Outpost of Freedom blog

Freedom of the Press #8
“Qualified Press Privilege”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 21, 2017

In Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux, I address the jurisdictional issue that the government addressed in their Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause, of February 7, 2017.  Due to the length of the Supplement, and the length of #6, I chose to address two remaining issues in a subsequent post.  Those two issues, Prior Restraint and Qualified Press, will be addressed in that order.  From the Supplemental Memorandum:

IV. There Is No Prior Restraint Issue or Qualified Press Privilege
A. There Is No Prior Restraint Issue Presented Here

This Court has the authority to issue protective orders protecting criminal discovery and, specifically, confidential source information. The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). This substantial government interest is unrelated to any suppression of expression and outweighs Hunt’s First Amendment rights. No one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order, and to permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger threatens to undermine criminal discovery and the interests identified in Roviaro—i.e., if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.

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. This discovery material was not in the public domain in any form. This Court should be able to enforce its Protective Order and prohibit wide dissemination of discovery which includes confidential FBI reports. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (an order prohibiting dissemination of discovered information before trial is not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment scrutiny). Besides Seattle Times Co. there are no cases that discuss the prior restraint issue in the context of sealed and protected discovery information in the context of a criminal trial. In United States v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (1990), the issue was the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN. The Noriega Court held that CNN should not be able to violate a court order and litigate at the same time. Hunt has waived any First Amendment defense by defying the Court’s Orders.

Let’s address these underlined items, one at a time.  First, we will look at Roviaro.  Although I have addressed Roviaro, before, it is worth revisiting, since the government seems to rely heavily upon that decision.  Here is what they said:

This Court has the authority to issue protective orders protecting criminal discovery and, specifically, confidential source information. The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957)

The government asserts that they have a right to protect the identity of informants with a protective order.  They have made this assertion, before, though they appear to have not yet read the decision nor understand the ramifications.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #8 – “Qualified Press Privilege”’ »

Freedom of the Press #7
“Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 20, 2017

Let’s review this whole situation from the beginning.  After all, it has taken a month and a half to get to this point, so perhaps a refresher is in order.

On January 5, 2017, I was hand served a “Cease and Desist Letter” by an FBI agent.  Since the service was disclosed on Facebook, I wrote a “Statement with regard to  the Freedom of the Press“, on January 6.  That was followed with a series entitled “Freedom of the Press“, beginning on January 7 entitled Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI.  The following day, January 8, I explained the Cease and Desist Letter with Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist.

These events were preceded by a number of articles that I had written in the “Burns Chronicles” series.  In those articles, I exposed FBI informants associated with the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Oregon.  The information used to identify and expose the informants was derived from some Discovery documents I had obtained.

The original Protective Order, dated March 24, 2016, lays out the restrictions placed upon certain described individuals.  Those prohibited from “disseminating” information contained in the Discovery are described in that Protective Order:

ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense counsel may provide copies of discovery only to the following individuals:

(1) The defendants in this case;

(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and

(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.

Upon my indicating to the FBI agent that hand-delivered the Cease and Desist Letter, that it was not applicable to me, the government filed a Motion to Enforce Protective Order (Expedited Consideration Requested), dated January 6, 2017.  That Motion states:

Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby moves this Court for an order enforcing the Protective Order against a third party illegally in possession of protected sensitive discovery materials in this case.

Now, the wording of the Protective Order says nothing about a third party, nor does it say anything about the possession of the material is illegal.  If it were illegal, it would be against the law.  However, you can only be in violation of a Protective Order if you are among those to which the Order applies.

The government makes a rather interesting statement in that Motion, “This Court has jurisdiction to enjoin a non-party from disseminating confidential documents produced in reliance upon and subject to this Court’s Protective Order.”  However, they cite a Second Circuit Court decision, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gottstein, 617 F.3d 186, which I addressed in a subsequent article.  It does not corroborate their claim, to the contrary, it supports the limited jurisdiction that I had already stated exists.

The Motion is supported by an Affidavit, of the same date.  That Affidavit refers to some of my articles.  In so doing, they have entered those articles, which would include the entire series, into the Court’s record.  Those specifically mentioned were from “Burns Chronicles”, to include #40, #41, and #49.  Also quoted is my statement regarding the “prohibited material” taken from #40.  That statement serves as prima facie evidence of my intent.  But, the government is insistent upon twisting the truth, in order to create a wholly different characterization of my actions.  This would allow them to charge culpability on my part.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter. To do so, I will be referring to FBI documents that I have obtained. They are marked, at the bottom left comer, “Dissemination Limited by Court Order”. So, let me make this perfectly clear- I have no intention of “disseminating” the documents, nor am I bound by any “Court Order”. I am writing about a Public Trial, which was held in September and October 2016

I had been working on a response to that Affidavit and its erroneous presumptions, though I never completed it (maybe I will, when time allows), when the government came back with a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order, dated January 10, 2017.  That Motion has a rather interesting statement made when they refer to the Affidavit filed in support of the Motion.  It states:

In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”

The Ronnie Walker Affidavit in Support of that Motion, also filed on January 10, 2017, states:

On January 6, 2017, another individual posted a question on that same page asking “Who is Gary Hunt?” That same day, the message “He is working with our lawyers” was posted in reply from defendant Duane EHMER’s Facebook account. Sarah Redd-Buck and Duane EHMER’s Facebook accounts are not private and can be viewed by anyone accessing Facebook.

So, the Motion states, “He is working with our Lawyers” is a response to the question, “Who is Gary Hunt?”

On the other hand, the Affidavit states “a question on that same page asking, “Who is Gary Hunt?”.  Then states, “He is working with our lawyers” were posted in reply from defendant Duane EHMER’s Facebook account.”

Now, there is a subtle difference between the two, however, the Affidavit is more accurate than the statement made on the Motion.  Perhaps we should go to the source and see what was really said (this image is taken from the Affidavit):

Well, son of a gun, the question was actually asked a full 17 minutes after it was answered.  Who would believe that the FBI (Ronnie Walker) and the US Shyster (See Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux) would attempt to mislead the Judge?  This sequence begs a question, just to whom is Ehmer referring to by “He”?

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #7 – “Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny’ »

Freedom of the Press #6
“Tilting at Windmills” – Redux

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 08, 2017

I have noticed over the years, that some believe in quality, as I do, and others believe in quantity.  They think that throwing out a massive missive will drown the opposition in, well, paper.  It appears this is the new approach by the United States Attorney, and minions, from Portland, Oregon.  They have, with their most recent filing (Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause), on February 7, exceeded all my expectations, in terms of quantity.  They have cited 30 court decisions.  I have reviewed five of the cited cases, though I will comment on more of them.  Since their research is of such poor quality, It would be my pleasure to review cases for them in the future.  However, if I work for the government, my prices will not be discounted.  Considering how poorly their current hired help performs, it just might be worthwhile for them to get it right, for a change.

Now, let’s get on with the boring stuff.  However, there will be some really good stuff towards the end.

They begin the Memorandum with a statement of what it will address:

1. The District of Oregon is the proper venue for this Court to enforce its own Protective Order against a third party;

2. Third-party Gary Hunt should be held in Civil Contempt of this Court’s Orders after he has had an opportunity to appear and Show Cause why he should not be held in contempt;

3. There is a factual basis to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that third party Gary Hunt is aiding and abetting a defendant (or defendants) in this case in violating the Court’s original Protective Order (ECF No. 342), the new Order (ECF No. 1691), and the Supplement to the original Protective Order (ECF No. 1692); and

4. There are no prior restraint issues or “press” privilege issues.

So, we will begin with Part I.  Under the heading in the Memorandum:

I. The District of Oregon Is the Only Proper Venue for This Court to Enforce Its Own Orders

A. Proper Venue Under the Law

The first case cited is:

Myers v. United States, 264 U.S. 95, 101 (1924).  The Supreme Court in Myers held that venue is only proper where the court rendered the decree sought to be enforced.

Well, I did look that one up and here is what I found:

An information charged that plaintiffs in error willfully disobeyed the injunction lawfully issued in equity cause, St. Louis, San Francisco Railway Company, Complainant, v. International Association of Machinists, et al., Defendants, pending in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, by attempting, within the Southwestern Division of the same District, to prevent certain railroad employees from continuing at work.  The order ran against men on strike, and the cause is treated as one within the purview of the Clayton Act.

Well, that supports my position.  The case was in “Western Division of the Western District of Missouri”, however, the other jurisdiction mentioned was in the “Southwestern Division of the same District.”

Now, that “Clayton Act” does come under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, since it deals with the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Clayton Antitrust Act is an amendment passed by U.S. Congress in 1914 that provides further clarification and substance to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 on topics such as price discrimination, price fixing, and unfair business practices.

Well, I sought relevance, but did not find.  So, let’s move on.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux’ »

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?’ »

The Bundy Affair #20
The Invisible Witness

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2017

I have been so busy writing about the goings on in Oregon that I haven’t had much opportunity to consider the situation in Nevada.  As I have told those that I been working with regarding the Group 1 trial in Oregon, who have all started concentrating their efforts in Nevada.  I told those who I had been working with in Oregon, “You all get to work down where it is warm and sunny, while I’m still stuck up here where there is snow on the ground, and it is cold.”  Seriously, however, I am in Northern California, about halfway between the two.  But, I was spending my time primarily on the Oregon, Ammon Bundy, et al, case.

Then, the government filed a Motion.  Upon reading the Motion, I found that the US Attorney has decided to invite me down to Nevada, an offer I couldn’t refuse.

On January 27, 2017, the government filed “Government’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Undercover Employee“.  It is their effort to hide from the defense the identification of an Undercover Employee (UCE).

The invitation is found, beginning on page 9 of that Motion, to wit:

Events subsequently in the courtroom and in the United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al. case in Oregon have shown that the danger to the lone UCE witness in the government’s case is particularly great. Although the discovery information in United States v. Bundy was restricted due to a protective order, an associate of the defendants (including some of the seven common defendants in the Nevada case), Gary Hunt, posted discovery material to “out” confidential human sources to his webpage. Litigation is ongoing in the District of Oregon to remove the information from the web. See, e.g., Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, United States v. Bundy, Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2017).

Now, some might think that this doesn’t look like an invitation, but, after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I see that the United States Government Railroad (USGRR) is in full operation, and flying down the tracks at breakneck speed.

So, getting started in catching up with the USGRR, you will note that they imply a threat when they state that the events in Oregon “have shown that the danger to the lone UCE witness in the government’s case is particularly great.”  On the contrary, they have shown that there is no risk, at all, to the informants in the Oregon occupation — unless you consider that most of the informants have abandoned their old phone numbers, and are not accessible by phone, anymore.

Let’s look at some facts about this alleged “danger”.  On September 21, 2016, AUSA Gabriel, in questioning OSP officer Jeremiah Beckert, asked, “And did you have information about whether the driver [Mark McConnell] was cooperating with the Government?”  Beckert answered in the affirmative, and of its own volition, the government hung one of its informants out to face, what, serious bodily harm?  Death?  Well, that did not happen.  And, the government put this informant at risk.  That very act disputes the government’s entire argument regarding the potential threat to any of the informants.

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair #20 – The Invisible Witness’ »

Freedom of the Press #5
“Tilting at Windmills”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 31, 2017

Well, it has been almost three weeks since the government’s most recent effort to suppress Freedom of the Press.  Not really surprising, since they have nothing to go on; they just think that they do.  However, Billy J. Williams (aka Don Quixote) and Pamala R. Holsinger (aka Sancho Panza) have spent a bunch of taxpayer’s money on “Tilting at Windmills”.  They just do not seem to believe that the Constitution is the very document that created them, and the government that they represent.  Well, it didn’t really create them, but it did create the positions that they hold.

Back on January 10, 2017, the government filed the “Government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1689)“.  This was discussed in Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, published on January 11.  That same day, just hours before #3 was published, the Court filed an “Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1691)“.  This, of course, led to my response, on January 12, with Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order.  Rather a hectic pace, for three days.

Apparently, the government had some heavy homework, for it wasn’t until January 30 that they made their next move.  They filed “Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1788)“, and, not to be out done, they filed an “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1789)“.  The Motion (1788) is only 6 pages, but the Affidavit (1789) is 14 pages, 8 of which are actually entering my Article #4 into the record.  I sure like it when they expand my readership.  Thank you, Don and Sancho.

So, let’s look at the Affidavit (1789), first.  The first three paragraphs are explanations of Ronnie Walker’s qualifications.  In that third paragraph, we find this rather curious limitation of her authority:

I am an “investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States” within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510(7), authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.

Now, it says that she is “authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.”  It does not say that Walker cannot investigate other allegations, but if Walker could, would not Walker have made the point clear.  It kinda makes you wonder, since nobody has found the time to provide a statute that I am in violation of.  This was first discussed when I received the “Letter- Demand to Cease and Desist“, which I reported on in Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI, when “I asked the agent what statute bound me to the Cease and Desist portion of the letter?”  I received no reply.  Since they have not provided me a statute (federal law), I am just wondering if maybe SA Walker is moonlighting for the US Attorney.

Now, here is the kicker.  In the next paragraph in the affidavit, Walker states:

4.  This affidavit is intended to show only facts pertinent for the requested motion and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter.

So, let’s see some facts.  In paragraph 15, Walker states that I received:

a Supplement to the original Protective Order, court record #1692, which prohibits any individual or entity from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.

Well, that is a fact.  Any individual or entity that disseminates those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity[,] by any means.  Now, that would make almost any person who has read and shared certain of my articles, and presumably, even if you did not read them and only shared them, you have been brought into the “long arm of the Protective Order”, and are subject to the very same punishment that they want to try to hang on me.  And, as Walker said, that’s a fact.

Do not let that scare you, because we still have to see if the Court can find some way to reach out of their jurisdiction and grab me, or you, unless, of course, you live in Oregon.  But, even if you do live in Oregon, unless you are party to Ammon Bundy, et al, the trial, which will start, again, with Group 2, on February 14, it would not apply to you, either.  The reason I say that it can’t reach you is that you have to have aided and abetted a party in the action.  That condition exists when two parties work together.  We’ll touch on that, a little later.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #5 – “Tilting at Windmills”’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 56
Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 29, 2017

Perhaps we should start with Article VI, clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now, that is easy to follow and understand.  First, “This Constitution“, and, next, “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof“, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”

Article V of the Constitution states that when an Amendment is ratified, it “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”  “Shall” is mandatory.  It is imposed, without recourse, and must be obeyed.  The requirement that any “Laws… which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” precludes any enactment, statute, or rule, to be in violation of the intent of the Constitution and the Laws made Pursuant to it

In a previous article, “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments were discussed.  Now, let’s go to the top, the Constitution itself, and see what it says.  This led to the more descriptive wording in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments.  This case has to do with misdemeanor charges of trespass, tampering with vehicles or equipment and destruction of property.  This is the Article that established the Judicial Branch, Article III, § 2, clause three:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…

The subsequent Amendments set no limit on criminal charges and a minimum of twenty dollars in civil actions, each requiring a jury trial.  The Amendments made clear, without ambiguity, that any case tried in a court of the United States must fall within those two described areas.  There are no exceptions.

However, this Court, appearing to be inquisitorial rather than just, has opted to circumvent those limitations imposed upon judiciary, by the very document that created the judiciary.  It has put in place, by two methods, a means of deception, whereby the Court can circumvent the Law of the Land.  Chicanery, defined as “deception or trickery, especially by the clever manipulation of language”, is certainly involved in this current circumvention and “inquisition”.

First, chicanery is often used in the “case law method”, where higher court decisions are based upon previous decisions, not necessarily in accordance with the Constitution.  This method began being applied in 1872, shortly after the Civil War.  Harvard University set forth the “method”.  It has since become what appears to be the primary foundation for decisions, most often, without regard to the Constitution.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 56 – Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 54
To Jury, or, Not To Jury

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 23, 2017

Though I have posted the Preamble to the Bill of Rights a number of times, people still ask if there really is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights.  A preamble sets forth the purpose of the document, as the Preamble to the Constitution sets forth its purpose.  It is not a part of the document, rather an explanation as to why the document was created.  When Congress approved, and sent the Bill of Rights to the States, as required by Article V of the Constitution, the first paragraph explained why the Joint Resolution was passed.  It states, “declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” for the purpose of “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”  To wit:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

So, now, we must determine if, in fact, it has extended “the ground of public confidence in the Government“, in light of the current situation.  Our query must be directed to the Sixth Amendment:

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

We must also look to the Seventh Amendment:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

So, between these two Amendments, we find that every judicial concept in the Constitution, with the exception of the House and Senate’s disciplinary procedures regarding their own members, requires a jury to make the determination of guilt or innocence.

The matter at hand is the additional charges brought against the lower level defendants in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  Since the government did not get a conviction of the leaders of said occupation, they have stooped to a new low, perhaps just being poor losers.  They have brought a Misdemeanor Information, for Trespass and other crimes, against the second group of defendants.  These charges were not a part of the Superseding Indictment.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 54 – To Jury, or, Not To Jury’ »

Liberty or Laws?
Natural Rights versus Civil Rights

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom
January 22, 2017

We must understand the difference between Natural Rights, those inherent in the people, and Civil Rights, those given to the People.  If we fail to do so, we participate in our own demise.

The concept of rule by those chosen by God, as claimed by the royalty of the past, where the royalty of Europe claimed to be descendants from God, and ruled by virtue of that sovereign nature.  When the United States of America declared their Independence from that concept, to the philosophical concept of the right of man to rule himself evolved, they moved into a Great Experiment.  Though this political philosophy had existed for hundreds of years, our Founders were the first to put this new form of government into practice.

Natural Rights are based on the concept that every man has a right to the fundamental necessities of life; those being Life, Liberty, and Property.  Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, chose to be poetic, substituting “pursuit of Happiness” for Property, though the many declarations that preceded the eventual Declaration of Independence were based upon Property, as defined by Locke and other early political philosophers.  Happiness is a consequence of possessing Life, Liberty, and Property.  It is not a tangible right, rather, a derivative, of those Natural Rights.  Jefferson, as Locke, had recognized that the purpose of government was to secure those rights.  It was no longer the rights of the king, From July 4, 1776 on, those rights became, truly, the Rights of the People.

The Constitution began the process of securing those rights, though few are mentioned in that Document.  Let’s look at those so secured:

• “Authors and Inventors [have] the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”  {I:8:8}
• An Accused has the right to the “Trial of all Crimes…  [which] shall be by Jury”.  {III:2:3}
• Finally, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”  {I:9:2}

Now, some might question whether the third, Habeas Corpus, is a right.  The word “Privilege”, as used in the Constitution, is a right that can, under certain circumstances, by revoked.  Those circumstances are clearly stated, being “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”, and no other.

Many of the Founders felt that it was insufficient not to protect those Rights, further.  Two states, North Carolina and Massachusetts, did not ratify the Constitution until after the Bill of Rights was submitted to the States for ratification.  Massachusetts would not ratify the Constitution until after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

In fact, the protection of those Natural Rights was so important that it was presented to the States for ratification complete with a Preamble, indicating the reason why the proposed amendments were being presented to the States:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

So, let’s look at the Rights secured by that document intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers“:

. Continue reading ‘Liberty or Laws? – Natural Rights versus Civil Rights’ »

Freedom of the Press #4
The Order

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2017

I got a call from FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano, earlier today, January 11, 2017.  He told me that he had an Order to serve.  We made the same arrangements to meet at the restaurant in Los Molinos.  The restaurant only serves breakfast and lunch, so it was closed, but I figured that this wouldn’t take very long.

I arrived at about 4:15 pm, and he said that he had to serve me.  He handed me the Order, I looked at it and said, “I refuse this service, it is for the District of Oregon, and I am not within that jurisdiction.”  I held the paperwork out toward him, but he did not take it, so, I said, “I will keep this, but I want you to tell Judge Anna Brown that I refuse service, as I am not subject to the Oregon District’s jurisdiction.”  He agreed to convey the message, and then he proceeded to read certain portions of the Order to me.  When he was finished, I reminded him that I wanted Brown to receive my message, and he assured me that he would pass it on.  I feel certain that he will.  After all, that is his job.  We shook hands, and we departed.

Though I had already received two copies of the Order from other sources, I hadn’t read it.  The news traveled so rapidly that my phone was in near constant use.  However, between calls, I read portions of the Order.  As I did so, a smile crept across my face.  Now, you may wonder why I would smile after receiving the Order, but my first thought was that Judge Brown had not had an opportunity to read my article, that had gone out just a few hours before.  The Order had been docketed, and I received copies just minutes after posting my article.  Judge Brown had not had the opportunity to read my response to the Memorandum that had refuted most, if not all, of what she was provided by the US Attorney in the form of the Memorandum to prepare the Order.

Quite frankly, when Brown filed the Minute Order (See Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You), there were two possibilities.  First, that she really was holding the government’s feet to the fire, seeking real legal justification for issuing an Order.  The other, that she simply wanted the government to give her the paperwork she needed, in the form of a Memorandum, to provide justification to issue such an Order.  I decided to act on the former.  I had said many things about Anna Brown in the past, few of them complimentary, but if she had turned to the right side, she was deserving of the benefit of the doubt.  Her actions, in the past, had been nigh onto dictatorial, and had no foundation in law or justice.

So, let’s look at her Order, and I will comment, as we go.  It is dated January 11, 2017.

This matter comes before the Court on the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order in which the government seeks to enjoin a third party, Gary Hunt, from further dissemination of discovery materials that are protected by the Court’s Protective Order (#342) issued March 24, 2016.

Through the Affidavits (#1681, #1690) of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker, the government asserts Hunt published excerpts from protected discovery materials on his website beginning on November 15, 2016, and continuing through the present. In particular, the government contends the postings on Hunt’s website identify some of the confidential human sources (CHSs) that the government used during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This information is not only protected by the Protective Order (#342), but the Court also found in its Order (#1453) issued October 18, 2016, that the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense and, in particular, that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs. Thus, the information in Hunt’s postings should not be publicly available.

Well, that is cute.  Have I not said, from the beginning, that I was not subject to the Protective Order?  Now, she says that the “information is protected by the Protective Order.”  That means that those subject to the Protective Order have an obligation to protect the information.  She is right in line with my thinking.  But, that will change a little later.

Then, she finds that “the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense.”  That information was relayed to the defense on October 18, about ten days before the jury returned the not guilty verdict.  She also stated, “that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs.”

So, let’s get real.  The government gave out redacted copies of the 1023 forms.  The defense could not call any witnesses who had been informants.  Obviously the information the government, and Judge Anna Brown, were willing to allow the defense to have was totally insufficient for them to prepare their defenses, especially with regard to possible exculpatory testimony those informants might have provided.  The Judge, well let’s just go with Brown, from this point on, disregarded the fact that two of the government’s informants testified.  Terri Linnell came forward voluntarily, against the wishes of the Prosecution, and testified for the defense. A diligent effort by the defense teams in tracking down Fabio Monoggio, another informant, whose testimony also was beneficial to the defense.  Both gave testimony, which may well have turned the tide on the jury’s verdict.  This testimony would have been denied the defense under the enforcement of the Protective Order and the subsequent statement on October 18.

This is absolutely contrary to the right protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which says that the accused has the right, “to be confronted by the witnesses against him“.  Now, some have claimed that informants, unless they testify, are not witness.  However, that is not what the Protective Order (March 24, 2016) says.  That Protective Order clearly states what the prohibitions are, to wit:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Protective Order applies only to:

(1) Statements by witnesses and defendants to government officials;

(2) Sealed documents; and

(3) Evidence received from searches of electronic media.

Now, there are only two human objects in the Protective Order.  It applies to “witnesses” and “defendants”.  Well, I am not exposing defendants, so if the informants are not witnesses, then I am not in violation of the Protective Order.  Ergo, the informants are witnesses, so saith Brown.

Therefore, Brown has denied the constitutionally protected right of the defendants to confront those witnesses.

The record reflects FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano met Hunt, who resides in Los Molinos, California, on January 5, 2017, and personally served him with a cease-and-desist letter from the government that demanded Hunt remove all discovery materials from his website. Special Agent Catalano also provided Hunt with a copy of this Court’s Protective Order (#342). According to SA Walker, Hunt stated he did not intend to comply with the cease- and-desist letter and did not believe that the Protective Order applied to him. It appears Hunt has not removed the protected discovery materials from his website.

. Continue reading ‘Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order’ »