Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles #39
Informants – What to do About Them

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 6, 2016

Recently, I watched a video of an interview with Terri Linnell that was couched into an in-studio, live “exposé”, purporting to prove that what Linnell had said was an “obvious lie”.  This whole program was based primarily on my article, “Burns Chronicles N^o 32 – Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)“, and the host’s subsequent interview with Terri.

In the comment section of that video, I disputed a couple of items that were alleged to be truthful, one, in particular, dealing with the time element, and when people might have known when LaVoy had been murdered.  After all, this set everything into motion, this past January 26.

However, their estimate of when people outside could have known what had happened came out to 10:00 PM. Heck, I knew by 7:00 PM, and as I recall, it was one of my team members that had called me (in Burns) from another state to tell me what had happened.  Subsequently, one of the guests has admitted that they had no idea of what time the information would have gotten out — they were just guessing based upon when they found out about the murder.

I had intended to go back to YouTube and review/comment on the remainder of the 2 hour 25 minute video, since I had commented on perhaps only the first twenty minutes that I have watched.  Since I had been working on another article, I postponed that subsequent review.

Then I found myself tagged in a subsequent discussion on Facebook, I was invited to be interviewed because of my disagreement with the host.  I accepted, however.  I included the provision that my interview had to be done that day.  First, the video was damaging by its untruthfulness, and such lies should be outed in a timely manner.  Second, I didn’t want to wait the “3 or 4 days” for the host to conduct the interview.  I have better things to do than wait around for someone to try to figure what questions he needs to ask to try to cover his blatant misrepresentations.  Heck, the interview would have been about the video he had created, so if anyone needed to prepare, it would have been me.  However, he turned it back on me for not being willing to abide by his schedule.  So be it.  I have broad shoulders and take full responsibility for not doing the interview.

Now, why do I bring this up?  Well, since I posted the article, which I had agreed not to post until Terri testified in the Portland trial, many alleged patriots have attacked her, verbally.  Some understood and appreciate what she had done, but when she left the courtroom, she was stunned and could find no one who would talk with her, nor could she find a place to stay.  It was that treatment of Terri that caused me to put pen to paper, in hopes of providing another perspective on how we should treat informants.

So, let’s look at the three informants that testified during the trial.  First, we have Mark McConnell, though he still denies, or at least sidesteps, his role.  He was outed, intentionally, and quite surprisingly, by the government in their direct examination of an Oregon State Police officer.  It was later reconfirmed by the Court that he was, in fact, an informant.  Mark professes to be a patriot, and he probably is —along the lines of OathKeepers, where the Constitution is what they are told by their superiors, and is patriotism to the government, not to the country or the Constitution.  Mark is one informant that all true patriots should, at least, distance themselves from.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 39 – Informants – What to do About Them’ »

Liberty or Laws?

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself”

Does the Fifth Amendment Stop at Miranda?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 6, 2016

The principle element in this discussion is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The provision that is of concern is, “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  And, we must begin by understanding that, as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says,

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.

Clearly, the Fifth Amendment, then, is a prohibition against the government, “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the federal government’s] powers”

To understand the role of the Supreme Court, at least for nearly the past century, we need to review what Justice Brandeis explained in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), in which he explained the “rules” that the Court had adopted to avoid “passing upon a large part of all constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision.”  (See About Ashwander v. TVA)

The pertinent rules from that decision are:

2.  The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it… ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless necessary to a decision of the case…

3.  The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied….

4.  The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.

7.  ‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided…

To summarize the pertinent rules:

• The Court will not decide on the constitutionality, unless absolutely necessary – rules 2 & 4.
• When the Court does rule on the constitutionality, that ruling will be as narrow as possible – rule 3.
• The Court will, whenever possible, rule on statutory construction to avoid ruling on constitutionality – rule 7.

Now with this in mind, they won’t rule on the constitutionality, unless necessary, and if they do rule on constitutionality, they will make that ruling as narrow as possible.  We will look at a Supreme Court decision that we are all familiar with, Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

In Miranda, which requires that law enforcement officers notice the person being investigated for possible criminal activity be advised that he have the right to refuse to talk and to have an attorney present.  However, in keeping with Ashwander rule #7, the ruling deals only with those in custody.

So, the question arises, why would one’s right only apply to when one is in custody (they narrow ruling)?  If one the right to not incriminate oneself, “to be a witness against himself”, would that not apply once suspicion was raised against him, or does it only apply after he is in custody?.  Wouldn’t it really be a prohibition against government, both before and after one was in custody?

If a law enforcement office, in uniform or plain clothes, with the intent of trying to elicit a confession, or information that would incriminate someone, while in custody, was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and confirmed by the Supreme Court, then why would we assume that that prohibition did not also extend to when one was under suspicion?  After all, when one is under suspicion, the law enforcers are just a small step away from putting someone in custody.  Why would that prohibition only come into play when the actual act of custody was implemented?  Is it possible that those who ratified the Amendment intended for that form of chicanery to be acceptable?  Or, was their intention to prohibit divisive means of acquiring incriminating evidence in apparent conflict with the wording of the Amendment?

Now, we need to visit a little historical background to carry the ramifications of the intent into an understanding of changes in practices between the Eighteenth Century and modern law enforcement, to put a proper perspective on how the intent of the Amendment is circumvented.

In the Eighteenth Century, spying, intelligence gathering, and other such undercover work was carried out in higher levels of government, only.  The consequence for being caught practicing such infamy was death.  Consequently, those willing to lay their lives on the line for the greater cause of national politics carried out such work.  The idea of spying on their own citizens was out of the question.  After all, it is the job of any decent government to protect its citizens, not to treat them as they would an enemy.  The idea that such practices could be used in the lower elements of society, in pursuit of criminals rather than state secrets or wartime intelligence, was not a practice, as honor was conscientiously upheld.  To deceive alleged criminals would be to stoop to the level of criminals. Continue reading ‘Liberty or Laws? – “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 21
The Public’s Right to Know

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 16, 2016

We all know that when there is an alleged violation of one’s rights, the freedom of the accused, while somewhat curtailed, is usually respected, and this is known as part of due process. Absent due process, judicial behavior often falls into arbitrary decision-making, biased juries, and the rail-roading of political undesirables, straight into prison. Lack of judicial transparency is usually a clear sign that whatever vestiges of a republican form of government may still be there is waning, and quickly; should the public’s right to know not be reinvigorated, then posterity will likely never know true freedom.

A Person accused of a crime, according to the Sixth Amendment, has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him“, and, “to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor“.

The government, of course, has the right to search with a warrant, and the subpoena power to compel witnesses. Clearly, they have a right to know.

The accused has the power of the subpoena, to compel witnesses on his behalf. He also has a right to discovery, to see what the plaintiff has, in the form of proof, and to introduce evidence on his behalf.

Historically, trials were public. Often crime scenes were photographed by news reporters/cameramen, often with victims still in place. Reporters were given all but the most critical investigative results, and all of this was to assure the public that there really was a crime in their community. Witnesses told what they saw, to investigators (public and private), other people, and the press. Those charged and arrested were able to talk to anybody and often did press interviews from jail. If they were released from custody, they could speak as freely as any other person. Thus, the public was always aware of the accused’s explanation of events.

When the matter went to trial the courtroom was open, so long as the observers behaved, and the press had every opportunity to report on all aspects of the case, including evidence and testimony. For the most part, all of the facts were laid out to the public, by one means or another, even before the trial began.

When the trial was over, regardless of the outcome, the community was fully aware of what had occurred, what the government did to bring justice, and whether the person that had been accused was vindicated of the charges, or convicted.

So, let’s look at what a trial really is. The first element is comprised of the facts of the matter. This includes evidence, recordings, writings, photographs, and the testimony of witnesses. However, that is just the beginning. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 21 – The Public’s Right to Know’ »

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’ »