Outpost of Freedom blog

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

A Patriot’s Bulletin Vol. 1 No. 2

Schuyler’s Last Edition from Behind Prison Walls

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 20, 2017

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

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

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

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

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

The Government is Seeking the Last Drop of His Blood

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 4, 2017

Schuyler Barbeau’s Sentencing Recommendation, based upon his record, history, etc., recommends months of incarceration. This would be followed by 3 years of supervised release. It also recommends no monetary penalty, except the $200 Special Assessment. His Sentencing Hearing is scheduled for September 8, 2017, just a few days away. Schuyler was okay with this, as at least, he would be free (except the supervised release) in December or January.

Now, we must talk about the role of the United States Attorney. His role is to get a conviction. During trial, when Schuyler changed his pleas to Guilty, so the  that task was done. However, prosecutors are those people that will lie, falsify evidence, object to defendants putting on a defense, and use every conniving trick in their book, are also vindictive. The Sentencing Guidelines establish a check list for the punishment of guilty defendants. There wouldn’t be much need for the Guidelines if Congress felt that the punishment should be determined in the courtroom. However, they enacted the Guidelines in their quest for “equality”, and that should be the end of it.

However, those well-paid government attorneys seem to have a scorecard, like ticket quotas for police.  Their vindictive nature (since they are otherwise immune from nearly any remedy) shows when they can’t be satisfied with a job, well, well done, with the conviction.

Not so with USA Annette L. Hayes and AUSA Thomas M. Woods, with the United States Attorney in Seattle, Washington. They have prepared a 12 page “Government’s Sentencing Memorandum” in an effort to nearly triple Schuyler’s sentence, to 72 months.

That Memorandum says that:

“Barbeau has spent years telling the world that he will use deadly force against law enforcement officers who attempt to take any steps that interfere with his beliefs, including instances in which officers are simply carrying out Court-authorized orders. His conduct has not been limited to words—he built a fully-automatic machinegun that he repeatedly threatened to use against law enforcement. He sought to purchase a .50 caliber gun on the theory that it would be more effective in a shootout with law enforcement.”

The fact that this is a conclusion of the government, not a fact ruled on in court, seems to make no difference. Just because the government says it is so, it must be so.

The government goes on to say:

“Specifically, Barbeau has repeatedly stated that he will use deadly force to “protect himself” against an arrest where he believes that the arrest is unlawful. Thus, he repeatedly stated his intent to kill any law enforcement officers who sought to arrest him or his friends because of his view that none of them have done anything wrong. This conduct is not “self-defense”—it is murder.”

Now, this just shows how far away from our Constitution the government has drifted. In 1900, the Supreme Court ruled that John Bad Elk, who had shot and killed an officer who was armed, though the officer never raised his rifle, was guilty of a misdemeanor, or no crime at all, since the attempt to arrest him was not lawful. See The Right to Self Defense. I supposed, as we have all conjectured, the Constitution has been put aside by the government. With the crafty wording of enactments, and the “case law method”, they continue to circumvent the Constitution.

. Continue reading ‘Barbeau Qued in Seattle – The Government is Seeking the Last Drop of His Blood’ »

The Bundy Affair – #19
Schuyler Barbeau Responds to Ryan Payne

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 30, 2016

Schuyler Barbeau receives copies of my articles, via mail, while detained at SeaTac Federal Detention Center. After reading “Ryan Payne Explains Some of the Circumstances Surrounding the Bundy Affair in April 2014“, Schuyler sent me the following to post, in response to that article.

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

11/14/2016
FDC SeaTac

This is an open letter,

To those Patriots, their families, anyone affected by or involved with the indictment against Cliven Bundy and eighteen others, the Government, FBI, Federal Prosecutors, and anyone else concerned with the case,

This letter is my concurrence with an open letter written and published by Ryan Payne.

I, Schuyler P. Barbeau, was present before, during and after the “standoff” event that took place in Bunkerville, NV, near Cliven Bundy’s Ranch on April 12th, 2014.  I arrived at noon on Friday the 11th, and was invited to be a member of the Personal Security Detail that evening.  I then remained a member of the PSD [Personal Security Detail] for seven days.

Ryan Payne made five statements in his letter, that he made speculative, inaccurate, and/or fabricated statements before, during, and after the “standoff.”

“1) There were outcomes that I discussed with Mr. Bundy on the morning of April 8, 2014, upon first meeting him, which were desirable to him and his family.  These were then disseminated through conventional and alternative media outlets, in the belief that those who may decide to protest against the Sheriff’s apparent lack of involvement, and/or against the brutal and militarized actions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  This would give them more information to aid in making decisions for themselves and their actions.  There was never a plan to accomplish these objectives, in any way, shape, or form, nor was there any intent to support any such plan, by myself, the Bundy’s, or anyone else.  As there was presumed to be a large protest on April 12th, I discussed with numerous individuals, some particular things to be watch­ful for amongst the crowd, for the safety of all involved including law enforcement and federal employees.  However, none of these discussions concerned a plan to achieve any objectives.  This is true to my knowledge.”

. Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #19 – Schuyler Barbeau Responds to Ryan Payne’ »

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II
In Schuyler’s Own Words

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 7, 2016

Schuyler Barbeau was arrested in a setup, participated in by his best friend, Oliver Murphy, on December 6, 2015. Until just a few days ago, what happened to Schuyler was unknown, except that he ended up in jail. The only story that could be told, at that time, was from Allen Aenk, who was present in the car when the minions of government, in complete battle dress, descended on the two of them. What Allen Aenk was able to observe is described in The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau.

Schuyler has now come forward with his description of the events of that day, including a transcription of the interrogation that was conducted prior to him being finally settled in the King County Jail.

The following account is transcribed from a handwritten report by Schuyler. The interrogation dialogue was copied from a copy provide to Schuyler by the government, as part of Discovery. That transcript was redacted with “XXXXX” in place of a name. However, the name is placed, in context, as the informant working with the FBI is known as a result of our previous investigation, and is used in place of the “XXXXX”.  Schuyler’s comments with regard to the interrogation dialogue are included (in parenthesis).

[Note: I have been informed, through friends of Schuyler Barbeau, that this was not a transcription, rather, a recollection of the interview.  I, foolishly, assumed that since he had used the “XXXXX” in places that it was transcribed (copied).  I have been advised that in keeping in compliance with the Court’s effort to make public only what they want to be public, Schuyler used the “XXXXX” to avoid violating the Court’s prohibition on divulging Discovery information.  6/24/16 gh]

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

Allen and I were pulling off Highway 18 where it intersects Interstate 90 to enter the non-operational weigh-station.  As we rolled through the long parking lot, I spotted my best friend, Oliver Murphy’s, Ford Explorer, sitting by the small weigh-station building.  The hood was up as Oliver had told me that the car was overheating.  Now, the purpose of my meeting him was to pick up cash for a sale he did for me.  As we approached, I said aloud, “Well, there is his SUV, but I don’t see him.”  We parked next to the Explorer and as we did, I took notice of the stickers all over the rear and window, confirming in my mind that this was in fact the right vehicle, because I recognized the stickers, even the pro-2nd Amendment one.

I stepped out of the car, grabbed the dog’s [Note: a dog that had just been picked up by TeamRescue for training – opf] leash and waited for it to climb out of the backseat into the front seat and then out of the car.  Just then, as she jumped out, I heard a whole bunch of shouting to my 11 o’clock position.  I looked up and over the top of the hood of the Explorer (which they closed as they came around) and saw the military (it actually turned out just to be the FBI) come pouring out of the building and around the Explorer with their pistols and M4s pointed at my face.  Now, there was no difference in dress and appearance between these guys (FBI) and some Delta Force operators from the Army.  About 15 to 20 agents total.  They had their multi-cam clothing, full kit, plate carrier, body armor, and helmets, along with other gear.  “Operators” are carrying, and using all their high-speed weapons.  This overwhelming display of “tactic-cool” is a true testament of the militarization of law enforcement. Continue reading ‘Barbeau Qued in Seattle – The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II – In Schuyler’s Own Words’ »

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’ »

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
Making Schuyler Barbeau Out as a Terrorist

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 15, 2016

A recent Facebook post rightfully posted the following email content with the caveat that they had not confirmed the email was actually from Schuyler Barbeau. However, as shown below in the screen capture, the email was mailed through “CorrLinks”. CorrLinks is a privately owned company that operates Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System, the email system used by the United State Federal Bureau of Prisons to allow inmates to communicate with the outside world. To use CorrLinks own description of their purpose,

“CorrLinks is a way for family and friends to communicate with their loved ones incarcerated in prison”. Established through a relationship between a corrections agency and Advanced Technologies Group, this system allows family and friends to subscribe to CorrLinks services.”

The next obvious question would be whether the email was generated by Schuyler Barbeau, as indicated, or fabricated by the government. Frankly, I doubt that the government would ever usurp the prerogative to do such a thing, as it would be illegal, and would, most likely, be found out during subsequent court proceedings. So, it is fair to assume that the email did come from Schuyler. However, to substantiate this, it has been confirmed by telephonic communication, as well.

So, let’s look at the content of the email (A PDF of the email, redacted, is here). Understand, however, the reference to the email received at the bottom is left in to further sport the legitimacy of the email The content was of a personal nature, except that portion which is discussed below. The text is unedited.

From: BARBEAU SCHUYLER PYATTE (46153086)
Sent Date: Monday, January 11, 2016 10:51 PM
To: teamrescueone[at]gmail.com

Subject: RE: P.S.

i have gotten one letter from mom but she didnt give any warnings to me. so they are hold my mail. the captain read me something similar from a letter from my friend Brooke. i know whats going on around here but im not supposed to talk about things. i have had discussions with the staff here about the sistuation and have been given a greenlight to send a message out to someone who can pass the word on. whoever it is that is making these plans needs to stand down. any attemps will only hurt my situation. im planning to take my case to the supreme court. i have new arguements to make to try to get the laws changed. everyone need to just wait to see what happens. they can peacfully protest and keep showing support, but i dont want violence on the staff here. they are not the enemy. pass this message on to someone down there so the word can be spread around until it reaches the right people. we’ve been working to show that im not a terrorist but if anyone breaks me out then the government would be able to show that i am, then they’ll use military to come after me. thats not what i want right now. im trying to show the judge that im not as bad a guy the the government is making me out to be. everyone just needs to hold off for now but continue to support. what i really need is for everyone to work on gaining support for making short barreled rifle and machine guns legal. i want the National Firearms Act repealed. i need appeal lawers that want to go to the supreme court to get involved. theres got to be someone out there. i have new arguements, but i need help.

—Aenk, Carrie on 1/11/2016 3:51 PM wrote:

The Subject, “RE: P.S.”, is because this is a reply to continuation, or addendum, to an email sent the previous evening. This email (redacted portion) was sent to Schuyler at 3:51 PM on Monday the 11th. Schuyler’s sent this email exactly seven hours later. Considering the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors, this would also support that Schuyler had written the email.

So, why did he write the email? The redacted portion did contain information that would suggest both his response and the willingness of the “custodial officers” (BOP and/or FBI) to not only let him respond, but, probably, encourage him to respond.

Schuyler points out that he had only received one email from his mother, Stacy Milam. Apparently, for reasons that will be explained later, that letter was never delivered. However, the “captain” read him a letter from “Brooke”, which appears to have had content suggesting there was an effort afoot to break him out of jail. Now, this would be a fool’s errand — to break someone out of a federal detention facility such as the one at SeaTac (shown above).

However, rumors did circulate, at a previous hearing, on December 14, 2015, suggesting such an action was being proposed. With that in mind, has Schuyler’s ordeal been compounded because of the expressions of some that they wanted to decide for Schuyler that he should not be in jail? The simple actions of those outside have given the government just cause to assume that he may be a domestic terrorist, regardless of the fact that Schuyler has done nothing to substantiate the designation.

As explained in the email, and which has been expressed by Schuyler, before his current ordeal, he does want to challenge the Short Barrel Rifle law, and the whole National Firearms Act, in court, as he says, all of the way “to the Supreme Court”.

It was bad enough that the rumors floated around, last month. However, subsequent events simply compounded Schuyler’s problem, and that is where this email brings that problem to light.

In the email, Schuyler tells us that the captain read another letter, “from my friend Brooke”. That friend has been confirmed as Brooke Agresta (Idaho III%), though it has not been confirmed that she sent a letter to Schuyler in jail, as was stated by Schuyler in the email.

What we do know is that Brooke encouraged Stacy to call Schuyler and tell him that there was rumor of an attempt to break him out. Stacy didn’t want to call him, and that is almost impossible in that only certain people can call in to most jails/prisons, so she settled on writing to him.

Note: Last evening, Brooke Agresta called me to try and discourage my posting this article, believing it was about her. She also confirmed that she did tell Stacy Milam to call Schuyler, as indicated, but denied sending him a letter.

Every phone call is monitored, and every letter and email is reviewed prior to being given to the prisoner, as are all communications out from the prisoner. Quite simply, this is primarily to ward of any plans for escape or to get contraband into the prison. The possibility that such a letter as Stacy sent to Schuyler being a coded message for an escape must surely have crossed the minds of those whose job it is to review the content of communications, hence the concern on the part of the captain. This would be of greater concern if, in fact, Brooke had also sent a letter. However, whether one or two letters went to Schuyler, the idea behind such a letter, talking about a possible break out, originated from Brooke Agresta.

Now, Brooke is the girlfriend of Brandon Curtiss. Brandon is a former law enforcement officer. As such, he should know what the consequences would be if such a letter, or letters, were sent to Schuyler. So, the questions remains, was there a motive for generating information that would surely bring additional scrutiny, and the possibility of labeling Schuyler a terrorist who was secretly planning his own escape from incarceration? Or, is it simply an unconscionably stupid mistake? After all, he is subject to the mercies of those who may want to make sure that he does not get back out on the streets.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Demonization of Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 23, 2015

Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau is accused of failing to pay a tax and register a firearm with the federal government and that required that the tax be paid. However, the “firearm” was not a “firearm”, but separate parts, when the government received it, as explained in “The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau“. There were two barrels, a receiver, optical devices, and other items, in a case that was delivered to a Confidential Human Source (CHS), identified as Oliver Murphy.

Now, it is necessary to understand that all of the objects that were in that case were legally purchased. There is no crime in the possession of the objects. However, it is rather ironic that if the shorter barrel (10.5 inches long) is affixed to a rifle receiver, it becomes illegal, presumably, because the rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches (the “criminal” element), can be easily concealed because of the short length. The 10.5 inch barrel reduces both muzzle velocity and accuracy, when fired, so it is really less of a rifle. On the other hand, if you were to affix the 10.5 inch barrel to a pistol, or handgun receiver, it is legal. In contrast, the rifle receiver, which by description, must have a stock, while the pistol receiver does not. This makes the pistol with the 10.5 inch barrel considerably shorter, and more concealable, than the rifle version. So, it begs the question, is there any sense, at all, in this law that taxes the one (rifle) and not the other (pistol)?

So, now we have illustrated the extent of the charges against Barbeau. Clearly, this is about his demonization by the federal government, in an attempt to influence public opinion against Barbeau, because the law does not allow “fishing expeditions” to try to find a crime, nor did the Framers intend for the government to have such power.

The demonization begins with the information provided by the paid CHS. This is detailed in “Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License“. There are unsubstantiated claims that Barbeau claimed to have stolen “blasting caps and detonation cord” from his Army National Guard unit, though there is no indication that the well inventoried and secured items were ever stolen, nor were they found during the warranted search.

To understand the security involved in cataloging these items on a military installation, here is what Maureen Peltier, a disabled 15 year veteran that worked in supply, says about the control of such inventory:

I must add information for those not privy to our supply handling of certain equipment.
Soldiers, we all know Ammo, blasting caps, det cord are not just laying around in our Armories. We all have to go to ASP (Ammo Supply Point) to receive and only those authorized with specific Ammo handlers certification can sign out for such items for scheduled training. Transportation to and from Armory than to training site is all pre-determined. Much coordination is involved and I personally have overseen such coordination as I have in my logistics positions, coordinated from pre-planning to execution to return. Such items are handled under guard and with great caution. Storage points at Armories, just prior to live training execution, would be under weapons vault controlled by unit Supply Sergeants. Security alarm systems and a vault room inside larger weapons vault room is the proper authorized site until final movement to a designated training site.

If items such as that went ‘missing’, they would not only shut down and lock down all of the surrounding area or entire base, Soldiers would all be confined to unit AO or training site, until all missing items are recovered or an all clear by base Commanders have been issued. This would not go unnoticed. ~SSG Moe

However, when the FBI visited the National Guard unit, the only thing they had to say was that Barbeau had served eight honorable years in both the Marines and Army National Guard. There was no evidence to support the loss of the named items.

This, however, did not bar the FBI from “invading” the Aenk Ranch, some 280 miles from where Barbeau was arrested. This raid was a quasi-military operation, conducted by 25 goons, each using the same type of firearm that Barbeau is accused of possessing, and numerous other federal agents, as shown in video footage of the raid in “Domestic Terrorism“.

This raid was based on the very vague charges in violation of Title 18 (Criminal) US Code. Charges of possession of stolen federal property and possession of a machine gun. Neither of these charges have any substance, as explained above, except for the word of the paid CHS informant. So, again, it begs the question, were the “allegations” made by the paid informant simply an imaginary and contrived scenario to please those who were going to cut him a check for $3,500, or just bravado talk between friends?

Later, news channel, King 5, on December 17, did a field interview with Allen Aenk, where the damages caused by the December 6 raid on the Aenk Ranch can be seen. The segment also shows a portion of a document that had been recently unsealed at the Federal Eastern District Court, in Spokane, though not tied to the arrest and current charges against Schuyler Barbeau.

The referred to document, the affidavit supporting the search warrant that was executed on the Ranch of December 6, brings forward the additional unsubstantiated charges of violation of the criminal code.

It is important to note, since there is no proof of stolen property, it is reasonable to question, how can it be justification for such an overwhelming show of force when the nearly platoon sized army of federal agents stormed the ranch, knowing that, with the exception of Carrie Aenk who was alone at home, the other two inhabitants of the property were in federal hands, 280 miles away?

The raid, based upon such meager justification, surely cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars, which makes us ponder whether the intent of the law is, as suggested, a tax or revenue law, or is it an expansion of federal authority, outside of the constraints of the Constitution, in trying to circumvent the Second Amendment?

We are not yet finished with this story. There is little doubt that public disclosure of the raid did bring to the forefront the (obscure) possibility of criminal acts. That, of course, would produce a high degree of concern, and perhaps taint the minds of those who might sit in judgment of Schuyler Barbeau, in a jury trial. Rest assured, there is no intention, on the part of the government, or media, of letting it, at that.

On December 11, 2015, King 5 news aired a segment in which they described as a “rare insight”, especially “in light of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, last week, and other terrorist attacks across the country”, which raises a serious concern regarding Islamic Terrorism. That recently unspeakable phrase, which surely got the attention of the general public, most likely blinded or deafened to any of the above facts of the case, to date. As stated, the FBI is asking for the public’s help “in preventing the next act of terrorism.”

In that broadcast, the FBI begins by talking about “behavior that preceded the event”. They then suggest that certain individuals in the state may be in communication with ISIS, suggesting that Washington might see a brutal terrorist attack, in the near future. They are monitoring the behavior of those they have identified. Chris Ingles (King 5) suggests that Barbeau could be one of those cases the FBI had being speaking about. So, now they have classed this honorably discharged Marine/Soldier, a defender of the United States Constitution, in the same category as Islamic terrorists.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 20, 2015

As we continue to investigate the curious circumstances that on December 6, lead to an arrest, the search of a car, and the search of a ranch some 280 miles away, in what appears to be a simultaneous effort, more revelations to come to light. Why were the Search Warrants served on the Aenk Ranch? What did that have to do with Schuyler Barbeau? Was the government grasping for straws?

The Affidavit of Special Agent Michael Baldino (BA), in support of the search warrants, provides additional insight into what led to those events of December 6, 2015.

The Affidavit starts out nearly identical to the Criminal Complaint (CC). However, we see some deceptions revealed in this second document. For example, in the CC, paragraph 5, we find, “On June 5, 2015, the Seattle Division of the FBI received information from a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) regarding potential threats to law enforcement made by Washington State resident, Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau.” This would lead one to believe that Oliver Murphy approached the FBI. However, in paragraph 9 of BA, we find, “On June 5, 2015, the Seattle Division of the FBI received information from another law enforcement agency that resulted in FBI Special Agent Daniel Bennett contacting a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) regarding potential threats to law enforcement made by Washington State resident, Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau¹.” So, now we see that there was another law enforcement agency involved, although we have no idea what led them to Murphy. However, the footnote to the superscript provides even more insight, when we read that footnote, “¹The FBI has paid the CHS for his involvement in this matter over $3,500.” That’s right; Oliver Murphy sold his friend, Schuyler Barbeau, out to the government. So, now, we have to evaluate whether what Murphy told the government is truthful, partially truthful, or fabricated. After all, that is an incentive to make sure that the feds get what they want so that he gets his “paycheck”.

Interestingly, as well, in the CC, it appears that Baldino has personal knowledge, where in the BA, we find that SA Bennett is the contact with Murphy. So, we can see from the beginning that they are just throwing words on paper in order to achieve their rather nefarious ends. And, that they bought a source to go after Schuyler Barbeau.

Interestingly, in CC paragraph 13, and again in BA paragraph 14, we find, “the CHS [Oliver Murphy] met with Barbeau and informed him that he/she had a buyer interested in purchasing his SBR for the 5,000 dollars Barbeau had asked for previously.” Rather ironic, in that on December 5, 2015, Murphy’s Facebook page shows that he started a relationship with Sam Erickson, which is confirmed on Sam Erickson’s Facebook page. However, the government was simply trying to protect the gender of the informant, but, rest assured, we will out the informants, as they arise.

The CC ends with paragraph 17, which is the same as BA paragraph 18. This is a rather interesting statement, as I spoke with the person that was with Barbeau the day (November 22) that he dropped the case off at Murphy’s house. The case contained a receiver and 2 barrels. This paragraph tells us that “ATF Special Agent Claudia Grigore inspected the SBR at the FBI’s office in Seattle and certified that the barrel was less than 16 inches in length“, however, they don’t mention that there were two barrels, nor do they say whether they had to affix one of the barrels to the receiver, to make that statement. Not very professional, but, it does appear to suit their purpose of demonizing Barbeau to omit such a crucial detail.

The Affidavit, however, continues, and this is where the justification for the raid at the Aenk Ranch begins.

On December 4 (this is the day before Oliver developed a relationship with Sam), in a recorded phone conversation, Murphy asked if the Aenks knew how much money Barbeau was getting from the sale of the parts. Was this an effort to try to implicate the Aenks in criminal activity? Barbeau’s answer, “They know what’s going on“, is rather innocuous, but it just might help to demonize the Aenks for having a friend like Schuyler Barbeau.

In paragraph 20, the Affidavit states that according to Murphy, “Barbeau said that he had stolen some blasting caps and detonation cord from his U.S. Army National Guard unit.”

In paragraph 21, FBI SA Bennett spoke with the National Guard on June 29 and 30. This then would be the first investigation after Barbeau came onto the government radar (June 5). However, they do not receive any information regarding the possible theft at the National Guard until October 19, over four months later. I suppose that the FBI has some mystical crystal ball with which to determine the course of an investigation, before the investigation develops information — or they are lying, or otherwise purposely excluding something.

However, it is interesting that in contacting the National Guard, they find that Barbeau had an Honorable Discharge from both the Marines and National Guard, over the course of his eight years of service. They do point out that he was a “combat engineer” suggesting that he would know what to do with blasting caps and detonation cord. However, whether they asked, or not, they do not tell us if any blasting caps or detonation cord was missing. If none was missing, it would blow the story. If some was missing, then surely they would have so stated. Either that, or their investigative skills are lacking.

So, we have no definitive proof that what might just be bragging, “I stole some blasting caps and detonation cord”, is supported by any evidence that any blasting caps or detonation cord is missing. However, if you want to “get your man”, why quibble over facts or details.

On November 8, Barbeau, Carrie Aenk, and Murphy met at a restaurant. According to the BA, Murphy was wired for sound. However, rather than providing quotations from the recording, we get Bennett’s interpretation, which does not let us know the context of anything said, or whether all present were privy to what was being discussed. Then, after the meeting, Murphy informs Bennett that they were planning to retrieve a bag from the woods. Why would Murphy have to inform Bennett, if Bennett has a recording of all that transpired? Bennett does provide some quotes, but the context that would suggest knowledge, as opposed to observations, demonstrates that deficiency is indicative of inability.

After the meeting, incompetence on the part of “law enforcement” is demonstrated, when Barbeau and Aenk left the restaurant. The tail apparently lost contact with the vehicle.

Later, that same evening, the FBI observed Aenk in the car, but does not mention Barbeau. Twenty-seven minutes later, the vehicle was gone. Boy, that’s twice in one night that law enforcement and/or the FBI could not keep track of a vehicle. No wonder that Muslims can shoot up Christmas parties, even though they are on the watch list.

The BA continues, with superfluous information, mostly to try to establish that Barbeau was a tough guy. The end result was that the Search Warrants were issued on December 5, and executed the following day.

Perhaps most interesting however, is the fact that the search yielded nothing that led to any additional charges being filed against Barbeau. The original charges, based upon the Arrest Warrant for tax violations, are all that the government can prosecute Schuyler on. They have simply gone through these additional exercises to be able to demonize him by referencing “stolen federal property”, which they cannot find, and cannot even prove that it was stolen, in the first place. The accusation of possessing a machine gun, based upon no direct observation, only upon a conversation (included in the BA), and, most recently, the effort to describe Schuyler as a “domestic terrorist“.

Oliver Murphy

Since we have a little more paper, let’s look at the primary witness against Barbeau. Oliver Murphy has been described by friends and family as a very close friend of Schuyler. I have been told that Schuyler began suspecting Murphy of being an informant, about a week before he was arrested. That would also be about a week after Schuyler delivered the case of firearms parts to Murphy (November 22). Perhaps this played out when Schuyler contacted Murphy to ask for the $5,000 (purchase price), and Murphy said that he didn’t have it. Then, Schuyler probably said that he wanted the parts back. But, Murphy would have to say that he didn’t have them — because he had given them to the FBI. So, no money, no parts. That might raise Schuyler’s suspicion of Murphy’s role in what was soon to play out.

There is more to Murphy, which has been alluded to, previously. Murphy had a wife and three daughters, according to sources. When he was first identified as CHS, there was concern that he may have been coerced by the FBI — charged with a crime and made to plea out so that he could continue to provide for his family. However, with the amount ($3,500) that he was paid as an informant (which is what the FBI refers to as Confidential Human Source (CHS)), and his new relationship, that theory speculation apart.

As can be readily understood, Murphy had abandoned family life for a new (and unfortunately rather common) queer relationship. Rather than concern for family, perhaps needing money to start a “new life” was instrumental in Murphy turning on his old friend.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

Domestic Terrorism?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 18, 2015

Update

Yesterday, Schuyler Barbeau was Indicted by a Grand Jury. He was indicted solely on the information in the Criminal Complaint. He is only charged with violating Title 26, US Code §§5861(d) and 5845(a)(3), to wit:

26 U.S.C. § 5861: Prohibited acts

It shall be unlawful for any person –

   (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; or

26 U.S.C. § 5845 : Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter –

   (a) Firearm The term “firearm” means

     (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

They have also included the forfeiture provision (26 US Code §5872(a)) which would allow them to keep any firearms, if Schuyler is convicted of the crime.

Before we get in to just who is a terrorist, it would not hurt to revisit the Search Warrants that were served at the Ranch. The search warrants included Title 18 provisions that were not included in the Criminal Complaint. Had the Search Warrant been in compliance with the constitutionally required limitations, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, the only items that could have been included were the Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and any other barrels or objects directly related to the SBR. However, what they took, they presumed the right to take based upon the Search Warrant reference to “(b) possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).”

To make matters worse, they have alleged that Schuyler was a “domestic terrorist”, and I’m sure they expressed that to the Grand Jury. I am equally sure that though the Search Warrant has yet to be filed on the Court Docket, that the Grand Jury was probably made privy to it — most likely to demonize Schuyler so that the Jury would feel no doubt that they had to indict him. However, the Grand Jury only indicted Schuyler on the original charges from the Complaint.

Is Schuyler the Terrorist?

However, this whole episode with the Search warrant leads us to consider who the terrorists really are. Schuyler was accused of having a rifle receiver, a 10.5 inch, and an 18 inch barrel, both of which would fit the receiver, but he didn’t register and pay the tax on what could have been made from the otherwise legal parts.

The government, in the hearing on December 14, accused Schuyler of being a “domestic terrorist”. To support these allegations, the Criminal Complaint states:

The CHS advised that Barbeau frequently told the CHS that the federal government was not abiding by the principles set forth in the Constitution and that many public servants, such as judges and police officers who had sworn to uphold it, had deviated from their oath of office. Barbeau told the CHS that it was his duty to educate public servants who were not living up to their oath and discussed “lynching” those he deemed unworthy if necessary. In one instance, Barbeau told the CHS that he and other like-minded individuals would physically remove a California judge presiding over a misdemeanor weapons violation he received there in the fall of 2014.

Well, that is hearsay, to say the least, but they also said that he was going to “hang a judge”. So, were these just words under Freedom of Speech, or was he serious about what he had said, such as in the context of a threat or incitement? He never moved in that direction, or otherwise indicated that he intended to carry out this “threat”. So, if this is the extent, well, we must also include a rifle (SBR) that, if he had registered and paid the $200 tax, would have been as legal as his political statements under Freedom of Speech. Schuyler never threatened (coerced or intimidated) the judge, and if the judge knew what he said, it would probably be because the government told the judge what they said that Schuyler said.

However, the government says that he is a terrorist simply because of their claims of Schuyler’s possession of a machine gun, stolen federal property, and the utterance of vague hearsay of THREATS.

So, what law would make him a “domestic terrorist? What is the government trying to tell the Court and the Grand Jury? Well, here it is:

18 U. S. C, §2331.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.

There would have to be “acts dangerous to human life”, and criminal in nature. Or, that appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population”, or to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.” So, with these three choices, which, if any, did Schuyler’s actions fit into? None? Well, that’s what I understand, too.

By the way, Schuyler was honorably discharged from the Marines Corp, after 4 years of service to his country. He then went into the Army and served another 3 years, and was again, Honorably Discharged.

Is the Government Conducting Terrorist Activities?

Well, that is a tough question. If we ask Mainstream Media, or the government, we know what the answer will most likely be. That, however, like what Schuyler has said, is just words, with no actions to back up those words. I suppose we could call that Freedom of Speech, though a gross distortion of Freedom of the Press.

However, on December 6, while Schuyler was arrested, and Allen Aenk was being detained and his car searched, without a warrant, other activity (actions) was taking place. However, it wasn’t “domestic terrorists” (or, was it?) that entered the Aenk Ranch. At 12:40 PM, fifteen thugs, dressed in battle gear, entered the property, bypassing a locked driveway gate. They were soon followed by two more squads comprised of five thugs, each.

However, rather than me telling the story, so there be no doubt, we will let the videos from the security cameras tell the story. I will assist be giving a description, the video time stamp, and the [true time], as we go through the five cameras (channels) captured that afternoon. The videos have been edited to reduce the over 7 hours of total footage into just the significant portions.

Channel 1 (at Front Gate, from house) (38:04 long):

0:46 [12:37:46] The goon squads turns off of Springdale Hunter Road, in the distance, onto a private easement road.

2:50 [12:39:51] The first vans of battled dressed goon squads arrive at the front of the property.

3:31 [12:40:32] The 15 thugs begin entering the property, SBRs at the ready, reminiscent of the military tactics used in villages in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7:27 [12:49:47] Five more thugs enter the property.

9:18 [12:55:06] Five more thugs enter the property, making 25 thugs, and a number of supervisory personnel.

12:28 [12:58:36] The front gate is unlocked using the key that was voluntarily given to the thugs by Carrie Aenk. Understand that the government already knew that Allen and Schuyler were detained near Seattle, nearly 300 miles away. If they had any intelligence (of either kind), they would have known that Carrie was home alone.

15:03 [01:00:59] Twenty-four minutes after the initial entry, Carrie is escorted to one of the kennels, handcuffed and with a coat thrown over her shoulder (this, after being thrown down in the mud. See “Carrie’s Statement“), to secure some of the dogs — without the use of her hands. After all, there are only 25 goons.

16:34 [01:02:20] Enter an important person with case in hand, and another important person with bag in hand.

32:17 [02:34:03] Vehicles begin leaving.

32:48 [02:43:27] Important person leaves with case (16:34), box and envelope.

33:25 [02:44:04] Important person w/baggage meets non-government looking vehicle. Important person walks from vehicle, without baggage, about 20 seconds later.

36:45 [03:30:11] Silver SUV pulls into driveway (SA Baldino), parks just out of frame, appears to reach into back seat (37:03).

Channel 2 (Right of entry gate, from house) (7:49 long):

0:15 [12:40:53] Goons “sweep” the property, anticipating major action from sole occupant (Carrie) One goon slips and falls on the ice (right side of frame), comes up prepared to fire his weapon.

4:42 [03:30:19] SA Baldino arrives (See Channel 1 – 36:45)

4:53 [03:30:29] SA Baldino does something, difficult to explain, at back door of SUV (See Channel 1 37:03.)

7:02 [03:40:38] Drives away with passengers. Thugs have left the property, 3 hours and 4 minutes after entry.

Channel 3 (West entry gate, from house) Note: This channel included for a little levity, and to watch taxpayer dollars wasted. (11:19 long):

00:04 [12:45:49] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment of pickup truck.

00:33 [12:46:47] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment, this time with SBR and Tactical Light aimed at potential threats.

2:45 [12:58:10] Goon wary of “vicious dog”.

3:39 [12:59:26] Other goon tries to befriend the “vicious dog”.

3:56 [03:56:55] Flash bang goes off, cracking window and forces security camera into black and white mode.

Channel 4 (storage area; Schuyler’s trailer – far left, from house) (48:21 long):

Note: Throughout this video, remember that the warrant listed stolen federal property and machine guns. Since then, we have learned that they were also looking for explosives. Note how cursory the search of the storage area is. A machine gun, explosive, and unidentified stolen federal property could easily have been overlooked.

00:14 [12:41:06] Goon passes entry tool to another goon, prefatory to breaking in through back door of house. Apparently, the entry team was not quite ready to enter.

1:28 [12:42:17] Note the camera shuttering, followed by smoke in about 15 seconds. This was probably one of the “flash bangs” set off while “clearing” the house.

1:55 [12:44:42] First goon enters Schuyler’s trailer (left, with ladder leaning against it).

11:50 [12:58:16] Carrie Aenk enters at left of frame, handcuffed and a coat thrown over her shoulders, escorted by a goon.

12:35 [12:59:49] Carrie enters at left of frame, escorted by one goon and one important person.

30:30 [01:36:47] Two goons go up the hill, above storage, for some reason. Probably to relive themselves.

41:50 [02:13:04] Box is handed out of Schuyler’s trailer.

42:54 [02:17:03] Trailer door closed. One hour and 33 minutes in the search of Schuyler’s trailer.

47:41 [02:37:24] Plastic tote box and cardboard box carried from 4-wheeler to leave scene left. Note the apparent weight of the two boxes and compare that with the inventoried items in the Search Warrants (page 4), and consider the apparent weight.  Also note, in Channel 1, that the plastic tote box never left the property through the gate.   So, where did it go?

Channel 6 (Southeast corner of house) (2:12 long): Short, simply another view of clearing the area.

 Conclusion

We saw that Schuyler had none of the elements of a “domestic terrorist”, and though we won’t have an exact match, we can look at what you have seen in the videos and see that 25 plus thugs, battle dressed and often raising their weapons, can readily be considered as an act “dangerous to human life”, even when performed by the government. After all, I believe that they are human, just like us, and since many of us, including Schuyler Barbeau, have received probably more training in the use of firearms, while in military service, then some of these goons.

There is little doubt that this display of force was intended “to intimidate or coerce”, though perhaps not a population, but the population of the Aenk Ranch, whether in Springdale or Seattle.

And, the Search Warrant, along with other misrepresentations, are accusations without any foundation, such as suggesting that Schuyler was a domestic terrorist, are, without a doubt, intended to “influence…a government” entity, specifically, the Grand Jury, to secure an indictment.

If government was granted, by the people via the Constitution, the authority to do anything, it was because we, the People, had the authority to grant them theirs. Should we expect them to act with as much, if not more, integrity than we would expect of ourselves? Or, did we, as they assume, make them our masters?

If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

That’s all I have.

Timothy McVeigh, August 14, 1997 — just prior to being officially sentenced to death