Outpost of Freedom blog

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’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 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:
Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 61 – Jon Ritzheimer is Going to Prison’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 18
1984

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 4, 2016

Count 5 of the Superseding Indictment reads:

(Theft of Government Property)

(18 U.S.C. § 641)

On or about January 15, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants JON RITZHEIMER and RYAN BUNDY, willfully and knowingly, did steal, purloin, and convert to their use and the use of another cameras and related equipment, the value of which exceeded $1000, which is property of the United States government, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641.

The Statute cited is:

18 U.S.C. § 641: Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted –

It is important to understand what the government has charged Jon Ritzheimer and Ryan Bundy with.  It may be clear from the Statute that the requisite for it to be a crime is “to convert it to his use or gain.”  So, to be sure that we are looking in the right direction, here are a few definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Steal.  The term is commonly used in indictments for larceny (“take, steal, and carry away”), and denotes the commission of theft, that is, the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, and without leave or consent of owner, and with the intent to keep or make use wrongfully.

Stolen.  Acquired or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act of taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership (or possession) permanently.

Theft.  A popular name for larceny.  The taking of property without owner’s consent.  The fraudulent taking of personal properly belonging to another, from his possession, for from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person talking it.

Larceny.  A rather lengthy description, with the significant element being “felonious intent“.

So the taking of the property must be for keeping, depriving the owner of the benefit of ownership, and must be felonious in intent. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 18 – 1984’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 12
Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 29, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denouncing the Denigrators
The Seeping Wound in the Patriot Community

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2016

Recent events up near Burns, Oregon, have brought, once again, the Denigrators to the forefront. These are people who will begin digging, misrepresenting, and outright lying, about some of the key players in any event. Occasionally, a bit of truth is brought out, though often, it is intended to associate those who may have bad records with those who are otherwise; good, honest, men, doing what they believe to be a necessary course of action.

About that necessary course of action. Many people have been critical, not of the players, but of the activity of taking over federal buildings. They tend to judge those actions by their own standards, and expect others to abide by their moral compass.

However, if they are not players in a particular incident, what is their motive to object to the actions of others? Are they conditioned as “arm chair quarterbacks”, drinking beer and deciding why the coach’s call was a bad one? Well, there is nothing wrong with that, even if it is taken to the Internet. Surely, those who support the same team are most likely to agree, or, then, they might have a different opinion. The bottom line, however, is whether their team won, or lost.

The professed patriot, however, has different opposition, and it never changes, though the playing field might. The opposition is the government, and the playing field, in the current instance, is the Malheur Refuge, about thirty miles south of Burns, Oregon.

The handful of people that initiated this action have been accused of being government agents, provocateurs, scumbags, guilty of falsely representing the military service, and possibly even more evil deeds than Batman’s enemies. These assertions are submitted to the public with airs of absolute authority, though for what purpose? Well, we will get in to that, later.

At the end of the Bundy Affair, I wrote an article, “The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues“, discussing what was becoming quite apparent; the Internet was being used to subvert the efforts being exerted by hundreds to push the federal government back, and leave the Bundys to continue with their business, without government removing their longstanding use of federal property.

At the same time, I was adding an addendum to an article, “Vortex“, that I had written back in 2012. It dealt, primarily, with my experience and personal knowledge of events where the nefarious tactics of the police state we have been living in for decades were exposed. It explains the levels and types of agents, as well as the role and types of informants. In April 2014, I added an addendum to the article, supplementing it with more recent tactics of that police state, especially as applied to the Internet.

Now, with that in mind, we will discuss a recent Facebook article, which appears to be authored by Christian Yingling, late in the evening of January 4, two days after the Malheur Refuge buildings were seized. The first three paragraphs of the article set the stage:

Ok …Everybody… please gather around and listen to what I am about to say. Then either shut your mouth, or share this far and wide. If you have ANY faith in me as a leader you will heed what I am about to say. If not.. I want nothing to do with you. simple as that.

The key to victory in any battle is the ability to remain calm in any given situation. What we are seeing right now is a whole bunch of people acting based solely on raw emotion. This is very bad and I’m about to explain exactly why. I am not letting my emotions make my decisions for me, but instead, looking at this from a calm, level headed, common sense approach.

What you are all witnessing right now right now in Oregon has the makings of a full on false flag event. And I will prove that to you to the absolute best of my ability. Should you choose to look at this from a logical perspective you will see I am 100% correct. Some of what I will tell you is speculation based on my own experience and experiences of others I have talked to throughout this ordeal, but most of what I am going to tell you is documented verifiable fact.

The first paragraph says, agree with me, or shut up. I am your leader. Rather suggestive, and well within the realm of Physiological Operations (PysOps).

In the second, he suggests that the operation in taking the Wildlife Refuge building was based upon “raw emotions“. This, of course, is to denigrate those who carried out the mission. However, that mission was well planned, even to the point of having all attention focused, to the last minute, on the Fair Grounds, where everybody, even the government agents, expected Ammon Bundy to speak. This left no opportunity for the government to establish a roadblock to keep the team from getting to the Refuge. Those who were assigned to “tail” the key players, and they were well known to the FBI by this time, could only tail from the rear, so there was no obstruction in accessing the buildings. That did require “a calm, level headed, common sense approach“, though our “author”, tried to reverse these thoughts in the minds of the reader.

Next, he uses the battle cry of keyboard patriots, “false flag“, to garner attention, and then asserts that he is “logical” and “100% correct“. Finally, he says that what he is going to tell you is “documented verifiable fact“. Now, I must agree, in part, with that final assertion. It is documented. It is verifiable”, however, whether it is fact, or not, is the whole focus of this article. Documentation only requires the existence of a document, and in this case, there are hundreds. Perhaps thousands, of internet “documents”, that will support his claims. So, it is also verifiable, that we cannot dispute. The whole question hinges on whether it is factual. And, here lies the problem.

Let me digress. In a recent discussion in a patriotic forum, it was suggested, regarding Ryan Payne, that he should have defended himself against the allegations that he claimed to be a Ranger. However, when those claims came out, Ryan pretty much had his hands full at the Bundy Ranch. So, should he drop everything, ignore his obligations and responsibilities to address such allegations, just because they were brought up?

To answer that question, I can refer to my own experiences. Back in 1995, I was accused of being John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City Bombing. This all came from a single article by Bill Cooper. Now, should I drop my travelling, investigating, and writing, and redirect my efforts to addressing this, or should I continue on with my original purpose? Had I curtailed my efforts to get to the bottom of stories of interest to patriots to “defend” myself against this allegation, that very act imply, that defense was needed, and perhaps it was true? It was seventeen years later, when there were over 40,000 iterations (verifiable documentation) of that single story, that I finally said, “that’s enough”, and did a two-hour radio show to dispel the accusation. If you are interested in the background, and the proof of the falsehood of the accusation, the audio of that show can be found here.

As George Carlin advised us, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Among the many efforts to denigrate Payne, Yingling says, “Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial “leader” of the militias present at the Bundy ranch“. So, is that verifiable, and is it fact? Well, I have seen similar assertions, many times. So it is verifiable, at least that it was said. However, the “fact” (pesky little devils) is that his role at the Bundy ranch was far from what is suggested. Ryan was “Militia Liaison” to Cliven Bundy. And there is a very valid reason for such a designation. If Cliven Bundy had developed a direct relationship with the militia then the “law of agencies” would make the “principal”, Cliven Bundy, responsible and liable for the acts of any of his “agents”. That would provide legal fodder, should any accident result in injury or damage to property, and make accidents and injuries the responsibility of Cliven Bundy, which would be grounds for lawsuits, resulting in the loss of his ranch, everything he owned, and perhaps prison time. More so if the charges were brought by the federal government. The role of Militia Liaison breaks that legal responsibility and directs it to the individual that committed, whether an agent or an accident, injury to another or damage to property. So, he was not the “leader” of the militia, instead he was the liaison. So, he communicated between the two elements. As such, he had to endeavor to create an atmosphere that would provide for a cohesive effort. That effort was sustained from his arrival until the Unrustling, on April 12, and even beyond, where disputes were resolved, and attempts to subvert the efforts of the militia were a constant hindrance. Those who wish to “verify” this “fact” are welcome to contact Cliven Bundy.

So, let’s get back to another allegation made against Ryan Payne, that being that he “also claimed to be an Army Ranger, But when we had someone at the Ranger School check their records. They said NO Ryan Payne had EVER attended that school“. When this allegation was made, I contacted Ryan (I had been in regular communication with him during the entire Bundy Affair) and discussed it with him, agreeing to take the burden off of him. He arranged to have copies of two awards that he had received while in the Army, and I pursued seeking audio recordings of him saying that he was a “Ranger”. I spoke to many who said that they had heard him say it, and one of them is well known for recording conversations, yet none of them recording Ryan saying that he was a Ranger. However, I did run across two recordings where Ryan said that he had been in “a Ranger unit”. This information was published in an article, “Stealing Valor“, in May 2014. As the title suggests, it was not stolen valor, instead, it was an effort to steal Ryan’s valor away from him.

Next, let’s look at what was said about Jon Ritzheimer. Yingling, apparently, believes that he is a psychiatrist, or at least a psychologist, since he feels he is qualified to state that Jon “is exhibiting all the classic signs of PTSD”. Bravo, Christian, though I’m not sure what “classic” means, and almost all returning vets are diagnosed as having PTSD and given a prescription medications. Even the VA admits that they don’t try to treat it, but many thousands of veterans so diagnosed are productive members of their community. Jon, for example, after working for others, began his own business. His background is explained in “Jon Ritzheimer – When did Freedom of Speech Become Hate Speech?”

Yingling, in his paragraph on Jon Ritzheimer, says, “How could ANYONE in their right mind think that dying trying to fight the BLM of all things is going to ‘change the govt’?” I’m not quite sure why it was included there, but it is worthy of note. What will change the government? I know it is rhetorical, but it is also realistic. Has voting worked? How about demonstrations, petitions, letters, calls to congresscritters? I think it might be appropriate, here, to quote a portion of Patrick Henry’s famous speech of March 23, 1775:

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those war like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation – the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which now coming on. We have petitioned – we have remonstrated – we have supplicated – we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! (emphasis mine)

So, how does Yingling suggest that we “change the govt“? To point out problems is easy enough, and it is easy enough, too, to find support on the Internet to prove the existence of the problem. The problem is that it is solutions that are necessary. After all, we have multitudes, perhaps nearly enumerable, amounts of problems. It is those who seek a solution that we should revere, not condemn.

Now, Yingling has tried to trash others, and I’m sure that he has found “verifiable sources”, though, perhaps, only partially, or even void of facts. However, I have chosen both Ryan and Jon to demonstrate Yingling’s fallacy, as I already have the facts on those subjects. Those facts were developed from diligent research, not of what others have, verifiably, written, but to the source, for the purpose of writing articles. Though there may be 40,000 statements to some subject, there is only one fact. It is the quality of the information, not the quantity that matters.

Such unsubstantiated rantings, as we have discussed, can only serve to harm the patriot community. At this time when we need unity, we find division. Perhaps it is time to consider whether we really want to “change the govt“, or just play like we do.

For the record, in my twenty-three years of writing for the patriot community, I have only publically accused two people of being contrary to the interest of the community. The first was Linda Thompson, back in the 90s and the era of fax networking, not the Internet. The second was Christopher Blystone. Both have substantiated facts, both verifiable and documented by other than the perpetuation of destructive rumors.

Finally, we must look at what motivates one to do such as Yingling has done. First, let me state that I am not accusing Yingling of having any specific motivation behind what he wrote, rather it is what he wrote that I am addressing. I fully understand that often sincere purpose can lead to erroneous conclusions. It is the purpose of this article to explain the nature of the consequence of the propagation of erroneous, or invalid, information, based upon both substantiated and unsubstantiated “facts”, and more importantly, the tendency to create “facts” based upon theory rather than base theory upon facts.

The two most likely motivations are, first, the desire to appear to have inside knowledge, what I refer to in the Vortex article, as the “guess what I know” mentality, or as a friend describes it, “useful idiots”.

The second, and far more sinister, is the one that often feeds “facts” to the above described individuals. Once fed, the “information” is composed into the subsequent misinformation (that is so destructive to our community), and is perpetuated, ad infinitum, and quite often sensationalized in the process. As explained in “Vortex”, the person that first plants these destructive seeds into the community is the “Vortex”, and he plants them with a specific intention, that of disruption, conflict, division, and, hopefully, in their efforts, to created a dysfunctional community out of one that must rely upon cohesiveness. It is a community wherein, if one disagrees with the actions of another, though those actions are directed at achieving the common goal, as the events on Burns surely are, then he should not go public with malicious attacks, as they only serve the government. For, to do so does far more harm than simply keeping your mouth shut.

I believe this has been amply demonstrated by the events in Oregon, as we see organizations that were critical of, but not outspoken against, the operation, now coming together in order to protect those at the Refuge from harm by the federal government. As the old saying goes, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!” Do not be an obstruction to the efforts of others, as they are pursuing the same goal, as are all of those who really are patriotic, and believe in their country, not the government.

Maryland Resolves, December 12, 1774
As our opposition to the settled plan of the British administration to enslave America will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of men in this province, we do most earnestly recommend that all former differences about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion; and we entreat, we conjure every man by his duty to God, his country, and his posterity, cordially to unite in defense of our common rights and liberties.