared to not understand just what the problem was. He then explains the problem, again, by stating:

WE WERE NOT ASKING FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE CONCERNING ANY GRAZING SEASON, OR TRAILING THROUGH THE REFUGE, BUT CONCERNING ACCESS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE REFUGE WHICH WE PERSONALLY HAVE USED FOR 23 YEARS, AND WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS USED SINCE AT LEAST 1877, AND WHICH ACCESS IS THE ONLY GEOGRAPHICALLY POSSIBLE ACCESS AROUND THE REFUGE ON THAT SIDE, AND WHICH YOUR AGENCY BLOCKED BY CONSTRUCTING A FENCE OR FENCES ACROSS THE LAND, PROHIBITING ACCESS TO OUR AND U. S. LANDS, IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OWN REFUGE MANUAL.

WE REALIZE THAT OUR LAWS GIVE YOU THE “RIGHT” TO FENCE YOUR BOUNDARIES, BUT WE FEEL THAT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE INTENTION OF THIS FREE, DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY TO BE SO SINGLE-MINDED AS TO CUT AN EXISTING RANCH IN TWO, MAKING IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OPERATE AND THEREFORE PUTTING US OUT OF BUSINESS.

YOUR FINAL PARAGRAPH IS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO US ALSO, AS IT FURTHER AMPLIFIES OUR SENTIMENTS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO REMOVE PERMITTEES FROM THE REFUGE FOR ANY REASON. OUR PROBLEM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR “PERMIT” ON THE MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, BUT AS A NEIGHBORING LAND-OWNER, CONCERNING THE UNREASONABLE AND UNBEARABLE POLICIES OF YOUR MANAGEMENT.

Dwight Hammond, in a letter to De Bates, dated March 12 {19-20}, tells of his meeting with George Constantino. He also explains the difficulty in working with people who seem to be “in the dark”.

I REQUEST THAT YOU, AT LEAST, ADVISE ME AS TO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR PART OF THE COMING CALAMITY. IS IT YOUR MAINTENANCE MAN THAT FANTASIZES HIMSELF THE LOCAL FRENCHGLEN GESTAPO; OR YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL THAT STRAP ON THEIR SIDE ARMS TO PRANCE THROUGH OUR LOCAL, PEACE-LOVING, TAX PAYING, PIONEER COMMUNITIES (YOUR LIFE-BLOOD)?? THESE MEN MEET PEOPLE EVERY DAY WHO ARE HEIRS OF THE PEOPLE PUT OFF OF THE CHOICE GROUND IN THE COUNTY, TO RAISE AND PROTECT WILDLIFE. IN REALITY, PRODUCTION HAS DIMINISHED STEADILY, SINCE THE FEDERAL TAKE-OVER AND CONDEMNATION, EVEN BY ADMISSION OF YOUR OWN AGENCY PEOPLE AND PUBLICATIONS. I BELIEVE THIS REFUGE HAS IN EXCESS OF 180,000 ACRES, YET YOU PUT GREAT EMPHASIS ON SUDDENLY HAVING EXTREME INTEREST IN HABITAT, ETC., ON APPROXIMATELY 500 ACRES OF DRY, ROCKY HILLSIDE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN FENCED, UNTIL IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT I COULD NOT GEOGRAPHICALLY CROSS MY RANCH WITHOUT ACCESS THROUGH YOUR DEEDED LAND, WHICH I HAVE DONE FOR 23 YEARS, WITH NO PROBLEMS, AND THE HARNEY COUNTY MAPS VERIFY THIS PASSAGE AS HAVING BEEN USED SINCE AT LEAST 1877. – – OR, IS IT GEORGE CONSTANTINO, OR ARE YOU ACCEPTING FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS UPCOMING NO-WIN SITUATION, FOR ALL OF US, AND ARE YOUR SUPERIORS AWARE?

I AM GOING ACROSS, WITHOUT A PERMIT (MAYBE ONLY ONCE, I REALIZE), FOR YOU PEOPLE HAVE CREATED AN UNLIVABLE SITUATION FOR US, TOTALLY AGAINST YOUR OWN REGULATIONS, AS I HAVE ALSO TALKED TO MY ATTORNEYS. THEY HAVE ADVISED ME THAT I WAS MORALLY RIGHT, AND THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WERE NOT INTENDED TO DO TO ME WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO.

THIS MESS COULD ALL BE AVOIDED, TODAY, AND FOR TOMORROW, AS THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, BY USING THE OLD BOUNDARY FENCE, AS IT WAS ESTABLISHED WHEN THE REFUGE CAME INTO BEING. THIS MUST HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY FENCE CONSTRUCTION WHERE IT WAS.

I DID ADVISE GEORGE’S SECRETARIES THAT I WOULD PHONE AHEAD WHEN I WOULD BE CROSSING THE REFUGE, TO REQUEST THE PRESENCE OF OUR LOCAL SHERIFF, BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED. YOU HAVE PUSHED ME THE TOTAL LIMIT!!

I WISH YOU WOULD LOOK AHEAD FAR ENOUGH TO GIVE YOUR PERSONNEL THE PROPER DICTATION FOR WHEN I START ACROSS THIS AREA IN MY USUAL MANNER.

I REALIZE THAT I AM SEEMING VERY NARROW-MINDED, ONE-SIDED, AND TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO THE LAW, BUT I HAVE LIVED WITH THIS EXTREME INCONVENIENCE FOR SEVERAL RECENT YEARS. YOUR NEW FENCE BEING IN PLACE, DOESN’T SEEM TO BE ENOUGH ANY MORE, AND YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED. AS TO GOING THROUGH THE “LEGAL” CHANNELS, THIS IS PROHIBITIVE, AS YOU ARE FIGHTING ME WITH MY OWN DOLLARS, AND I CANNOT AFFORD IT, OR WIN. HOWEVER, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO MAKE ONE LAST OFFER, AND WOULD PAY THE EXPENSES FOR YOUR TRAVEL, ROOM AND BOARD, TO COME AND PERSONALLY, PHYSICALLY OBSERVE THE PROBLEM, OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR CHOICE THAT WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A REASONABLE DECISION, TAKING ALL FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION. PREFERABLE THIS WOULD NOT BE GEORGE CONSTANTINO, BECAUSE, AS OF OUR MEETING THIS MORNING, HE IS STILL, IN MY WIFE’S AND MY OPINION, IN “THE DARK”, NOT KNOWING THE COMPLICATIONS OF THE SITUATION, OR EVEN AFTER ALL THIS TIME AND UPHEAVAL, THE LOCATIONS OF THE FENCES.

IN PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS, YOU HAVE USED THIS PROBLEM AS A THREAT AND ALSO, IT HAS BEEN PUT TO ME IN THE OFFICE AS A THREAT AGAINST ME IN REGARDS TO OUR REFUGE PERMIT. WE WOULD LIKE TO MARE IT CLEAR THAT THIS PROBLEM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR BEING A PERMITTEE ON THE MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, AND IF I AM, IN FACT, REMOVED, AS A RESULT, AS YOU AND GEORGE HAVE THREATENED, THE PROBLEM WILL BE GREATLY AMPLIFIED.

P.S. NOTE – THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND; BUT, MAYBE IT COULD BE ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS SO VERBAL WITH MR. CONSTANTINO. IN DEC., 1986, THE FIELD THAT MY CATTLE WERE USING AS A PERMIT IN THE REFUGE, HAD REACHED THE OPTIMUM LEVEL OF USE, ACCORDING TO REFUGE PERSONNEL, FOR BIRD HABITAT, AND I WAS ASKED TO MOVE MY CATTLE OUT EARLY. AT THAT TIME, I ASKED TO USE OTHER FEED ON THE REFUGE, AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO OTHER FEED AVAILABLE TO BE USED; HOWEVER, AS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, THERE ARE STILL OTHER CATTLE ON THE REFUGE. I MUST DRIVE BY THIS ANYTIME I GO ANYPLACE FROM MY HOME, AND IT CAN’T HELP BUT CREATE A FEELING OF BIGOTED INJUSTICE. WE ARE TOLD THE ABSOLUTE DATE FOR REMOVAL OF ALL CATTLE ON THE REFUGE IS JANUARY 31. THIS IS MARCH 19. THESE CATTLE (NOT OURS) HAVE BEEN “TRAILING ” THROUGH THE REFUGE FOR A MONTH????

Dwight suggests that the Refuge, FWS, and the individuals involved are ignoring the problem, as well as violating their own regulations. He also points out that he is being held to these new restrictions while the cattle of others are allowed to graze, even after the close of grazing season.

The file has a hand written note and response, dated March 18 {23}, regarding Hammond’s letters. It also refers to “Constantino’s Report”, though that report is not in the file.

De Bates sends a letter to the Hammonds {25}, March 19, explaining that they are trying to find a reasonable solution, and that he is sending Sandy Wilbur to Malheur and that they should get together and seek that solution. Interestingly, a paragraph from that letters begins to give us insight into the priorities over the 186,000-acre preserve. It appears to “not set back vegetation rehabilitation” has become a serious concern in a “Wildlife Refuge”.

We acknowledge your need and right to trail cattle through the refuge over the historic route we discussed when you were here in the office. All we are asking of you is that you move your cattle through as quickly as possible so as not to use forage allotted to others and so as not to set back vegetation rehabilitation along Bridge Creek. We are not asking anything of you that we do not ask of other refuge users. It isn’t our intention to threaten anyone; our goal is only to achieve proper management of the resources entrusted to us.

Apparently, some headway has been made, as George Constantino sends the Hammonds a letter dated March 20 {30-32}. In the letter, it appears that there was a bit of concession on the part of the Refuge.

This letter is to document my verbal authorization to you to trail through the Refuge under the following conditions:

You may trail your cattle through the Bridge Creek area, entering, trailing through, and leaving the Refuge along the route marked in blue on the attached map.

We want the entire trailing operation to be done in one day.

Finally, you are to notify us at least 24 hours in advance before you begin trailing, so we may monitor your trailing operation.

However, Constantino manages to chastise and threaten Hammond, stating that unless they comply with the rules, they will not have the right, next year, to move their cattle without a permit.

To Be Continued

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1, 2016

Long before the fires (controlled burn in 2002 and a backfire to protect their own property in 2006) that resulted in Dwight and Steven Hammond being imprisoned for 5 years, the dispute over their rights had begun. Nearly four decades of harassment had been directed against them, until, finally, the government could make a very meager case, using a law enacted to cover terrorism, and applied to the Hammonds for doing what the government does, on a regular basis.

The Hammond family had been ranching in Harney County, for many years. They had been grazing on allotments on public lands, and as any rancher, they sought to resolve problems, though resolution had to be practical.

When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was the overseer of the land in question, no problems arose. However, when the Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) became the controlling agency, the protection of wildlife and plants, even to an absurd extreme, became priority, at the risk of a way of life.

The information (cited documents) in the following series, being public records with no indication of any security or confidentiality, were obtained in order to record the history of the Hammond’s relationship with various agencies, in order to continue their business of cattle ranching as they had become accustomed. The documentation revolves around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).

After 1988, it appears that he problem was solved, as there is no correspondence or entries in the folder to indicate any problems or harassment.

Then, in 1994, we see that the Refuge, once again, tries to obstruct the traditional and historical rights of the Hammonds.

This first Act will cover the decade of the eighties. The second act will cover the decade of the nineties. Throughout Act I, you will find numbers shown thusly, {nn}. They refer to the PDF page numbers in the “Hammond Legal Trailing Part I” PDF file, that being only a portion of the recovered documents. More will be brought out in Act II.

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

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 3 – April 2, 1987 – April 15, 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 12
Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 29, 2016

I have never met Jon Ritzheimer, though I have spoken and worked with Jon on various enterprises. I found him to be quite affable, and perhaps more importantly, a willing learner.

I had hoped to finally meet Jon when I arrived at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in the late afternoon of Sunday, January 24. Unfortunately, Jon had left for his home in Phoenix, earlier that day. However I have no doubt that Jon and I will finally shake hands, in friendship, in the near future.

So, we know when Jon left Burns, Oregon, on January 24, but that is really not the point. The real question is; When did Jon arrive in Burns, Oregon and the Refuge?

Well, the FBI has their answer as to when Jon was in Burns. It is clearly stated in the “Redacted Criminal Complaint“. (Why the Complaint is Redacted will be discussed later in the article.) The Complaint is in the form of the “Affidavit of Katherine Armstrong”, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Perhaps a bit of background and educational foundation of SA Armstrong is in order. According to the Affidavit, she has been employed by the FBI for “one-and-a-half (1 ½) years”. Surely, that is sufficient time for a novice FBI Special Agent to prepare the foundation for a case that the Court, based upon a “Government’s Motion to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates, Set Status Hearing, and Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act“, is considering waiving, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“, as protected by the Sixth Amendment.

However, that is not all that is rather curious about SA Armstrong. This quote, from her credentials, “I have also acquired knowledge and information pertaining to violations of federal law from numerous other sources, including: … informants,” as if informants are a part of the educational curriculum of the “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” agency of our government.

Now, the Affidavit was signed on January 26, however, it excluded LaVoy Finicum from those named. So, we must assume that the Complaint was prepared and filed AFTER LaVoy was murdered on the side of US Highway 395.

The Affidavit, with the exception of reference to videos and the arrest of Brian Cavalier (Budda) on January 11, both of which don’t require strong investigative skills, as the former only requires an internet connection, in the latter, access to the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database, based upon events that occurred prior and up to January 7, 2016. It would seem that the government, then, has had well over a month to prepare their case. So, why do they want to deprive the accused patriots their constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial? After all, the government has unlimited agents, lawyers, resources, and money (ours) with which to prepare their case. The have already delayed “discovery”, removing time for preparation by the defense attorneys, who have limited manpower and resources.

So, let’s look at the “public trial“. Suppose you were charged with a crime. Suppose, also, that the government wanted more time to make sure that they had all of the dirt that they could get on you. Suppose, further, that the government wanted to see if they could find evidence of a crime that they weren’t even aware of, by taking a little fishing trip to the Refuge. And, suppose that they did everything they could to prevent the defense attorneys from looking over their shoulders to see what sort of fish they might catch, maybe even planting some fish to justify the rather feeble case they already have.

Now, we do have the Criminal Complaint, but as you will soon see, it is conjecture, not fact, at least in part. Most of the remainder is gross misrepresentation. The charges against the accused patriots are not based upon the Criminal Complaint, that is only justification for arrest warrants that were, demonstrably, issued after the arrests were made (hint: there was no arrest warrant for LaVoy Finicum, so the warrants would have been made out after they knew that they could not arrest a dead man.). Quite simply, they arrested six people and murdered one person, and without having the constitutionally required warrant. Within that Criminal Complaint (Redacted), we see that they have redacted (blocked out) only the month and date of birth, leaving in the years. Well, that is the first time in the federal judicial system (Beecher, Massey, Wolf, & Barbeau, etc.) where I have seen birthdates included, as they are really not relevant to the charges.

On February 3, 2016, the Grand Jury Indictment, consisting of only 3 pages, where the Criminal Complaint at 32 pages, is “Sealed”. However, the “Sealed” Indictment is readily available, at least the three pages, so we must look further to see what is really sealed. The Pacer system shows the Docket listing. The Docket listing is a numerical log of documents entered on the case before the court. Most often, the documents are logically entered (i.e. n, n+1. n+2, n+3, etc.), however we find that many entries are out of order in this case. We also find why the Indictment was Sealed, at least in part:

Note: red text reads “(In accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 this form document containing personal data identifiers is filed under seal)”

So, you can see, well, no you really can’t see, what is supposed to be a public trial. How can it be a public trial when we don’t even know what the specific charges are? Some will say, well, yes, we know that they are charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. §372. But, that statute is a general explanation, and, interestingly, was first enacted in 1861, during the Civil War. But, an Indictment should give the specifics of a charge. For example, the Criminal Complaint explains what the players did that just might constitute “probable cause” in violation of the statute, but the specifics are conspicuously hidden from the public, those of us who have every right to know what our fellow citizens are charged with.

We must ask ourselves, first, why the FBI wants these crucial explanations of criminal activity hidden, and, secondly why the judge should allow such devious and unconstitutional practices?

We can possibly assume that the specifics that were presented to the Grand Jury, were in the same form as they were in the Criminal Complaint. And, it is safe to assume that they were probably presented by the experienced FBI Special Agent Armstrong that learned so much from “informants”. That being the case, we can look to the Criminal Complaint, particularly item number 14, which reads:

14. On December 18, 2015, a citizen (hereafter Citizen) of Harney County was shopping at the Safeway grocery store in Burns, Oregon. Citizen was wearing a BLM shirt. Citizen was confronted by two men, one whom she identified as RITZHEIMER. Citizen reported to law enforcement that she heard yelling, and when she turned around, the second individual shouted “you’re BLM, you’re BLM” at her. That person further stated to Citizen that they know what car she drives and would follow her home. He also stated he was going to burn Citizen’s house down. RITZHEIMER and the second individual left the area in a black pick-up truck with black canopy and no visible license plate. Since the incident, Citizen has observed a similar vehicle outside her residence. Citizen was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle when she later saw it. The following week, a second vehicle, described as a white truck with a pink license plate and a big rebel flag sticker on the back window, aggressively tailgated Citizen, flashing lights and driving erratically. Citizen believed the second incident was related to the first. Citizen also saw the black pick-up truck outside of her place of employment early in the morning hours of Christmas Day.

Oops, where is the accuser? Back to the Sixth Amendment, which also states, “and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Both of these elements, the cause and the witness, are obscured under some court rule that is in obvious violation of the protected rights in the Constitution. But, then, that begins to move us to the heart of just why these patriots chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge; to bring to light the fact that the government seems to be operating, in many areas, outside of the powers and authority granted by the Constitution.

Now, the FBI, with all of their resources, should have no problem accessing security films from Safeway, or to find others who were witness to the events described at that location on December 18. However, their diligence in pursuit of justice seems to fail in recognizing their responsibility to protect a person from unwarranted charges.

Let’s look at some facts. Remember, the FBI and NSA have access to all of our records. They have used credit card tracking to locate and arrest criminals, in the past. So, we will use those same sources to dispute the sworn affidavit of our very professional FBI SA Armstrong.

First, Jon was in Arizona, all day, on December 18. Knowing that he was going to go up to Washington, then on to Burns, he took some pictures that morning, with his daughters. He had also arranged to see a movie with a friend, before he left on his trip. The date/time of the movie shows clearly:

Now, we can look at what Jon was doing the rest of the day, December 18, including dinner at a Mexican Restaurant. The transaction date appears in the left column on his Credit Union Credit Card (top), and in the items column in the Chase Debit Card (bottom).

You will note that the Debit Card entry for 12/21 shows that he was at “Eddies Truck and Auto Center”, in Hines, Oregon. If you look at the items entered on 12/21, you will see that he was in Washington, then went through Sandy, then Prineville, which would be enroute to Hines from Washington. So, the Hines entry had to be no less than the afternoon on the 20th.

We needn’t stop there. After all, many judicial decisions are based upon the preponderance of evidence. So, let’s look at Jon’s trip northward. First, we have him stopping in Meridian, Idaho, to spend a little time with an old friend. Then we can see the route he traveled, and finally, the picture log that gives the date and location of the pictures he had taken.

So, what we must now consider is whether this information, item #14 from the Criminal Complaint, was presented to the Grand Jury as factual information. There is no supporting statement by the “Citizen”, there is no evidence that the “Citizen reported to law enforcement…”, and there is nothing to suggest that SA Armstrong even knows of the existence of “Citizen”. Perhaps she made the whole darned story up to make Jon Ritzheimer look bad — when Jon Ritzheimer was, at least, hundreds of miles away.

While we are on the subject of the protected rights within the Bill of Rights, there is another provision of the Sixth Amendment that warrants our consideration, that the speedy and public trial be “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” So, we have a crime allegedly committed in Eastern Oregon, a ranching, agricultural, forestry, and mining, community (if we exclude the excessive number of government employees in Harney County, that being about 46% of the non-agricultural workforce), which is in the Eastern District of Oregon, though we have a Grand Jury empanelled in the Western District of Oregon. Now, the western District is city-folk. It is industrial, commercial, and though it may have a few small farms and ranches, it is most definitely comprised of a totally different lifestyle than the Eastern District. Now, being unable to construe any reason for the inclusion of that phrase in the Amendment than that the justice system must operate where there are people of like mind, we can only wonder why the government had opted to go into the urban realm to seek an Indictment, and we must also presume that they have every intention of subjecting what happened in the rural Eastern District to the petit jury, the determination of innocence or guilt, comprised of those urbanites in the Western District.

What the Framers gave us to protect against injustice, the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

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.