Posts Tagged ‘Burns Oregon’

Burns Chronicles No 62 – Jon Ritzheimer, Facebook, and Justice

Monday, January 1st, 2018

Burns Chronicles No 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:          (more…)

A Virus is Spreading

Monday, December 18th, 2017

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 26th 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 2nd, 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 26th, 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 Origins of the Harney County Committee of Safety

Saturday, December 9th, 2017

It is seldom that I repost articles by others, however, this article, by Shane Radliff and Kyle Reardon, warrants the consideration of all.

History, today, ignores the role that the Committees of Safety played in the lead up to and formation of the United States of America.  I dare say that without the Committees, we would probably still be speaking with a stiff upper lip and celebrating the Queen’s birthday.

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 9, 2017

The Origins of the Harney County Committee of Safety

 

By: Shane Radliff and Kyle Rearden

April 27th, 2016

 “I know there’s people in Harney County that are wondering, how a small group that come out of a meeting that Ammon Bundy put together could possibly represent them, and that’s not really what this is about. This is about a start. This is about bringing Harney County together, hearing every single voice and going forward.”

– Rick Habein, Jan. 8th, 2016 Committee of Safety Meeting

 Introduction

A Committee of Safety can be briefly defined as a mutual self-defense association that also operates as a parallel government. Historically, they were known under a variety of names, yet, their function was exactly the same – to pool manpower for defense of the community and legitimize a self-organized populist government. From the English Civil War of the mid-17th century to the Revolutionary Wars of Independence for both America and Texas, Committees of Safety have historically demonstrated their efficacy in practically securing liberty.

Committees of Safety were legitimized by general associations composed of the individual citizens within a defined geographical area, whether that takes the form of a town, a county, or even something “provincial.” These associations were comprised of the rank-and-file membership who received protection and who in turn gave their individual explicit consent to their particular local Committee of Safety.

As a truly bottom-up and grassroots organizing model, Committees of Safety are intended to coordinate the assemblage of men and materiel in preparation for a disaster. A key tenet of American classically liberal republicanism is that the military is subordinated to the civil authority. If the militia is the military, then what constitutes the civil authority? Well, the answer is their local Committee of Safety.

Also, Committees of Safety are invaluable even in the absence of emergencies, simply because they are a limited form of government, which is directly accountable to the people within a local community. The committeemen are susceptible to public shaming, and even ostracism, should they abuse their public office. This is what actually keeps their power limited.

Modern local Committees of Safety began their resurgence during the 1990s with the formation of the Central Florida Committee of Safety, as well as the St. Joseph County, Indiana Committee of Safety. In recent years, the formation of the Cherokee County, Georgia Committee of Safety and the Blue Ridge, North Carolina Mountaineers Committee for Constitutional Restoration might be indicative of the growing deeper appreciation for the principles of liberty. Only time, and further investigation, will tell if this be true, or not.

 

The Formation of the Harney County Committee of Safety (CoS)

During his field reporting on January 26th, Gary Hunt met with Ryan Payne in Harney County, Oregon, and described the following:

. (more…)

Burns Chronicles No 61 – Jon Ritzheimer is Going to Prison

Monday, December 4th, 2017

Burns Chronicles No 61

Jon Ritzheimer is Going to Prison

But His Service Continues to Help His Fellow Defendants

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 4, 2017

Jon Ritzheimer had some things to say, after he was sentenced by Judge Anna Brown to serve 1 year and 1 day.  However, with time served and good time, he will probably serve only eight more months, beginning in February when he has to begin his sentence.

Below is a letter Jon sent for me to get out to those who wish to see our once great nation returned to obedience to the Constitution, as written and intended.  It also explains Jon’s continued willingness to help those who have been required to pay restitution as a part of their sentence.  Though I have known about his intention in this regard, for some time, it is time for all to know how kind and caring Jon’s heart really is.  The two guns going to auction were the only two that were not confiscated by the government.  Truly historical pieces.  This will be explained in the following letter.

Further, though he has arranged to have the Gremlin Garage continue in his absences, he is concerned with the needs of his family and provides a means for those of you willing to help, a means to do so.

And, finally, the government sought a 24 month, 3 years of supervised release for Jon.  Fortunately, for us, and especially for Jon and his family, Judge Brown saw that though she had to punish him, she chose a much more fair sentence than what the government sought.

For Jon’s letter:
(more…)

Burns Chronicles No 60 – Duane Ehmer is Going to Prison

Monday, November 20th, 2017

Burns Chronicles No 60

Duane Ehmer is Going to Prison

Hellboy will be Without His Companion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 20, 2017

Duane Ehmer was convicted of a felony, willfully damaging the refuge, or depredation of government property, by using a refuge excavator to dig two deep trenches, and misdemeanor trespassing; tampering with government vehicles and equipment; and destruction and removal of government property during the 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. For these, he was sentenced to serve one year and one day in prison and to pay restitution in the amount of $10,000. The restitution is based upon a claim that a burial ground was disturbed, though no evidence of a burial or an artifacts have been presented. So, just words by someone who wasn’t there is sufficient to steal Duane’s hard earned money, when he gets out of prison.

During his sentencing hearing, he read a prepared statement:

“I am a proud American veteran and father. I am active in my community and a small business owner. After ten years of good service I left the Army I was too broken for military service any longer, I had to start over with a hearing loss and PTSD and other issues

“I tried to isolate myself from the world just focusing on what was important in life and starting over. I taught myself to weld and started a welding business. I built my business for about ten years before the Refuge.

“When I went to the refuge I went because I heard on the radio that terrorist had taken over the Burns wildlife refuge.

“This wasn’t the case. I went there expecting to stop terrorists in my backyard. This is why I went to the Refuge. I had no background information about the Bundy’s or the Hammond’s before I got there. I had never heard of anything to do with the militias or anything else.

“Once I arrived at the Refuge, I quickly learned that what was happening on the ground didn’t match what was being told to anyone. The Hammond family came the first morning I was there, and I learned their story first hand. So, I tried to talk to the locals about what was going on. I knew old cowboys never begged for help. But they begged us to stay. I also knew it was going to get real ugly and dangerous. After being there three or four days, I returned home.

“I love my daughter very much and valued her freedom. I prayed about what to do, and I felt God telling me to return to the Refuge with my horse and flag. So, I did. I knew it was a symbolic fight and there was no way to match the government’s firepower. But I would do what I could to get the truth out. I was going over everything in my head from my military experience to meeting the Hammonds, and it broke my heart to see old cowboys beg for help.

. (more…)

Burns Chronicles No 59 – Ryan Bundy Holds the Key

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Burns Chronicles No 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.

. (more…)

Statement by Gary Hunt Regarding the Freedom of the Press – Show Cause Hearing of August 23, 2017

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

Statement by Gary Hunt
Regarding the Freedom of the Press;
Show Cause Hearing of August 23, 2017

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 26, 2017

I intended to write an article about the Freedom of the Press hearing in Portland, Oregon.  However, since I had decided to testify, I had mentally prepared to answer cross-examination questions, should they be asked.  My problem in writing this is that the answers given and the answers not given are mingled together in my mind, I can’t quite sort them out and be sure of the accuracy of what I say.  As to discussing other matters that were brought up, as well as examination and cross-examination of the government’s two witnesses, FBI SA Jason Kruger and FBI SA Matthew Catalano, are also mingled in my mind, as well as much that was presented by both the prosecuting attorney and my able counsel, Michael Rose.

Therefore, I will, at this time, simply give an overview, from my perspective, of what occurred.

AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney) Pamala Holsinger opened by telling us how damaging my exposing the informants was.  She then called FBI SA Jason Kruger to the stand.  Kruger must have listened to many hours of various internet radio shows I did, as well as reading, perhaps, all that I have written in both the “Burns Chronicles” and “Freedom of the Press” series.  I would say that he was accurate in his quoting from both, but often the words, without inflection and out of context, tell a story that is, at best, just close.  However, his testimony, until cross-examination, simply painted a picture of me saying that what I had written would help the defendants.

However, in cross-examination, he was referred to what he had written in his 302 reports and it was pointed out that I had said that my purpose in doing the outing was to shed light on the “Misdeeds of Government”, a phrase that I has been used for decades in describing my writing.

Next came Catalano.  Matthew is a nice guy and we got along well, in our two meetings.  However, his examination followed the same course.  Well, until cross-examination, where Mr. Rose elicited some more positive aspects of our meetings, as well as the fact that from the beginning, I had told Catalano that I didn’t believe that I was subject to a Protective Order, especially one issued out of  Oregon, and me not being among those to whom the Protective Order was addressed.

Now, the dilemma is that given what they had presented, both the positive and the negative were nothing more than words.  Very little about my motivation to investigate the identities and then write about the informants is addressed in the articles, themselves.  And, the radio shows, well, when you speak to an audience, you are not under oath, and you may tend to not present certain statements with sufficient explanation to put a proper context on what is said.  Kind of like a politician seeking election, but not telling you all that he believes.

Absent my testimony, where I could present the motivation, it would simply be a coin-toss as to whether the negative or positive would be used by Judge Anna Brown to make her ruling on the matter.

Interestingly, those who wish to ridicule me on the Internet reported that my attorney told me to “shut up”.  Well, that is very far from the truth.  The day before the Hearing, when I arrived in Portland, I met with him to discuss the hearing.  He asked if I had any witnesses to call, and I told him that I keep all but my articles to myself — that nobody could really speak to what my motivation was — except me.  He advised me of the dangers of taking the stand, though I already understood what those were.  It was clear that I could not speculate on the source, which was a comfort to me, as I simply had to tell the truth, that I didn’t know who sent me the Discovery information that was the evidence I used to identify the informants.  He said that he felt comfortable that I could take the stand, so it was decided that I would.

As my turn to take the stand arrived, Judge Brown asked whether I was properly advised of the potential risk, if I took the stand.  Mr. Rose explained that we had discussed that, and that I was aware of the necessity that I do so.  So, I took the stand and testified.

. (more…)

Freedom of the Press #18 – The Big Guns

Thursday, August 10th, 2017

Freedom of the Press #18
The Big Guns

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 10, 2017

August 8, 2017, was the date set for the government to file their response.  They did so in the Government’s Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt.  That will be the subject of this article, however the recent background, since the May 9, 2017, Jurisdiction Hearing.

As a result of that Hearing, the government first filed the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (June 12, 2017).  That was the subject “Freedom of the Press #16 – Jurisdiction Hearing“.  It appears that since January, when the government sought to have me held in Contempt of Court, they have yet to come up with a case citation that supports their position.

My response was filed as Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (July 21, 2017).  This Memorandum increases the burden on the government, separating articles published before the “Supplemental Protective Order” and the one article published after that Order.  The government has yet to meet any standard of proof with regard to their legal responsibility to do so.

So, the current government Reply endeavors to regurgitate some of the same arguments that the government has relied upon, through the course of this ordeal.  For example, they have, from the beginning, relied upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), when they state, “The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established.”  Where they fail in Roviaro, is that the protection is afforded by allowing the government to protect the identity of the informant.  In the words of the Roviaro decision, “What is usually referred to as the informer’s privilege is, in reality, the Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons…”  What it does not do is to extend any criminal liability to those that disclose an informant’s identity.  It simply gives the government the right to try to protect the identity.

In the current matter, that was done to the extent that the law allows, the Protective Order that sanctioned those who were given certain information from disclosing that information.  It is only that person, whether a defendant, defendant’s counsel, or even government employee, was subject to the Court’s order not to divulge the identity of the informants.

The government did so even prior to the Discovery being given to the defendants, when they redacted what they believed to be any information that would tend to expose the informants.  The informant’s names were redacted as where many hundreds of words that the government felt would identify the informants.  The government keeping that information away from the defendants (the identification of informants) was their exercise of the protection of the informants, as per Roviaro.

The government continues to persist in stating, rightfully, “this Court had the authority to issue the orders and that it continues to have the authority to enforce the orders.”  However, they have yet to address the relevant aspect of jurisdiction.  To put this in context, if a judge in Mexico issues an order, he has such authority.  He also has the right to enforce that order.  However, does he have the jurisdiction to first, apply that order to someone not within his jurisdiction?  And, second, the authority to enforce the order against someone not within his jurisdiction?

The government wants to spin the context of what I said into a confession that is very, very far from my belief and honest admission as to the authority of the judge.

As the government continues, they make this rather curious assertion:

“When Hunt complains that this Court’s orders “prohibit” him from publishing “certain investigative pieces,” his factual premise is simply inaccurate.  Second, the justification for the original Protective Order continues because there is an ongoing need to protect cooperating witnesses regardless of the status of the trial.”

So, let’s break this down.  I have never complained about anything, except the fact that I was arrested by the government, similar to this current contempt situation, wrongfully applying a statute that did not apply to me, resulting in my spending a week in the Sacramento County Jail.  It would have been substantially longer had not Judge Brown seen through the deceitful tactic of the government in attempting to punish me, by simply lying to have a warrant issued for my arrest.  See Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?

Then, the government shysters endeavored to make a point:

“We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case — or even the informants — we only want him to observe this Court’s Order, which means that he cannot publish the discovery material subject to the Court’s Order.”

How nice of them to say that they don’t have a problem with me writing “about the case — or even the informants.”  How gracious.  However, these shysters are supposed to present facts.  My reputation as a journalist (not a blogger) is based on presenting facts.  Let’s suppose that I wrote about the informants, but failed to justify my conclusions without facts to back up those conclusions.  Well, then, I might just be a blogger.  However, as facts are a requisite in our judicial system, they are also a matter of principle to a good journalist.  To make accusations without presenting the facts makes a mockery of journalism, as it would of the judicial system.

Besides, such accusations are prolific in the patriot community.  They tend to lack any substance and are often made over a simple disagreement between two people.  Should some rely upon simply my word that so and so is an informant, the informant would simply accuse the accuser of being an informant.  And, the louder voice would probably prevail.  Surely, the government shysters would love to see an expansion of the “he said; she said” sort of rhetoric in the community.

As we continue through the Reply, we find this rather subjective statement of ‘facts’:

“[T]he government’s interests far outweigh any First Amendment interest Hunt may assert.  First, we need to protect our confidential sources for all of the valid reasons identified in Roviaro.  Second, the Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Orders.  Without enforcement, Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.”

Now, the first point has already been addressed, with regard to the government’s right to endeavor to protect their sources — which they did by denying the defendants the right to call the witnesses against them (6th Amendment).  Second, the Court wrote the Protective Order and subjected those identified as subject to that Protective Order.  Daniel Ellsberg was the criminal in the “Pentagon Papers”.  The New York Times was not.  Finally, and the most laughable, is that the government feels that the exchange of discovery might be undermined.  Well, there is little doubt that the shysters want to keep as many secrets as they can from the defense.  However, in an effort to attempt to maintain their unscrupulous cadre of spies amongst us, they would willingly subvert the Constitution.

. (more…)

The Cause – What To Do?

Monday, June 12th, 2017

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.

. (more…)

Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

Freedom of the Press #17
Is This Legal?

Pamala R. Holsinger, (OregonLive)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 25, 2017

In a previous article, “Freedom of the Press #13 – Sojourn to Sacramento“, I explained that Federal Magistrate Brennan (Sacramento) intended for me to receive diesel therapy, and that I would provide insight into just why he chose that route.  It was an expected response based upon the information that he had been provided, regarding the Sealed Order Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt and Order Sealing Arrest Warrant (ECF #2017).

This Sealed Order was obviously prepared by the US Shyster’s Office.  Their intention was to punish me, as they have most of the others in the Oregon and Nevada indictments, based upon contrived accusations.

The most oft-repeated contrived accusations that we are all familiar with are:

  • To justify shooting someone, “I feared for my life and/or the life of a fellow officer”.
  • Though some have homes, family, and jobs, “They are a flight risk and should be detained in jail until trial”.

Well, now we get another one to add to the list.  I have been writing for 24 years.  I have never carried a firearm during that period.  Though my words may be inciteful, they are simply words (The Pen can be mightier than the Sword).  There is no reason to believe that I would avoid arrest, as I had continued the dialogue regarding Freedom of the Press for nearly three months, and met, willingly, with FBI Special Agent Catalano, whenever requested.  However, the wording in the Sealed Order states:

The Court, however, finds good cause to file under seal both this Order and the arrest warrant. Throughout this case and in the factually-related matters that took place in Bunkerville, Nevada, in April 2014 that are the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings in the District of Nevada, there have been instances of individuals avoiding the execution of court orders and/or arrest by engaging in armed confrontations with law enforcement. The Court issues under seal this Order and the warrant for Hunt’s arrest in an effort to permit the orderly execution of the arrest warrant.

Well, I wrote about Bunkerville (The Bundy Affair series), and I continue to do so.  However, I was not present at that armed, yet peaceful, protest of the government’s effort at the semi-legal rustling of cattle by the BLM, including their intended violation of numerous state and federal laws regarding branding and cattle health certifications.  I was at Burns for a few days.  However, I was there to get a story on the treatment of the Hammonds, prior to the fires (See “The Harassment of the Hammonds“), that got them imprisoned for five years.  There has been no effort on my part  to avoid arrest by engaging in an armed confrontation with law enforcement.  There was no arrest warrant in the possession of the FBI or the Oregon State Police during the stop, roadblock, and murder of LaVoy Finicum.  Finicum, as the government has admitted, expressed to those who had no warrant, that he was going to a law enforcement officer, Sherriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Oregon.

This fiction was probably simply glossed over by Judge Brown.  However, she “rubber-stamp” signed the Sealed Order and the Arrest Warrant.  This was the documentation that was presented to Eastern District of California Magistrate Brennan, who had to decide if I should be detained and diesel transported back to Oregon.  And, of course, with that as the only information that he had before him, the demonization of me was such that he curtly denied any alternative.

The case that Magistrate Brennan ruled on is United States of America v. Gary Hunt, Case No. 2:17-mj-00058.  The records transferred from California to the Oregon case, United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al, case, in Oregon (which my matter still falls within), and the Booking Report, list the only charge as a violation of 18 U. S. Code §3146, “failure to appear”.

. (more…)