Outpost of Freedom blog

The Bundy Affair #25
Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 2, 2018

Recent events in Las Vegas have led to a completely new perspective on the misdeeds of government.  Failure to provide timely Discovery, especially that of an exculpatory evidence (proving innocence or to impeach witness testimony).

As Judge Gloria Navarro pointed out in the seven known violations, six of them were deemed “willful”, where the seventh could possibly be inadvertent.  However, in the closed session that followed the declaration of a Mistrial, there may have been as many as 20 more violations of either Brady or Giglio.  Those cases establish precedence with regard to the timely disclosure of evidence to the Defense.

Before we proceed, perhaps reviews of the timeline of primary events in this case are necessary:

1. The events that are addressed in the Indictment occurred in the first half of April 2014.
2. The initial Indictment was February 3, 2016.
3. The Superseding Indictment was issued March 2, 2016.
4. The current trial, now on hold pending a decision with regard to Mistrial or Dismissal, began in late November 2017.

The Government’s Response to recent motions by Ryan Payne, suggesting Dismissal, and Ryan Bundy, demanding Dismissal, begins as follows:

“As with any large case, this multi-agency, multi-defendant, multi-trial case has presented significant discovery challenges: hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings, and thousands of emails, to name a few, balanced against factors such as witness security and disclosure procedures acceptable to the Court.  This complexity notwithstanding, and ever mindful of its Constitutional, statutory, Department, and Court-ordered discovery obligations, the government has always strived to meet these challenges with diligence, fairness, and efficiency.

First, let’s put a little perspective on timing.  It was 23 months from the event (1) that led to the Superseding Indictment (3).  It was another 14 months to the commencement of the trial (4).  That is 37 months, or, 3 years and 1 month.  However, they had the initial Indictment (2) and then modified it to the Superseding Indictment (3), in a month.  You would think that in those 23 months, they would have reviewed the records that they had to assure that they were truthful in what the presented to the Grand Jury, for both the initial Indictment and the Superseding Indictment.

And, most assuredly, they would not have accused the Bundy supporters of lying to the public about calling people to come to the Ranch because the government had snipers and posed a threat to the Bundys, knowing full well that they did have snipers and an FBI SWAT team in place, three days before Ryan Payne arrived at the Ranch.

The continued to lie, through the first two trial and into the current trial, claiming that there were no snipers however, the conspired to “wash” some documents of record by having a more senior FBI Special Agent, who is also the FBI agent that is assisting the US Attorney in the current trial.  See The Bundy Affair #24 – FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence.

Next, let’s consider the government’s explanation that no harm was done by not providing the information required by both law and the Rules of the Court.  From the last paragraph, page 7/55

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #25 – Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 62

Jon Ritzheimer, Facebook, and Justice

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 1, 2018

Jon Ritzheimer was scheduled to report to prison on February 16, 2018 to serve his year and a day, less time served and good time off.  That would probably amount to about 8 months.  He had time to prepare things for his family, to make their life easier while he was in prison.  He also had work to do to make sure that he got on the ballot in his run to replace the retiring representative, Trent Franks.  Jon’s goal was to be fully prepared to go to prison in February

However, a single event and a Facebook post have undermined his planned preparations.  Though he had been abiding by all of the rules imposed on him, a simple trip within the same county of where he was approved to go has undermined all of his efforts and goodness.

Once again, Facebook was the downfall of a good man.  There is no doubt that his Facebook page is monitored, and once the monitors saw the picture (above), they probably gleefully contacted Judge Anna Brown and reported that Jon was, finally, in violation of his release conditions.

Judge Brown then sent the following chastisement and order to the respective attorneys.  I have not spoken to Payne about this, though you will see that he has lost a major part of his freedom, as well.  Considering the restrictions imposed on their freedoms, it would seem that they should get credit for time served, or at worst, half credit for time served, as a consequence of this absolute denial of freedom of movement and communication, and consequences for violation thereof.

I have received and reviewed the messages from Ms. Hay and Ms. Wood.  Thank you for your prompt responses.

Although I do not intend to issue warrants based on the information discussed in our correspondence today, I am concerned that Defendants have taken advantage of this Court’s release accommodations in their favor.  So that this Court’s release conditions are perfectly clear going forward, I intend to take the action outlined below.  If any of you wish to be heard as to these decisions, please notify Mr. Rifer, and a hearing will be scheduled early next week.  In the meantime, please notify your clients that, in addition to all existing conditions, they are now subject to the following:

With respect to Mr. Payne, I agreed that he could be released from custody on the Oregon hold only in order to be able to confer meaningfully with his co-defendants and their counsel in the ongoing preparation of their mutual defense in Nevada.  I certainly did not intend to authorize his travel more than 80 miles from the Las Vegas Courthouse to the Bundy Ranch for social purposes.  Please inform Mr. Payne that, effective immediately and for purposes of his temporary release from custody on the Oregon case, the following specific conditions apply:

1. When his approved travel to Montana concludes, he is to return directly to the approved residence in Las Vegas where he will be on   “home detention” — meaning, he is to remain at that residence unless he   is going directly to or from court (including any pretrial office); the   offices of any defense counsel; or church, medical, or treatment   services.  He is not to return to the Bundy Ranch or to engage in social   activities with his co-defendants.

2. If it is determined by Chief Judge Navarro that the Nevada case against Mr. Payne will be dismissed with prejudice, Mr. Payne is to   surrender immediately to the U.S. Marshal in Nevada so that a hearing   can be conducted within 48 hours of that decision to determine whether   he will be detained or released pending his sentencing in Oregon.

3. If it is determined by Chief Judge Navarro that the Nevada proceedings against Mr. Payne will continue, he may remain on release   from the Oregon hold subject to all previous conditions and the “home   detention” described in Paragraph 1, above.

With respect to Mr. Ritzheimer, I have seen some of his email and text correspondence to his Arizona release officer regarding the request to travel to an “Airbnb” in Las Vegas for his wedding anniversary.  In a text, Mr. Ritzheimer wrote:  “I will not be going to the Trial or Federal Courthouse to see the Bundy’s [sic] if that’s what you’re thinking.  Just wanna to [sic] make that clear.  This is a trip for me and my wife’s anniversary.”  It’s clear to me Mr. Ritzheimer was not authorized to travel to the Bundy Ranch.  Nor was he authorized to make Facebook posts about the Bundy Ranch visit.  Rather than deal with his equivocating explanation in the context of a warrant and hearing to determine whether he violated release conditions, however, I’ve concluded the more reasonable course is to advance his surrender date for his prison sentence to next Friday, 1/5/18.  To implement that decision, I’ll enter an order early next week modifying the surrender date and directing him to surrender to the U.S. Marshal in Phoenix by Noon on 1/5/18.  Even if a BOP facility has not been designated by then, he will get credit for voluntarily surrendering to the U.S. Marshal as ordered.

Ms. Hay and Ms. Wood, please do the necessary to ensure your clients are aware of the particulars of this message.  Appropriate orders will enter early next week.  In the meantime, it will be a violation of the Oregon release conditions for your clients if they again travel to the Bundy Ranch.

This led to the consequences addressed above, and, ultimately, to Jon having to make major changes to his well-laid plans to be prepared to turn himself in on February 16, 2018.

In Jon’s own words:          Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 62 – Jon Ritzheimer, Facebook, and Justice’ »

[Note: This article had been posted and was available on the main page. Then, it disappeared. I don’t know if it was a glitch in WordPress, or not. However, it is being posed, again, so that it shows on the main page. opf]

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #23 – Larry Wooten – Ethical Government Employee, and Rare’ »

I seldom post the works of others on my blog. However, occasionally, something crosses my desk that warrants the attention of those who follow my work. This is one of them. It was written by someone I know, though for the purposes of identification, he is simply identified as “Stonewall Lee”. Those who have an interest in the Civil War will probably understand that choice.

I can’t say that I agree with everything stated in the article, however, without a doubt, I agree with almost all of it. I leave with the reader to judge, for themselves, the merit of the work.

By the way, it was Ron Wyden, Democratic Senator from Oregon, that claimed that the events in Burns were a virus that must be stopped.

The Cure for the Tyranny-Virus

by Stonewall Lee

Introduction

There was a “virus” spreading from Harney County, Oregon in January of 2016. Perhaps it would have been more accurate if it were called an “anti-virus,” as it was intended to aid in curing the sickness that encumbers our society; a society built on the foundation of biblical values, individual liberty, and self-government. It is at these foundational principles that the sickness which infects our nation has aimed its attack most vehemently. Through that effort, in helping to educate the citizens of Harney County about their Constitution, and their God-given rights, they gained much understanding which brought the oppression crushing their community into vivid clarity. They were learning about how things should be, but most certainly are not, and oftentimes one does not realize their own putrid state until they are presented with a picture that offers them some perspective to gauge the disparity.

Most of the methods this “anti-virus” implemented against the plague of tyranny, were educational, and some were based in direct action. The action was intended, not merely as the pursuance of a proper remedy to the corrupted federal and State practices regarding public-land ownership, transfer, management, and acquisition, but as an example which those inclined to correct the ship, so to speak, might learn from. Certainly, such a drastic measure as was taken regarding the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation, was guaranteed to garner much needed attention to the Hammond’s situation (Dwight and Steven’s return to federal prison and the federal government’s lawlessness and corrupt dealings with them for over 35 years), which is just one poignant microcosm of the greater issues which are effecting ranchers, land-users and producers all over the western United States; upon these much light was shed as an effect of the focus on the Hammond’s’ issue.

But there was a methodology which was implemented leading up to the occupation. In fact, the occupation of the refuge can be viewed as the result of revelations which occurred when utilizing this step-by-step process, such as government non-adherence to the Constitution, subversion of the law, and/or complete disregard for the purposes for which American governments are formed. Only after it became revealed that the federal government was not abiding by the law, and that the county and State governments were ineffective in their duty to protect their constituents from the federal infringements, an effort to conform the titles to the property associated with the refuge to be in accordance with the law was pursued.

This methodology was to be the main subject of the meeting in John Day, Grant County, Oregon, on January 26^th of 2016, which was interrupted by the ambush and arrest of those who were to present the material, and the murder of LaVoy Finnicum, by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team and Oregon State Patrol SWAT Unit. This methodology was the real “virus” that was so feared by those in power, which they have been effective in staying thus far, and which forms the subject and purpose for our current correspondence. Their fear of it, and the measures they were willing to take to halt its dissemination, reveals its power.

Our nation’s founders walked a morally upright and honorable path in dealing with their British rulers, ultimately separating from them and abolishing their governance of the colonies. They had the hind-sight of their posterity in mind, as well as the knowledge of judgment before a just God, and conducted themselves accordingly. They were also very careful to preserve a cogent record of their actions, not merely to justify themselves to future generations, but to educate us as to the proper course we might follow when we found ourselves facing similar circumstances as they; that we might need not entirely rediscover the process, only improve upon it and adapt it to the times.

The methodology which was in process and was to be presented in Oregon was based on what the founding fathers left us. As always, we hope that separation from our corrupted institutions does not become a necessity. That choice is not ours, but is decided by the Hand of Providence. I’ll not argue here regarding our current situation as a comparison to theirs; if that were necessary, this letter would be far ahead of its time, or addressed incorrectly. As it is, it may feel late, but even then, better late than never, and if we truly believe ourselves to be protected by Divine Providence, there is no other time than right-on, and perfect.

The Meeting That Never Happened

In Harney County, in December of 2015, time was marching too fast for the education, organization, and action of the community, in any manner which would help the Hammonds before they were re-incarcerated. Still, many in the community had a desire to assist in some way. On January 2^nd, 2016, under the principles that “We are to be our brother’s keeper,” -paraphrase of The Holy Bible, and “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; a group of individuals made the unconventional decision to mount a continued demonstration at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles south of the cities of Burns and Hines, the major population centers in the county. Aside from increasing the illuminating diffusion of the issues as raised in the previously presented Petition for Redress of Grievances, the apparent adverse-possession of the land drew a massive response from the people of Harney County and the surrounding counties, with thousands seeking information as to why such an effort was initiated.

In answer to the many requests for information which were received by those at the refuge, since renamed to “Harney County Resource Center” (HCRC), community meetings were arranged in a number of the surrounding counties. The issues facing Harney County are just a microcosm of the greater effect which centralized federal initiatives are having across a broad swath of the western States. Western rural-communities are becoming increasingly concerned about federal “ownership,” legislation, and administration of lands within the established States, and The People were very interested in discovering remedies to the detriments to their lives, liberties, and property.

Beginning a couple of weeks into the Malheur occupation, a very brief outline of the ideas which would be discussed was presented to interested citizens, who then decided to organize public meetings in their own counties, and invited those at the HCRC to present the material in full. While en-route to the first public meeting outside of Harney County, those who would present the material were ambushed and arrested by State and federal agents, and LaVoy Finicum was murdered. Thus, it has been dubbed, “The Meeting That Never Happened.”

A memorial to that meeting took place a year later, but absent from it were any of the individuals who were to make presentations at the original meeting, as we are either still imprisoned, or no longer living. A veritable wealth of information was missing.

The points which were intended to be presented on January 26^th, 2016, were:

• Claim/Use/Defend: Principles of First in Use – First in Right, Prior Appropriation, and Multiple/Beneficial Use
• Principles of American Government: How government was instituted to assist The People to Claim/Use/Defend
• Government perversion and application of Claim/Use/Defend to suit other interests
• Spheres of Government: Multi-layered and decentralized for the protection of The People from other layers of government and foreign invasion
• How The People can restore liberty and the Rule of Law (subject matter of this letter):
  • Step One: Informal inquiry and request for investigation
  • Step Two: Petition for Redress of Grievances
  • Committees of Safety: history and application; Direct Representation
  • Step Three: Demand for Redress of Grievances
  • Step Four: Action for Redress of Grievances
• Comparison of modern situation with that of the generation of 1776, using grievances in Declaration of Independence
• Canceling contracts with the federal government; civil-defiance
• Virtue, fortitude and courage, and a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence

LaVoy Finicum was to present the final parts of the meeting; perhaps the most important, and absent the points of which renders the entire presentation moot. The charisma and courage Mr. Finicum displayed prior to and during the occupation will be forever to his honor. This is not an easy row to hoe. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of almost the entirety of human civilization, which has spent most of its existence in servitude to very few individuals. In fact, it could be said that civilization itself has been the manipulation of masses of individuals, apparently to their own betterment of living, but exceedingly so to the betterment of the few who are astute at manipulating them. This has produced a series of events, which has cycled repeatedly.

…and much more to follow

There are many more chapters to present in this story: a clothing for passing on the Cure for the Tyranny-Virus. As stated above, this series of articles will focus primarily on the process of recognizing our inherent, God-given, Constitutionally protected liberty, and asserting it.

We are free, we need only act as such, and expect the actions of government to comport with that truth. If our public-servants do not serve the public, but themselves or special-interests and not the general citizenry, we maintain the right to alter or abolish their positions, or the government we birthed which we employ them by. Only then can the liberty we possess be exercised according to our Supreme Law (the Constitution and all laws pursuant to it) and values, and not those of a select few that believe they have the right to determine the course of Man, absent his knowledge or approval – contrary to his conscience. The Almighty not only protects such efforts, but has ordained their success and rampant spread, no matter how hopeless the odds appear; if only we can conjure the courage and fortitude to pursue them, and perceive their necessity to our children’s future as freemen.

The Bundy Affair #22

Ryan Bundy’s Brilliant Opening Statement

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 20, 2017

Bret Whipple is Cliven Bundy’s attorney in the current trial in Las Vegas, Whipple, in an interview with John Lamb, made some observations on Ryan Bundy’s opening statement, that I will paraphrase. He said that he was impressed with Ryan’s statement because it cut to the chase in common language; he had the courage to speak so calmly and so well, with the pressure on him, and in so short an amount of time. He then pointed out that the jury seemed mesmerized and that the entire courtroom was silent for a few minutes after Ryan competed his statement.

Now, I know that sounds awfully over the top, but, then, when I read Ryan’s statement, well, it is seldom that I have tears in my eyes, but this was an exception. And, all I did was read it. I’m sure that those who heard Ryan give this statement, with the eloquence that has been stated by others, that nobody could walk away and be unmoved by what he had to say.

Below is the entire opening statement given by Ryan Bundy, to the jury, on November 15, 2017.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thanks to the jurors for being here. I Told you a little about myself at voir dire, but I’d like to introduce myself a little more, and tell you about my heritage and how that affects my case. (Projects a picture of his family – AND leaves it up throughout his statement!) [Note: the picture shown above.]

This is my ID! Not my driver’s license. This is who I am, a man with a family and I’ll do whatever it takes to provide for them. I want you to picture in your minds…you’re out on the land… I’ll take you to our ranch, you can see all the beauty of the land, the fresh air, sunsets and sunrises, the brush, you’re on a horse in front of the cattle – place yourself there – feel the freedom – out of the congestion of the cars – that’s how I was raised, playing in the river, we were called river-rats and that is where my life began and I hope ends.

My family has been on that land 141 years, my pioneer ancestors settled there in 1877 – there was nothing there. They carved out a living… they brought a horse and wagon and some provisions… this case, the government mentioned is “not about rights”, but it is – those rights do mean something – rights are created through beneficial use. When my ancestors arrived, undoubtedly the horse would need a drink, so they lead him to the water and that is beneficial use. The horse and perhaps a cow that had been lead behind the wagon need eat some brush in the hills, that is beneficial use. That established rights. The water rights are real! So real, the State of Nevada has a water rights registry including livestock watering rights. A law was created to protect those rights. The water rights that my father owns were first registered in 1891 by the State of Nevada – the State of Nevada is important, a sovereign state, it’s own unit, which entered the union in 1864. It entered equal to the original states, it is its own entity and state laws are important.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #22 – Ryan Bundy’s Brilliant Opening Statement’ »

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

A Patriot’s Bulletin Vol. 1 No. 2

Schuyler’s Last Edition from Behind Prison Walls

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 20, 2017

Later today, Schuyler Barbeau will walk out of Federal Detention Center, SeaTac, after over 23 months for making his own firearm and finding that the government’s overarching authority extends well beyond commerce and that you can be taxed for something you made with your own hands.

Today will be his last day in prison, and today, his last “A Patriots Bulletin” will have been published from prison.

The Bulletin is 31 pages, including the cover, and has articles by Schuyler, other inmates he has shared the past two years with, and copied newspaper articles with subject matter having to do with the infringed right to keep and bear arms.

Get your copy here: A Patriot’s Bulletin-Vol 1 No 2.pdf

Burns Chronicles N^o 59

Ryan Bundy Holds the Key

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 30, 2017

On January 26, 2016, several people, in two private vehicles were on their way to a scheduled meeting John Day, Oregon.  While in a forested area, with extremely poor, if not non-existent, cell phone coverage, they were set upon by modern day highwaymen (highwaymen were people who stopped travelers and robbed them).  The driver and passengers of the second vehicle submitted to the demands of the heavily armed interlopers, at gunpoint, to leave the vehicle and sit on the side of the snow-covered roadway.

The driver of the second vehicle, a white pick-up truck, following the exit of one of the passengers, sped away, seeking the assistance of a peace officer, Sheriff Glenn Palmer, of Grant County, Oregon.  However, within a couple of miles they found that the highwaymen had set up a barricade across the road, barring passage.  The highwaymen, hidden behind their vehicles, began firing shots at the white truck.  This forced the truck off the road, where some rather adept driving may have saved one of the highwaymen’s life, by swerving, at the last moment.

The truck then came to a stop, and the driver, LaVoy Finicum, exited.  In the back seat were three people; Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp, and Ryan Bundy.  Bundy sat on the left and Cox on the right.

Having already been shot at, there was concern for the safety of the party.  Finicum, in an effort to draw fire away from those still in the truck, began moving towards the rear and away from the truck.

There were lots of loud noises.  Some from 40 mm projectiles of rubber bullets and tear gas (OSP recovered 13 40 mm casings), others from flash-bang type grenades.  Included, however, were two shots that came from the left-rear of the truck.  One hit the top of the truck and one broke the driver side rear window.  The round that broke the window may well have hit the side of the truck, pressuring the window to break, and deflecting into the shoulder of Ryan Bundy.  This is the more logical explanation, as the velocity of the bullet, absent any other external resistance, should have penetrated much further than the fleshy part of Bundy’s shoulder.

Now, this gets interesting since the Oregon State Police (OSP) had to account for shots fired, though they could not account for two shots.  Shell casings were missing, and the rather perplexing task resulted in speculation regarding the bullet impact on the driver’s side of the truck.  Their conclusion was that it must have come from the shooter that fired three shots as the white truck approached the highwaymen, as shown in this OSP exhibit:

The government tried to attribute the shot at the rear door to the three shots fired as the vehicle approached the barricade.  However, this does not quite work, as if you look at the yellow line in the third image.  You see that if it did hit the truck, it would be a glancing strike.  It would have been deflected upon impact, and the initial point of impact would be the most damaged.  Any additional damage would have been less, as the bullet was deflected away from the truck body.  As you can see, the greater impact was on the right side of the gap between the door and frame.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 59 – Ryan Bundy Holds the Key’ »

The Bundy Affair #21
Batson Challenge – in the Name of Injustice

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 31, 2017

Introduction

In “Liberty or Laws?  – Justice or Despotism?“, I discussed how the case law method provides the government, through judicial proceedings, to move, a decision at a time, away from the intent of the Constitution.  In recent events in the second Tier 3 trial, only two-thirds of the trial was declared a “mistrial”, while the other third was not declared a mistrial.  I say this because the first trial, by the government’s design, included six defendants, all of whom were accused of wielding firearms on April 12, 2014, when the Bureau of Land Management returned the surviving captured cattle to their rightful owner.  Two defendants were found guilty of some of the charges.  The remaining four were not found guilty of any of the charges, though they were also not found not guilty.  So, there was no mistrial on the two, but there was a mistrial in the same singular trial of the other four.

Now comes the second trial, and the subject of this article.  Jury selection occupied the first two days of the trial and much of the third day.  Now, in jury selection, each side, Prosecution and Defense, may challenge a juror for cause.  Each side also has what are called “peremptory challenges”.  This is the definition of peremptory challenges found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Peremptory challenge.  A request from a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror to be a member of the jury.  No reason or “cause” need be stated for this type of challenge.  The number of peremptory challenges afforded each party is normally set by statute or court rule.

However, on the third day of trial, the government, apparently butt-hurt over the Defendant’s Peremptory Challenges, brought up what is known as a “Batson Challenge”, historically exercised by the defense, not by the prosecution.  They allege that the peremptory challenges were intentionally applied (state of mind) to exclude certain potential jurors.  Well, it appears that the Defendants cannot have a state of mind presented in Court as to why they went from their homes to Bunkerville, but they can be held accountable for their state of mind when it comes to jury selection.

Background of the Batson Challenge

The Batson Challenge is based upon a 1986 United States Supreme Court decision in Batson v Kentucky 476 US 79.  It deals with the Defendant’s right to challenge a jury makeup if the government’s peremptory challenges create a gender or racial bias in the jury.  First, a little background based upon earlier decisions.  In reviewing these cases, you will see that the original protection afforded to the people by the Constitution is slowly being chipped away.  In this current trial, the right protected for the people is now being used to afford the government the opportunity to claim a right that was intended to be a prohibition against the government.

As early as 1879, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the right of the defendant, with regard to the use by the prosecution of Peremptory Challenges, to stack the jury.  The case was Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303.  Based upon the 14th Amendment, the decision stated, “that a State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded.”  [Quoted portion cited from Batson v. Kentucky.]

Strauder goes on to say that “A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race.  However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors.  By denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror.”  [Quoted portion cited from Batson v. Kentucky.]

Interestingly, that underlined portion from Batson, “By denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror “, presumes that the juror has a right to sit on the jury, nearly equal to the right of the defendant.  This appears to be a very early example of Civil Rights (See Liberty or Laws? – Natural Rights versus Civil Rights), whereby the government grants a civil right at the expense of one who previously enjoyed a natural right.

However, note that since the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment, guarantees the people the right to a trial by jury, it does not grant that right to the jury.  If anything, the jury has no right to refuse jury service, unless they are otherwise exempted.  The Bill of Rights was to protect us from the government.  It was never intended to provide the government the means to remove our protection from the actions of that government.

What the Batson decision does not provide, however, is the background of Strauder.  Strauder was indicted for murder.  He was an ex-slave, and the indictment was tried in a West Virginia Circuit Court and found guilty.  His case then went to the West Virginia Supreme Court, where they upheld the lower court’s verdict.  It then went to the United States Supreme Court on a Writ of Error.  So, taking from the Strauder decision, we find what led to the composition of the jury in the Circuit Court trial, to wit:

In the Circuit Court of the State, before the trial of the indictment was commenced, the defendant presented his petition, verified by his oath, praying for a removal of the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States, assigning, as ground for the removal, that ‘by virtue of the laws of the State of West Virginia no colored man was eligible to be a member of the grand jury or to serve on a petit jury in the State; that white men are so eligible, and that by reason of his being a colored man and having been a slave, he had reason to believe, and did believe, he could not have the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings in the State of West Virginia for the security of his person as is enjoyed by white citizens, and that he had less chance of enforcing in the courts of the State his rights on the prosecution, as a citizen of the United States, and that the probabilities of a denial of them to him as such citizen on every trial which might take place on the indictment in the courts of the State were much more enhanced than if he was a white man.’

This led to West Virginia, not a seceding state that would have been required to rewrite its constitution, to revise its laws on jury makeup.  This, of course, was a consequence of the due process provision of the 14th Amendment.

As I have said in the past, the presumption of innocence was based upon the fact that the Indictment (the alleged story of events) was on trial, not the defendant.  However, we have lost sight of that concept and now perceive the guilt of the defendant (the focus) as the purpose of the trial, not the validity of the Indictment.  Subtle, but still effective.

The Batson decision also provides the following:

[T]he Kentucky Supreme Court observed that recently, in another case, it had relied on Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, and had held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the venire.

So, in this citation, the defendant has the burden of proving that the prosecution has not used “systematic exclusion” in their use of their peremptory challenges.  However, as we will see, in the current case, that burden will be transferred to the prosecution, and the defendant is accused of “systematic exclusion”.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #21 – Batson Challenge – in the Name of Injustice’ »

The Cause – What To Do?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2017

I have been writing about the Bundy Affair since April 12, 2014 and the Burns Chronicles since February 2, 2016.  Both evolved out of a common grievance, Public Lands, and the rights that are inherent in them.  There are other commonalities, such as some of the players involved in both events and the fact that both had left behind the concept of Civil Disobedience and had entered the realm of Civil Defiance.  Those players, unlike most other patriots, had moved along “The Other (not so) Thin Line” to a point where their actions were intended to speak louder than their words.

The first event, in Nevada, the Bundy Affair, was an evolution from an event back in 1993 when Cliven Bundy, supported by hundreds of patriots who went to his ranch to side with him, defied the federal government and first stood for his right to continue both grazing and water permits necessary to continue his ranching business.  Cliven Bundy’s right to his historical use of the public lands culminated on April 12, 2014, or so we thought, in the “Unrustling” of the cattle that had been rustled by agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

In 2015, in Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond had been “resentenced” for a “crime”, though they had already served their time.  Their “crime” was the use of controlled burn and backfire to do what ranchers and the BLM have done for over a century.  The first is to destroy unwanted vegetation, the second, to control an existing fire in order to protect property.

This was not the beginning of their ordeal with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).  Their ordeal began almost a decade before Cliven Bundy’s first confrontation with an out of control federal government.  The FWS had been trying to restrict the Hammond’s ranching by cutting of water supply, fencing public corridors, and requiring annual licensing for what were perpetual rights to Public Land Usage.  “The Harassment of the Hammonds” dates back to October 1986.

For all intents, the Hammonds were tried, sentenced, served their time, and left prison as free men.  The government waited until all of this was done before filing an appeal to the Appellate Court, contending that they should have been sentenced according to the Sentencing Guidelines.  Funny, the word guidelines isn’t mandatory, simply a guide.  But, more on that in a future article.

The resentencing of the Hammonds raised the indignation of some of those players from the Bundy Affair, and others who had, possibly a result of what they witnessed in April 2014, moved further along that “Thin Line”.  Unable to convince the Hammonds that they should not turn themselves in for the additional 4+ years they would now have to serve, the objective changed to the FWS, the aggressors against the Hammonds.

There had been a planned demonstration in support of the Hammonds scheduled for January 2, 2016, just two days before they were to turn themselves over to the US Marshal Service to begin their second punishment for the first crime.  This demonstration, like many others, was Civil Disobedience.  However, behind the scenes, a plan of Civil Defiance had been hatched.  It was left to those who either went to Burns, Oregon, before or after the January 2 event to decide just how far along that “Thin Line” they had moved.  Unfortunately, many who claim that they are “fed up with the Feds” are not fully committed to action.  Instead, they chose to act big and criticize what was acted out by those who were more committed and chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), an FWS facility about thirty miles south of Burns, and the adversary of the Hammonds rights for three decades.

For nearly a month, the Civil Defiance brought attention to the country, and the world, that the historical rights of Public Land usage were being trampled upon by the government.  The government, possibly absent any legal standing to deal with the occupation of the MNWR, chose to ambush a two vehicle, eight-person convoy going to a public event in John Day, Grant County, north of Burns.

Lying to the Oregon State Police (OSP), the FBI claimed that they were making a “felony stop” (legally, to stop the completion of a felony) and/or to serve an arrest warrant.  The warrant, however, was not issued until after seven were arrested and one murdered, while in transit to the event in John Day.

. Continue reading ‘The Cause – What To Do?’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 57
Collusion or Conspiracy?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 4, 2017

On October 27, 2016, shortly after the very just verdict of “Not Guilty” was announced in the Ammon Bundy, et al, Group 1 trial, a meeting was held in the Mark O. Hatfield Federal District Courthouse.  The 12 jurors, Judge Anna Brown, and a court reporter, attended the meeting.  It lasted about one and a half hours.

It is my understanding that such a meeting is not unusual.  However, circumstances surrounding this particular meeting are, to say the least, quite unusual, considering context.  That is exactly what we are going to do.

The first irregularity occurred when the Prosecutor moved to have the trial declared “complex”, which allowed the Court to circumvent the right to a speedy trial and to break the defendants up into two groups.  The first Group (mostly leaders) was tried in September and October 2016, and the second Group to be tried beginning in February 2017.  While the delayed trial date was agreeable, as the Defendants needed the additional time to prepare their defense, one drawback is that many of the Defendants were held in custody until the verdict was reached, in the first trial.  The latter trial date made the government’s case easier, as they had smaller groups to try, and it gave time to elicit plea bargains, thereby reducing the number who would be prosecuted at trial.

Next, during the pre-trial “paper chase”, with hundreds of motions filed, answered, and finally ruled on, there is no doubt that bias existed on the part of Judge Anna Brown.  Behind the scenes, many of us followed this legal maneuvering for months.  It seemed that even when the arguments presented by the defense were well supported, Judge Brown would still rule against the defense and in favor the Prosecution.

During the trial, there were rather strict rules imposed on the defense, especially when they sought to call additional witnesses to testify.  Judge Brown ruled that to allow that would be “repetitive”.  However, the prosecution showed a 1-minute video of approximately twenty of the occupiers firing across a canal.  The fact that the Prosecution showed that footage four times, however, was not considered “repetitive”.

Finally, and here we get to the meeting, Judge Brown called all of the participating jurors into the meeting, after dismissing the alternate jurors.  In that meeting, she explained that she would answer their questions, if they had any.  She also asks some questions, and explained that the answers would help the prosecution and the defense.  So, just how could it help the defense?  The Defense prevailed.  It could only help the Prosecution gain insight into the jurors’ minds in order to determine what they would need to overcome to obtain guilty verdicts in the Group 2 trial.

Some jurors indicated that had the charges been less serious, like simple “misdemeanor trespass”, it would have been much easier to render a guilty verdict.

Let me interrupt, for a moment, and point out that the Judge holds office under Article III (Judicial Branch of Government), and is, in essence, an impartial referee.  Her job is to “administer law in a court of justice”, “to control the proceedings”, and to make “decisions of questions of law or discretion”.  Her job is not to favor one side over the other, but rather to stand aside, interjecting only to the extent necessary to assure a fair trial.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 57 – Collusion or Conspiracy?’ »