Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Brad Steffy One year later Oregon Wide Open
OwO shared their post.
Yesterday at 2:09am ·
ONE YEAR LATER, QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED
Brad Steffey
01/06/17
Many of you may have forgotten the the Name Lavoy Finicum, I suppose some have never heard it. To some it might be familiar but they really just don't know much about it.
Most only ever knew what was reported by the news media; Some wacko with a gun took on the cops and was shot and killed.
I haven't forgotten. I won't forget. He wasn't a nut job or a "militant" as they branded him to justify his murder. He wasn't breaking any laws, he didn't "make a run at Law enforcement" Nor did he run from them.
I wrote the article below four days after he was killed. I went back there simply to pay respects but once there was astonished at what I saw and what clearly took place.
Lavoy Finicum was simply TOO GOOD. He was extremely righteous, God fearing, Honorable, very knowledgeable and his worst offense and death sentence was that he was very charismatic.
Not like an actor or a politician but very humble, gracious, meek, extremely likable, credible and presented his knowledge in a way that you knew he was right. He was extremely well read and researched everything extensively before speaking about it. He respected Law Enforcement, embraced them and had a very peaceful and humble approach at informing them that they were operating outside of the law on certain issues.
A cattle Rancher himself, he knew first hand of the encroaching Federal Agencies and how one by one they were extinguishing the Ranchers and the culture of Ranching. He was beginning in his own conflict with BLM on his Ranch in Arizona when news arrived that fellow Ranchers in Oregon (Dwight and Steven Hammond) were being sent to prison for five years on trumped up charges relating to the years long conflict hey had endured against BLM, and USFS.
Finicum and many others from around the Country felt this was extremely unjust and traveled to protest the incarceration and help a fellow Rancher.
While here in Oregon, he committed a crime punishable by death. He spoke out against the Federal Government and State co conspirators who have grown accustomed to being feared and revered as infallible and almighty. People have become accustomed to the notion that you just don't push back against the giant bully of the Government.
Finicum researched, read and educated himself on all the legal elements of the US Constitution, the laws associated with land, water, and grazing rights and the boundaries and limitations of federal officials.
He stood on a very solid foundation of knowledge and came to realize that Federal agencies had begun operating well outside of their legal jurisdiction and had become comfortable simply imposing their might over our rights.
He also committed the crime of educating other Ranchers on their legal rights. We call it helping your neighbor. They call it Conspiracy. They incarcerated all the other Ranchers and occupiers of the Malhuer Refuge and flexed their mighty muscles, refusing to allow bail, holding inmates in solitary confinement and at times physically abusing them.
Not Finicum though, he was far too dangerous. His weapon of knowledge, charisma, integrity and character were far too dangerous so he simply had to be extinguished.
So on a bitter cold evening along remote HWY 395 between Burns and John Day on January 26th at 4:35 pm they carried out the assassination.
They carefully chose a section of highway where there was no cell service, no public, and sealed it off from any traffic or witnesses that might see what happened.
Keep in mind, they couldn't obtain an arrest warrant hard as they tried for the simple fact that LaVoy and the others had committed no crime.
So instead they infiltrated the encampment with paid informants, learned of a meeting scheduled in John Day and set up a Deadmans Roadblock to funnel him into an impossible scenario in which he had no chance for survival.
Know by military strategists as an "L" ambush, it is designed only to kill. It is not a tactic deployed to capture. There is no capture component. It is designed to extinguish foreign targets and typically deployed in foreign lands where there is no scrutiny. It is a very sloppy and clumsy method of coaxing a victim into a situation where there is no means of egress, escape or capture. They simply must die and it is designed to imply that the victim was a threat to them by demonstrating an intent to harm by "ramming" the roadblock.
Once completed they have a broad canvas to paint the narrative and design the justification as no one is there to hold them accountable. They simply ship it to their partners in the media, they color it palatable and pump it directly into your cerebral cortex via whatever media source you prefer. Within minutes of the shooting it was publicized as a shootout with law enforcement.
For many, that's all they ever heard. Even though they eventually retracted the "shooutout" part, it never gets heard. Slowly it simmers down to a questionable shooting that just gets brushed under the rug but by then the sensational aspects are gone and everyone's scooping up the next tale.
Like predators, they laid in wait for the two vehicles carrying the occupants of the Refuge. They hid out on a side road and when the vehicles went past, they made their strike. They knew the one vehicle in the rear of the convoy would stop and submit because it was being driven by the informant and plant Mark McConnell.
They also knew that LaVoy was driving the lead vehicle so they were careful to not obstruct his pathway ahead. Instead they performed a "probable cause" stop and pulled him over.
LaVoy, knowing the law all too well knew that this was an illegal stop because the "police" were in unmarked pick ups wearing civilian clothing and tactical gear. They also exited their vehicles and trained high powered rifles with laser scopes at them. When LaVoy became uncomfortable with this unlawful process he informed him that he would meet them at the Sherrifs office in John Day where he was headed to meet with Sherrif Palmer.
For reasons unannounced but obvious to me, they didn't restrict him from going forward. They could have easily blocked him in right there with trucks in front and behind him if their intent was to arrest him but they did not. Instead, they had already set up a Dead Mans road block 2 miles down the road around a blind, downhill turn.
When he asked for identification from the officers and when he refused to simply step out of the truck with laser sights pasted on him, they fired a shot at him from behind, encouraging him to flee. He advised them of his intent to go to the nearest law enforcement facility per his right due to the lack of identity of on the vehicles behind him and the fact that they had fired unprovoked shots at him.
So many have criticized his decision to drive away from the stop after refusing to comply with demands to get out of the vehicle but think about this. You're in a remote area, trucks advance from behind with nothing but blue flashing lights in the grill. You stop and the immediately file out of the truck and hit you with several lasers from their rifles. This is intimidating as hell. Now adrenaline is hammering through your system, you feel unsafe, you feel threatened, you're en route to visit the Sheriff of the next County and while you're processing this they fire a shot and blow out your passenger side mirror.
They're in unmarked vehicles and civilian clothing with full tac gear and helmets.I would want to get somewhere safe also. This doesn't feel safe at all and you know you've broken no laws. You know it's an illegal stop. The sheriff is 50 miles ahead.
So he advised them of his intent and left.
Again, they made no attempt at obstructing him from fleeing. This is peculiar.
They now fall in and press from behind at high speed to encourage his speed noting in reports that they approached him at speeds exceeding 80 MPH knowing they had a Deadmans Roadblock set up directly ahead around a blind turn.
According to plan, as LaVoy makes the turn, himself unaware of the roadblock, shots immediately ring out and strike his truck from the front from a position unknown to him, then another shot then another. Little did he know, they were laying in wait around the corner and had radio contact with the chase vehicles behind. The FBI radiod ahead telling the OSP and other FBI ahead that he said they were going to have to shoot him. So the second the nose of his vehicle makes the turn and a moment before he can even recognize the roadblock an OSP officer opens fire directly at him but misses and strikes his hood. The next shot strikes his grill and the third one strikes his left side mirror.
Aerial surveillance provided by the FBI demonstrates that the moment he emerges around the turn and the truck is struck with bullets he hit the brakes. He applied them so hard that at one point they locked causing his truck to pitch slightly sideways at which time he eases slightly on the brakes to prevent losing control then re-applies them to try and stop short of impacting the three trucks blocking the road. All the while shots are ringing out, bullets are hitting his truck, fragments are flying from his mirror and he can't stop short of the roadlock. It's below freezing on a frozen road, 4:35 in the evening, on a sharp turn with a downhill grade.
At this moment, I'm sure he realizes what they've done to him. He now realizes he has met fate and that they are going to kill him, Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp and Ryan Bundy all in the truck with him. The two Women (one adult and one teenager) are along to sing at the meeting and video tape the meeting. The officers are informed and aware of the Womens presence in the vehicle.
LaVoy now has few options. At this point, four shots have impacted his truck, he's closing on the roadblock, can't stop, and either has to impact the trucks with officers stacked behind them or take the snow bank and try to avoid injuring his passengers.
He makes the obvious decision to take the snow bank and tells everyone to hold on.
Immediately, he steps out of the vehicle arms high in the air to try and stop further rounds from being fired at his passengers. Before he can even get fully out into the snow two shots ring out at him from his rear right rear.
He's now been shot at 6 times. Another thing people forget to consider is the deafening noise that hammers against your brain and senses when a high caliber rifle is discharged at or near you.
On a video, it comes across as a loud popping sound. In the forest, without hearing protection its like a knife in your ear and an explosion. It's so disorienting it's hard to prevent an involuntary reaction.
One of these new shots is believed to have missed him and embedded in the snowy ground and the other enters the roof of the truck, goes through the roof, through the rear door glass and either strikes LaVoy or Ryan Bundy. This detail is still yet unknown because the FBI or mercenary(s) who fired these two shots lied about firing them, recovered their shell casings and disposed of the evidence.
Eventually, the hole in the roof led them to change their testimony and admit to their lie but to date it is unknown if they were or are to be disciplined, who fired the two shots, and if either impacted him.
At this point LaVoy attempts to draw attention away from the occupants of the truck and draw attention to himself. He briskly walks away from the truck, struggling through the deep snow while trying to keep his arms up while yelling at them "just shoot me! If your'e going to shoot, just shoot me" attempting to draw fire away from the Women.
The most disturbing thing I have ever seen on video then shows officers closing in from all sides surrounding him like Wolves closing in on a wounded sheep, coming from all sides. You see him reacting to something hitting him in the torso. His arms go from up and out to quickly clutching his abdomen to up again. This happens twice looking like the arms are involuntarily dropping as the sting of the projectiles impact him.
The official narrative says he has not been hit yet at this point and he is "reaching for a gun" as his arms drop. This is a horrendous lie.
You've just been shot at 6 times, you're surrounded by officers pointing rifles at you from close range (12' to 17') your arms are in the air. IF you had a pistol stuffed into the lining of your jacket, awkwardly, upside down, are you going to reach for the lapel with one hand, open your jacket, reach into the liner with your other hand and try to free the pistol, chamber it, take aim and shoot one of the 8 or 10 officers who have guns trained on you? You're a Husband, Father and Grandfather.
I don't think so. I think that he either was unknowingly hit with one of the first two shots fired by HRT before his feet hit the snow. It's not at all unusual to be hit and not realize it in a highly adrenalized state of mind. Once he makes his way toward the spot where he actually fell, he feels the pain of the shot that has pierced him through the shoulder and chest. His arms which are in the air involuntarily drop and reach for his wound. His brain overrides and raises his arms again so as not to be a threat, again his arms involuntarily drop to the wound, again he forces himself to raise them for fear of being shot.
The other alternative is that he was being shot with rubber bullets. But if this is true, 8 different OSP officers testified to the contrary and the audio and video track was altered to edit this out. There are three provided video sources and two audio sources, none of which bears evidence to this concept of rubber bullets or gas rounds impacting him.
I firmly believe after reviewing the video hundreds of times, talking to video analysts, and , picking through it frame by frame, that he was hit by at least one of the HRT fired rounds, was clutching his wound, then was tased by OSP Officer #3 then immediately shot by officer # 1 and #2 AFTER he was tased.
They claim that he was never tased but nothing explains his sudden and immediate fall backwards while they claim they shot him in the back at close range. Furthermore is you slow the video and audio track, watch and audio track in relation to the video, he's already falling backward when the audio track gives the signature for the shots.
Why would they conceal this? The aerial video that was released by the FBI was badly edited and leaves unclear the following moments. Their statements indicate that one OSP officer closed in from behind to tase him while two other OSP officers moved in and shot him saying he looked as though he was drawing a gun to shoot the officer who was in position to tase him.
The autopsy shows three bullets pierced him through and through all leaving exit wounds but the trajectory in the autopsy does not align with statements made by the officers that fired them.Their narrative explains one officer firing twice in succession and one officer firing once. Both hitting him in the back. Yet the autopsy CLEARLY indicates three graphically different wound trajectories
One of the bullets retrieved from his clothing does not match the bullets used by OSP officers that said they shot him.The bullet was described as "perfectly mushroomed" by the OSP officer who saw it fall from his his body into the snow as they were moving his body after he had expired.
Names of Officers have been concealed and are still so.
An "independent investigation" conducted by law enforcement officials in the adjacent county was quick to justify the shooting as righteous and closed the case even though two FBI mercenaries were caught in their lies about the two shots fired while LaVoy was exiting the truck. They were caught because one of the bullets pierced the roof of the truck and Two of the occupants of the truck were shooting video with their cell phones.
A year later, we still know nothing of the investigation into the to FBI shots that were lied about nor the evidence that was concealed. What's unclear to me is, without the conclusion of this investigation, how can they so quickly justify the shooting.
Why have they released no helmet cam or body cam videos of the shooting?
Evidence shows there were two aerial videos filmed of the shooting, where is the other one?
The road just beyond the incident straightens for several hundred yards and levels out. Why did they place the roadblock where he couldn't see it in time to safely stop?
Why did they need a roadblock at all? The road block was already established before he fled the stop location. There is NO ESCAPE ROUTE on hwy 395. IT ONLY LEADS TO JOHN DAY!
Why on a downhill slope when a level, straight stretch of hwy was just a few yards away?
Why didn't they just let him go to the Sheriff?
Why did they stop him in the first place if he had committed no crime and they had no warrant?
Why didn't they prevent him from leaving the scene where they pulled him over, instead setting up the ambush and Deadmans Roadbock two miles down the road?
Why did they get a warrant the next morning?
Why are they so desperate to take the bullet from Ryan Bundys shoulder when he wants it kept there safely for evidence?
All total, there were 9 (KNOWN) shots total fired at the occupants of the truck.
There were no shots fired by LaVoy or the others.
There were no guns raised by any of the occupants of the truck.
There were no guns seen in possession of LaVoy or the occupants of the truck.
The occupants of the truck were armed with song hymn books, computers and video recorders for the meeting with Sheriff Palmer and the townspeople of Grant County.
Sheriff Palmer had asked them to leave their weapons behind for the safety of the the members of his community.
LaVoys common daily 45 revolver always on his hip was left at the refuge as well as the weapon often seen in his shoulder holster.
They would have us believe that he left his cherished Colt revolver that he always wore on his hip and the one carried in his shoulder holster but decided to bring a Ruger 9mm stuffed awkwardly in the pocket liner on the inside of a Levi Jacket, upside down.
LaVoy was a good and decent Man, helping his fellow man in a time of need. He also invested his time in educating members of neighboring communities while he was here. He was assassinated on our soil in a brutal premeditated ambush which left his wife, many Children, and Grandchildren without their Husband, Father and Grandfather.
There was no intent to arrest him. There was NO NEED to arrest him.
There was no cause to kill him.
Our own Governor Kate Brown initiated the FBI the HRC and large mass of OSP and Sheriff deputies from every county in Oregon to tromp on an innocent group of 20 or so peaceful, God Loving Ranchers and protesters 50 miles from any town or community.
I know this because I took the time to go there, meet the people, observe the situation and simply understand. They did not restrict access to anyone. They requested meetings at the refuge with Sherriff Ward, OSP, FBI, Grasty, Brown anyone who would read their redress of grievance which is the proper lawful protocol for citizens to address problems with Government.
But the Government didn't want to talk, they didn't want to listen, they just wanted to contain, silence and CRUSH any person or people who would dare to ask them for a meeting or question their authority.
They were harming no one, they were threatening no one.
ALL of the escalation came from Sheriff Dave Ward, Harney County Commissioner Steven Grasty, Or Senator Ron Wyden, Governor Kate Brown.
There was NO escalation from Bundy or Finicum, no laws were broken, no property was damaged as reported by the FBI, Grasty and the media. In fact the property was greatly improved by the occupants. It was in gross disrepair when I visited.
I asked them if there was anything they needed. They were getting MASSIVE contributions of food, blankets, heaters, coolers etc from the surrounding community that Ward and Grasty said were in fear of harm from them.
As we close in on the anniversary of this horrific event I will be revisiting it and updating what I've come to learn and understand about this and other related issues.
The attached article and photo compilation is the first one written by myself related to the matter and was days after the assassination. It was raw and emotional and Some of the knowledge I know have such as how he was killed, how many times he was shot, where he was shot etc. was still classified at the time of the article.
I and many others have spent an enormous amount of time reviewing, watching video, talking with witnesses, sifting through 400 page reports, enduring graphic autopsy reports and speaking with law enforcement officials regarding this injustice.
We will not end our pursuit of justice until it is achieved. I've seen an enormous uptick in awareness in the year since this occurred. So many people have had the vail of deceit lifted from their eyes and are beginning to realize as I have that we not only are responsible for allowing this to happen, we are bound to see that it ceases.
We are at great odds in America right now but not because of those such as Finicum and Bundy who rose to the call of their responsibility, but because America has gone dark under the effects of a very manipulative, hateful, deceptive operatives that have slithered their way into positions of power.
Our founding Fathers warned us of this EXACT scenario and crafted a brilliant blueprint in which to hopefully prevent it but in the case such as it is, to also correct it. It's called the Constitution and Bill of rights. Learn it, study it and ACT upon the framework of its content.
It is only repairable through the efforts of the citizenry and the common person. Trump is a wild card. He may give us a leg up and curtail some of the resistance we've endured but he cannot fix this in 8 years. The likelyhood is that he will be ham stringed or eliminated and we cannot afford to lose any momentum.
The momentum is with us right now but this is an enormously powerful adversary and we will need all the help and support from each and every person in every corner of America to defeat this ilk.
Many of the Officers that were involved in this atrocity are good and decent people who are being effected by the few who are not. The Federal influence on this detail and from what I can tell one particular OSP officer are very dark figures and I believe they need to be identified. They are currently holding positions of authority and my greatest concern is that others will and are being victimized by these crooked, angry hateful cowards.
A year later, we still have no names of the shooters, no viable explanation of the video disparities, No answers on the FBI shooters who lied and concealed evidence, no Justice in the premeditated killing of LaVoy Finicum. We DESERVE answers.
The Finicum family deserves answers.
The TRUTH needs to be told.
To those of you in the trenches, clawing, scratching, protesting attending hearings, learning, sharing, communicating or simply talking to your neighbor; Thank you and God Bless you for your efforts. You're making a difference in an historic and unprecedented time.When the burden gets too heavy as it has for me at times, step back reevaluate, educate, find another point of entry and find a friend.
This work can devour the strongest will. We need community to continue to endure this process. Lives are at stake, Children's futures, your future.
May LaVoy rest in Peace for all eternity.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom shares his meeting with FBI agents
« Statement by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom, with regard the Freedom of the Press
Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI
January 7, 2017, 8:20 pm
Freedom of the Press #1
Meeting with the FBI
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 7, 2017
On the morning of January 5, 2017, I received a phone call from Special Agent Matthew Catalano, out of the Chico, California, FBI Office. I recognized the name from my research. It appears that he has been assigned to do Internet investigations on Gary Hunt. His research included articles in Mainstream Media that mentioned my name, and my own articles. However, I do know that he has been reading the “Burns Chronicles” series, as most of the earlier ones are in evidence in the Ammon Bundy, et al, trial discovery.
Back to the phone call. He told me that he had a letter from Portland that he wanted to deliver to me. He asked if I was going to be in Chico, which is about 25 miles away, and I seldom go there. I told him no. He then offered to meet me at the local Sheriff’s Office. That is about 15 miles from me, so I said that I would be glad to meet him in a restaurant, here in Los Molinos. That was agreed to. I then asked him if he had a warrant. He said that there was no warrant, only the letter. We then arranged the meeting, and he then informed that he was bringing a fellow agent along with him.
As arranged, we met at the restaurant just before noon. We sat in the front booth, my back toward the window and daylight in their faces. There was an older man in the booth immediately behind them, and once he heard the words “F B I”, he turned towards us and listened, intently. Apparently, FBI presence in Los Molinos (population about 1200 and rural) is not quite an everyday occurrence.
After introductions, they ordered coffee and me, iced tea. Then, he handed me the Letter. I asked the agent what statute that bound me to the Cease and Desist portion of the letter. He answered that he didn’t know. When I asked him what he thought of the verdict in the Portland Group One trial, he answered that he was surprised by it and by the election results (Presidential). I had the distinct impression that he was pleased with the election results. We discussed the Roviaro decision (See “Informants – What to do About Them #2“) and I wondered, aloud, why the government chose to intentionally out Mark McConnell when Oregon State Police (OSP) Officer Beckert testified. He seemed somewhat surprised that the government outed McConnell, so it appeared that he had not followed the trial.
I told him that no informants had received any serious threats, though McConnell, and his girlfriend, Shannon Vita, had displayed weapons when they went to a restaurant where Jon and some friends were eating. (See “Informant Mark McConnell Receives Surprise Christmas Gift From Activist Jon Ritzheimer“)
I explained to Catalano that for over twenty years, I have always had respect for the FBI, as they have always been courteous and respectful (I know that many will disagree with this), with the exception of the Hostage Rescue Team (HRT). I explained to him about how the HRT overrode the regular negotiators in Waco, resulting in the deaths of over 80 people. He said that he was only 4-years old at that time, making him about 31 years old, now..
In discussing the HRT, I pointed out that the HRT had fired two shots prior to the OSP murdering LaVoy Finicum, and then tampered with evidence by removing their shell casings and failing to report that they had fired shots at the incident. He seemed somewhat surprised, so he may not have known about that incident. Then, I explained that the FBI was investigating the FBI, and they still haven’t concluded that investigation — in nearly a year.
When the conversation turned back to the letter, he asked if I was going to turn over my files. I told him, absolutely not. I asked him if he recognized me as press. He responded, after starting and stopping, that he thought I worked in a gray area. I asked him if the FBI wasn’t also working in a gray area when they placed 15 informants in the Refuge or other aspects of the occupation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
He then asked if I was would tell him where I got the documents. I told him “Absolutely not”, and that I had no intention of doing so. I then explained to him that the FBI had gone into my private email list account and my private (shared only with a few) Dropbox account, and that they didn’t even notify me that they had done so. I had to find that out on my own. I then explained that I was open with the government and stated, in my first informant article, that I had received copies of the discovery documents. At least I was open about what I had done, unlike the government.
Then, we ventured into the Fourth Amendment. I asked him what “secure in their papers” meant. He said that it meant “digital documents, too.” So, again, I pointed out that they accessed my digital documents from my private mail list and my private Dropbox account, and that they had never served me with a warrant. I contended that the FBI actions were far more egregious than mine. Though not responding to what I had said, he went back to the “Protective Order” (pages 2 & 3 of the Letter), relying on what the Court said, without regard to the Constitution. Well, heck, my Constitution is supposed to afford me the same protection.
He then said that they informants were “witnesses”, and that to divulge that information is a violation of the Court Order. However, if they are “witnesses”, as he said, then when the Sixth Amendment says that the defendant has a right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”, how can you confront someone whose name is not given?
As the conversation began to wind down, he pointed out that the purpose of this meeting was to compel me to comply with the letter. I told him that I had no intention to do so, though I would probably call Pamala Holsinger and inquire as to the specific statute that gives the Court such authority over me.
When I asked him if he was going to pick up the tab, since he had an expense account, he said that he doesn’t get an expense account. I told him I found it rather curious that the informants have expense accounts, but the agents do not.
Thus ended my half hour discussion with FBI SA Catalano.
The following day, I called him and explained that I was not going to call Holsinger. Instead, I wanted to look into my legal rights. Just a few hours later, near the end of the day (Friday), the US Attorney’s Office filed their Motions seeking a Court Order to compel me to comply with what was requested (i.e. demanded) in the Letter. This will be discussed in Part #3.
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: administrative agencies, Ammon Bundy, Burns Oregon, Constitution, courts, definitions, FBI, government, Harney County, Honor, informants, law, Moral Values, patriots, press
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom - Freedom of the Press, Part 2 - Cease and Desist
Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist
January 8, 2017, 11:23 am
Freedom of the Press #2
Cease and Desist
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 8, 2017
THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTSCongress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
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.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Perhaps it would help if we look at the initial step that the government took in attempting to suppress the First Amendment protected right, that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom… of the press“. Congress, being the only legislative body of the government (Article I, Section 1, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”), cannot, by that simple statement, delegate to any other branch of the government the authority to pass any law, rule, or policy that would be contrary to that protection afforded by the Constitution.
The first step, as explained in “Freedom of the Press – Part #1”, was a Letter, hand delivered by a FBI Special Agent. I read the Letter in his presence, and we discussed certain aspects of it. However, for the reader, it is necessary to understand just how the Justice Department (pardon my misnomer) threatened me, if I did not comply with their demands. (Bold text in the original.)
Dear Mr. Hunt:
Excerpts of material produced in discovery under a Court Protective Order in the above subject case, United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al., 3:16-CR-00051-BR, have been viewed on your website (http://outpost-of-freedom.com). Your possession of that material and any dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material violates the terms of the Court’s Protective Order (copy enclosed).
Consequently, you must immediately cease and desist publicly disseminating that material. You must also return all copies of that material to the United States and remove all protected material from the referenced website or any other website. To make arrangements to immediately return all material, electronic or otherwise, that is illegally in your possession, please contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation at (916) 746-7000 and ask to be directed to the Chico Resident Agency. Failure to immediately comply with this demand within twenty-four hours will necessitate that the United States seek a court order compelling your compliance.
The Letter was signed by Pamala R. Holsinger, Chief, Criminal Division, for Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice, District of Oregon.
Now, the Order states that the information is not to be “disseminated”. I understood the provision, and the documents were provided to me with the understanding that I would only “excerpt” from the documents. This was explained the first time I excerpted from the document, in “Burns Chronicles No40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“. I stated at that time:
“I will be referring to FBI documents that I have obtained. They are marked, at the bottom left corner, “Dissemination Limited by Court Order”. So, let me make this perfectly clear — I have no intention of “disseminating” the documents, nor am I bound by any “Court Order”. I am writing about a Public Trial, which was held in September and October 2016. Had I access to these documents during that trial, I would have written the same article that I am writing now.”
Now, is there a difference between excerpt and disseminate? From Merriam-Webster:Disseminate:
1: to spread abroad as though sowing seed.
2: to disperse throughoutand,
Excerpt
1: to select (a passage) for quoting: extract
2: to take or publish extracts from (as a book)
Disseminating the information that I received is something someone else did. I simply took excerpts, or extracts, from the documents. If laws, or edicts, are to be held to, they must be written. If the Court chose to use “disseminate”, when they meant, “excerpt”, they should have used “excerpt” instead of “disseminate”. But, more about that, later. If the Court can pick and choose, or change, a definition to suit whim, then we really are in trouble. So, while that difference may appear relatively insignificant, generally speaking, from the legal standpoint, there is a chasm between the two.
Holsinger attempts to pretend that this is the same thing. But when we look the wording of the Letter, it is apparent that there is an attempt to misrepresent the Court Order by stating, “dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material“. Holsinger has added a new twist by separating “dissemination” from “publication of any excerpts” with an “and”, making them separate and distinct elements. However, the Order only addresses dissemination.
Then, Holsinger states that “[My] possession of that material and any dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material violates the terms of the Court’s Protective Order“. Obviously a conclusion that Holsinger has drawn, though that Order was not directed to me, rather, it was directed to other specific people. So, as I said in Burns Chronicles No 40, I am not bound by this Court Order. However, before we get to the attachment, there is one more point to address..
Holsinger further states that “[I]must also return all copies of that material to the United States and remove all protected material from the referenced website or any other website.” Yesterday, January 8, 2017, hundreds of people began sharing the articles on Facebook. Dozens of people have begun mirroring the Outpost of Freedom blog, especially the Burns Chronicles series. They have also begun sharing and mirroring this new series, “Freedom of the Press”.
Holsinger has attempted to impose on me the Herculean task of removing the referenced material from not only my website, but “any other website“. Heck, I doubt that even the FBI could keep up with such a task. My supposed compliance would have little effect, as that that horse is already out of the barn.
I suppose that we could look at this in slightly different terms. We have all heard of civil disobedience. Well, I may, perhaps, be civilly disobedient, I am not criminally disobedient, as Holsinger attempts to suggest. However, those who have to propagate the articles have taken a first step in civil defiance (See Burns Chronicles No 9 – Civil Defiance or Submission?). A much more definitive statement to the government is that, not just me, but We, will not comply.
Now, the Court Protective Order Upon motion of the United States, the Court being advised as to the nature of this case, and good cause being shown, it is hereby ORDERED that. pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1l) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense counsel may provide copies of discovery only to the following individuals
(1) The defendants in this case;
(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel ofrecord in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and
(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation andpreparation of this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall provide a copy of this Protective Order to any person above who receives copies of discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any person above who receives copies of discovery from defense counsel shall use the discovery only to assist the defense in the investigation and preparation of this case and shall not reproduce or disseminate the discovery material to anyother person or entity.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Protective Order applies only to
(1) Statements by witnesses and defendants to government officials;
(2) Sealed documents. and
(3) Evidence received from searches of electronic media.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if there is specific discovery material that defense counsel believes should be an exception to this Protective Order, the parties shall confer before seeking guidance from this Court- The parties shall advise the Court by letter of any exceptions made to the Protective Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any materials subject to this Protective Order may be filed by a party under seal without prior approval of the Court.
The parties shall continue to confer regarding the efficacy of this Protective Order. Any outstanding issues between the parties related to this Protective Order shall be addressed by the Court at the status conference on June 15, 2016.The Order states to whom the defense counsel may provide copies. I am not among those so designated. As proof, I was not given a copy of the Protective Order, though I had secured a copy back in March, when the Protective Order became a part of the court record.
In the next “Further Ordered”, we find there is a restriction placed upon those who are included in the designated recipients of the information. However, that Order does not extended its long arm of the Order to include me.
So, if we are a nation of laws, and if this edict is, in a sense, a law, then we must all, including the Court, be bound by the letter of the law.
Let me quote James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, from Federalist #62:
“Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”
That is why laws are written. And, once written, they can be easily understood by all. It is not up to the Judge to decide what the law means. The law must be in the language of the land so that any who may be bound by it can understand exactly what the are bound to obey.
We will, in a subsequent article in this series, address why that limited “Protective Order” extends only to those identified within its text.
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Ammon Bundy, Burns Oregon, Civil Defiance, Civil Disobedience, congress, Constitution, courts, government, informants, law, Moral Values, patriots, Resistance
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom says Judge Ana Brown was forced to eat a little of that pie know as 'humble'
Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You
January 9, 2017, 2:12 pm
Freedom of the Press – Update
A Grateful Thank Youhttp://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...iams-w-egg.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2017
Judge Anna Brown, in Portland, Oregon, has made a decision regarding the Justice Department’s efforts to shut down my writings. Before I give you what she has said, I want to thank you all for the incredible outpouring of support for what I have been doing. I have no doubt that Judge Brown has issued the following order realizing that the government, in Ammon Bundy, et al., has overstepped their bounds and has to, now, eat a little of that pie called humble.
The Minute Order filed, today, January 9, 2017, reads as follows:
“Order by Judge Anna J. Brown. The Court has reviewed the governments Motion to Enforce Protective Order and directs the government to file no later than Noon on Tuesday, 1/10/17 a supplemental memorandum that addresses the following issues:
(1) The Courts authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order and without advance notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard;
(2) the Courts jurisdiction to compel an individual who is not present within the District of Oregon to respond to the government’s arguments raised in this Motion via an order to show cause or other form of order; and
(3) whether the Court should amend the existing Protective Order in any respect to address the issues raised in the government’s Motion."
Briefly, the Court required the government to prove that I, Gary Hunt, come under the authority of the Court’s Protective Order regarding the Discovery material. Next, Judge Brown requires the government to prove that the Portland Distract Court has jurisdictional authority over someone not within that jurisdictional district. I am in California, the situs (def: the place to which, for purposes of legal jurisdiction or taxation, a property belongs.) of the alleged crime. Third, if the Court does decide to amend the Protective Order, they will have created an “ex post facto Order [law]”, which is prohibited by the Constitution. And, finally, she has given them until tomorrow, sort of like the 24 hours they gave me, to provide a memorandum justifying their efforts to add me to the list of those persecuted by the government in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge event.
Again, thanks to the thousands of patriots who joined this battle. Also, special thanks to Maxine Bernstein at the Oregonian/Oregon Live, for her article laying out the position of the government and as well, mine. I have no doubt that her article and the subsequent Associated Press articles on the subject were a major factor in the Judge’s reinforcement of the principles that we are still a nation of laws, to which the government, also, is bound.
With gratitude to all,
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
(Press, publishing in a blog format)Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Anna Brown, Burns Oregon, Constitution, courts, de jure, government, Honor, informants, law, Mainstream Media, Moral Values, patriots, press, public, United States Attorney
Category: Articles | 2 Comments
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
It sounds like Leo Stratton from Oregon who publishes Lazaro Ecenarro's videos and his wife Shelly are going to Trump's inauguration
Trump inaguration interview with Portland, Oregon's Fox 12
http://youtu.be/wbG0YP_r-00
https://youtu.be/wbG0YP_r-00
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
US Attorney's Office urges Judge Anna Brown to strengthen protective court order on FBI informants
Maxine Bernstein, The Oregonian. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...ge_to_str.html
Prosecutors urge judge to strengthen protective court order on FBI informant reports
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on January 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, updated January 10, 2017 at 5:39 PM
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday suggested a judge expand a protective order that now prohibits people charged in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge or anyone on their defense teams from sharing the FBI's reports on its informants.
Calling it an "extraordinary case,'' the prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown to add language to her order that forbids both "direct and indirect violations - wherever they may occur.''
Prosecutors are concerned that Gary Hunt, a California man tied to a network of militia groups, has obtained FBI reports on 15 informants used by the agency during the refuge takeover and that Hunt is sharing excerpts in online blog posts. Last week, the prosecutors urged the judge to order the 70-year-old to remove the posts and hand over the FBI documents.
Hunt has refused to do so, arguing that he's not a party to the federal conspiracy case or on the defense teams -- and therefore isn't bound by the protective order.
Brown asked prosecutors to state in writing what authority the court has to order a third party to follow the protective order and how she could do so without giving the person a chance to be heard. She also asked how she could order someone outside Oregon to follow the order.
In court filings, prosecutors and FBI agent Ronnie Walker responded by quoting one defendant set for trial in February,
Duane Ehmer, who referred to Hunt on Facebook as "working with our lawyers.''
Hunt has denied working with any of the defendants' defense teams, but did say he wanted to identify informants used in the case to help in the upcoming trial.
Prosecutors further argued that the judge has the power to stop the actions of someone who isn't a party to a protective order when they "aid and abet'' others involved in the case to violate the court's order.
Hunt countered, "Aiding and abetting from what I recall is a cooperative effort between two parties. They can't even identify the other party.''
Prosecutors have argued that the material - 246 pages of redacted reports - is under protective order to shield the informants from harm. The reports detail what informants told FBI agents leading up to and during the 41-day occupation. The informants aren't named in the reports, but Hunt has identified a handful of people who appear to fit descriptions in the documents.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Pamala Holsinger acknowledged that Hunt should get an opportunity to be heard before the judge takes action, whether holding him in civil or criminal contempt of a court order or imposing other sanctions.
But she pressed for a court injunction directing Hunt to remove all postings on the informants immediately. She also argued that the judge has the power to issue such an injunction even if the person is outside Oregon.
In a separate development, Oregon standoff defendant Jon Ritzheimer, who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge but has asked to withdraw his plea, recently posted a video on Facebook that he took of himself confronting the friend of an informant at his workplace.
Ritzheimer wrote that as he was visiting the retail shop, "I decided to confront this low life Federal informant lover who was giving me dirty looks as I shopped.''
"I'm going to hunt every single one of you guys down and call you out,'' Ritzheimer can be heard saying on the video.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom. Freedom of the Press #3 "Contmptuous Postings"
« Freedom of the Press – Update – A Grateful Thank You
Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”
January 11, 2017, 1:42 pm
Freedom of the Press #3
“Contemptuous Postings”
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 11, 2017.
Well, even though there were many interruptions, I was working on a response to SA Ronnie Walker’s first Affidavit. Then, on January 9, 2017, Judge Brown, in a Minute Order (See “Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You“), told the US Attorney that what they had filed with the Court was insufficient, and they had to go back and “do over”, to justify what they were asking the Court to do.
I will assume that they were up late, as they did make the deadline of providing a Memorandum, supported by an Affidavit, in Response to Judge Brown’s Order. So, let’s look into the minds of these well-paid defenders of justice (just kidding). We will deal with the Memoranda, though it will refer to, in one instance, to the Affidavit. There is no need to address the Affidavit, it is simply a review of recent events in regard to this matter, and then provides a smidgen of hearsay supported by another smidgen of hearsay, but, when one is desperate, one digs deep.
Now to the Memorandum; I will include all pertinent text, and, I will underline and address the more significant parts.
The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, Craig J. Gabriel, and Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby submits this supplemental memorandum in support of the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order.
On January 6, 2017, the government filed a Motion to Enforce Protective Order seeking an order from this Court enjoining third party Gary Hunt from further dissemination of discovery materials subject to this Court’s March 4, 2016, Protective Order. The Motion was supported by the Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker. On January 9, 2017, this Court directed the government to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the following issues:
Well, I suppose that they are both paying attention, and, not paying attention. The Cease and Desist letter stated, “dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material“.
To which, I responded, in “Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist“, when I wrote, “Holsinger has added a new twist by separating ‘dissemination’ from ‘publication of any excerpts’ with an ‘and’, making them separate and distinct elements. However, the Order only addresses dissemination.”
So, we are back to dissemination. Readers will recall that I have consistently stated that I was “excerpting, not disseminating“. Of course, I first drew that distinction back on October 15, 2016, in “Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“. So, are there two elements, each different from the other, as in the Letter, or, only one element, as in the Protective Order? Again, we must look at the letter of the law, and not what some government attorney wants it to be, at any given moment.
This is what Judge Brown has ordered the US Attorney to address.
1. The Court’s authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order and without advanced notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard;
2. The Court’s jurisdiction to compel an individual who is not present within the district of Oregon to respond to the government’s arguments raised in the Motion via an order to show cause or other form of order; and
3. Whether the Court should amend the existing Protective Order in any respect to address the issues raised in the government’s Motion.
Now, these three items were the deficient in their latest attempt to intimidate me into acquiescing to their unlawful demands. Thankfully, Judge Brown saw through their charade and held their feet to the fire.
Now, let’s be clear that I don’t disagree with the title of this next section. I think that it is easily understood that any Court has the authority to enforce its own lawful orders. As an example, Mexico has the right to enforce its own lawful orders, within its own jurisdiction. Come to think of it, so does California. Even the Ninth Circuit Court can enforce its own awful orders, within its jurisdiction. Now, the Ninth Circuit, coincidently, includes both Oregon and California. However, the Oregon District, while fully able to enforce its lawful orders, within its own jurisdiction, but not in Mexico, or California.
Let’s see what the big wigs in Portland have to say.
I. The Court Has Authority to Enforce Its Own Lawful Orders
This Court has authority to enjoin the actions of non-parties under the existing terms of the protective order when those non-parties aid and abet parties to violate the court’s order. See, e.g., Reebok Int’l Ltd v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1390 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that courts have authority and subject matter jurisdiction to punish contemptuous violations of its order, citing 18 U.S.C. § 401); Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 948 (9th Cir. 2014) (organization that aids and abets a party’s violation warrants contempt). This rule makes sense because it seeks to correct both direct and indirect or circuitous violations of this Court’s orders. To permit a party to publicly disseminate material subject to this Court’s Protective Order simply by transferring it to a non-party would violate the Order no less starkly than if the party posted the material on a public website himself.
From the “Background Facts”, in Reebok Int’l Ltd v. McLaughlin, we find:
Reebok International Limited brought suit against Byron McLaughlin for violations of the Lanham Act in allegedly counterfeiting Reebok footwear. Mr. McLaughlin controlled various corporations, including the Heatherdale Corporation. As a result of the lawsuit, Reebok obtained a temporary restraining order in the district court which enjoined “the defendants and their officers, servants, employees and agents and any persons in active concert or participation with them” from “transferring, disposing of, or secreting any money, stocks, or other assets of these defendants without prior approval of the court.”
Well, that does remind me of the constitutional authority granted under the Commerce Clause, and it is understandable that this clause would also extend to all of the federal jurisdictions of the United States. But, heck, we are not talking about a constitutional law under the Commerce Clause; we are talking about a jurisdictional order within in a specific jurisdiction, to wit, District of Oregon.
So, let’s look at Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y. Now, from the “Factual and Procedural Background” of that decision:
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, to which the United States, Japan, and 87 other nations are signatories, authorizes whale hunting when conducted in compliance with a research permit issued by a signatory. See Int’l Conv. for the Regulation of Whaling, art. VIII, § 1, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 U.N.T.S. 74.
Well, it is not Mexico, it is Japan. And, it appears that the President and the Senate have the authority to treat (make treaties) with other nations, which would be a constitutional grant that would be binding on all whalers. However, it does not apply to whiners, only whalers. So, I guess they missed the mark, once again — unless I am missing something.
Now to that last point made above, I find it rather intriguing, though perhaps a bit circular in its application. It says, “To permit a party to publicly disseminate material subject to this Court’s Protective Order simply by transferring it to a non-party would violate the Order no less starkly than if the party posted the material on a public website himself.”
What was just stated is on point to what I have said. It is the person subject to the Order that would be guilty of transferring it to a non-party. It says nothing about any guilt associated to the non-party. This leaves us with the classic question, “Where’s Waldo?” Surely, they do not think that I am Waldo, or they would have said so.
In addition, Hunt did receive advance notice of this Court’s Order and, as explained in Agent Walker’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (ECF No. 1681), Hunt recognized this Court’s Order but refused to follow it, incorrectly believing that it did notapply to him. The contemptuous postings, however, make clear that the material Hunt now holds is material subject to this Court’s Protective Order and that Hunt has disseminated that information in contravention of this Court’s Order. Hunt’s stated reason for “outing” the CHSs is so they can serve as defense witnesses at the next trial. The reasons undergirding this Court’s Protective Order—i.e., a need to protect the informants from harm—justifies immediate relief in the form of an injunction directing Hunt to remove all contemptuous postings immediately. In addition, the need for immediate relief is supported by Agent Walker’s supplemental affidavit filed in support of this supplemental memorandum, which suggests that Hunt’s contemptuous activities are ongoing. In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”
When they say, “In addition, Hunt did receive advance notice of this Court’s Order“, presumably, they really mean the Protective Order. This case has generated many dozens of orders, so, perhaps a little specificity might be warranted. After all, it is very apparent that a word and the meaning of that word, really does have a place in our language, and especially so, with regard to our laws and legal proceedings.
And, yes, I did have advance notice of the Protective Order. Well, it wasn’t really notice; actually, I had obtained a copy, way back in March. I read it. I have reread it. I have read it over and over. And, I still cannot seem to find where it applies to me. Perhaps that is why the Honorable Judge Brown has placed the burden on the US Attorney to, as per the Minute Order, which states,
“1. The Courts authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Orderand without advance notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard” (from above). Well, there are two parts to that Order. The first is to show “The Courts authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order“.
So, unless we can get that nasty little bugger out of the way, we need not even consider the second part, “without advance notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard”
Now, when the Order says, “to be heard“, I’m sure that the Order is referring to before the Court. Although, there can be little doubt that I am being heard, loud and clear, outside of the courtroom. I trust, however, that the US Attorney is not attempting to suppress the Freedom of the Press and the right of the public to know is not to be pushed to the wayside, in favor of government secrecy. And, we haven’t even begun to discuss Roviaro, yet.
Then, the US Attorney asserts, “Hunt recognized this Court’s Order but refused to follow it, incorrectly believing that it did not apply to him.” Now, that is rather interesting. They suggest that I “recognized this Court’s Order“. I’m not sure what they mean by recognized. I recognize some people by their faces, others by their voices, and still others by their writing style. I suppose if I was subject to “this Court’s” jurisdiction, and was placed on the stand, then handed a copy of the Protective Order, I would most assuredly and truthfully say that I recognized the Protective Order. But, nobody has handed me a copy and asked if I recognized it, so I don’t see the point. However, perhaps the phraseology is a bit off, if they mean did I read and understand what it said, I would have no problem saying, “Yes, I have read it, and, I understand that I am not listed in those to whom it is directed”.
Then, the US Attorney suggests that I was incorrect in believing that it didn’t apply to me. Wait a minute. Don’t put words in my mouth. I know that it doesn’t apply to me. Perhaps law schools are deficient in teaching grammar, but, hey, buddy, have no doubt that words, their meanings, and application, are well known and understood by me. I do believe that it is a burden on the government to prove, not just state, such conjecture.
So, now we get to “The contemptuous postings“. That is a rather subjective observation. It seems that my readers have a completely different perspective on the nature of my postings. So, we can simply write that off as either extreme bias, or, more colloquially, “butt-hurt”.
My next observation is based upon the statement that seems to suggest that my postings, “make clear that the material Hunt now holds is material subject to this Court’s Protective Order“. I suppose that since I cited what was written on the documents, and explained, should any reader doubt the veracity regarding the content of the documents, that my statement gave the necessary legitimacy to the documents. However, had I known that I would also be writing these articles, on this subject, I could have saved some ink, because the US Attorney has given far more credibility to the document than my humble statement ever could.
Next, we come to, “Hunt has disseminated“. Damn that is quite an obstacle. Is it disseminated, or published, or disseminated and published. Obfuscation is really a brainteaser. However, I prefer what was really done, which is that I excerpted from the documents.
Moving right along, and probably boring the readers, as the colloquy is also beginning to bore me, we get into some rather interesting stuff. As I made clear in “Burns Chronicles No 50 – Informants – What to do About Them #2‘, the US Attorney referred to Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (Gee, I get my turn to cite a case). In Roviaro, the court ruled that since there was an extreme risk of great harm or death to the informants, the Court was justified in not releasing the names of the informants. After all, buying heroin and then “narcing” can get you killed. Drug dealers are well known for the predisposition to kill people, with either guns, knives, or bad drugs. However, that is a somewhat ridiculous justification, especially after the Group 1 Portland trial, to continue to hold those who remain in jail on similar charges in Nevada, pending their trial. After all, many of the defendants in Nevada were/are also defendants there, in Oregon.
Let’s just look at how the government perceives the risk to the informants. On September 21, 2016, AUSA Gabriel, in questioning OSP officer Jeremiah Beckert, asked, “And did you have information about whether the driver [Mark McConnell] was cooperating with the Government?” Beckert answered in the affirmative, and of their own volition, the government hung one of their informants out to face, what, serious bodily harm? Death? Well, that didn’t happen.
Next, in early October, Terri Linnell, who, according to the government’s position regarding informant, did so at great risk to life and limb, voluntarily come forward to testify for the defendants. Then, on the last day of the trial, we have Fabio Monoggio, who managed to buy himself some body armor, for his own “protection in a dangerous situation”, and at government expense, testified to the detriment of the government’s case. Monoggio, because of his role, would be equally at risk with the previously outed McConnell, yet neither has had a hair on their head harmed.
Outside of the courtroom, however, there was a different story going on. On October 15, 2016, yours truly exposed Allen Varner as an informant. The next day, October 16, Dennis Dickenson was exposed as an informant. Two months later, in December, Robert “Rob” Seaver, Thomas “Tom” S. Dyman, and Will Kullman, were exposed. And, since the first exposure by the government and the remainder by me, not one hair, on one head, has been harmed. Doesn’t that make Roviaro rather off point to the remaining defendants, in both states? As they say, the proof is in the pudding. And, this pudding has quite a story to tell.
Finally, nearly through with that rather boring paragraph, we finish with this gem:
In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”
Now, I have known Duane Ehmer since January 27, 2016. That is really an easy date to remember, as the only act of violence in this whole ordeal was the murder of LaVoy Finicum. However, I have spoken with Duane. Why he said what he did is beyond me. Perhaps he wanted to act as if he had inside information. However, where we should be looking is at SA Ronnie Walker, who prepared the Affidavit. So, the real question is, “Is the FBI incapable of contacting Duane Ehmer?” If so, why didn’t they get corroboration, elsewhere, as far as to the veracity of his statements. Have they learned to accept as fact statements on Facebook? If so, the hundred million dollars that they have spent on this persecution is just lining pockets, and not serving justice.
For the record, I have never spoken with any defense attorney or investigator. The closest I have come to that is speaking with some of the defendants. However, I have heard that the defense attorneys do like my work, and some even look forward to my next article. I also know that the government players read my work, though I doubt that they neither enjoy nor look forward to my next article. And, that is the way that it should be.
So, let’s move on. We are getting close to the end.
Whether Hunt should be subject to sanctions and/or held in civil or criminal contempt are matters that should be addressed after Hunt has an opportunity to be heard. Autotech Tech. LP v. Integral Research & Dev. Corp., 499 F.3d 737, 746-47 (7th Cir. 2007).
Darn, I already said that I am being heard. Let’s see what Autotech Tech, LP v. Integral Research & Dev. Corp. says. Now, understand that this case is a bit confusing, though I will try to make it understandable. It starts with a company called Integral Research & Development Corp. (IRDC). It is a company wholly owned by the Belarusian government. The next player is Digital Devices, Inc. (DDI). Now, IRDC and DDI had an “Exclusive Sales Agreement”, a contract. Next player, Autotech Technologies LP (ATLP). In 1994, ATLP purchased from DDI the exclusive right to promote and sell IRDC’s products for resale or incorporation into products manufactured or sold in the United States; its authority was embodied in an “Exclusive Marketing Agreement.” IRDC authorized the transfer of rights from DDI to ATLP through an “Acknowledgment and Modification of Agreement”. Well, that is the foundation. There were contracts, the contracts were agreed to. In a subsequent dispute between ATLP and IRDC, IRDC challenged jurisdiction. IRDC lost, but they lost because they had a contractual arrangement with ATLP.
Now, this case is cited under the “I. The Court Has Authority to Enforce Its Own Lawful Orders” heading. I don’t see where it fits into that subject, but in the above paragraph, the government says, “Whether Hunt should be subject to sanctions and/or held in civil or criminal contempt are matters that should be addressed after Hunt has an opportunity to be heard.” So, maybe it has to deal with my right to be heard. So, we can look to the only mention of the word heard, in the entire aforementioned Autotech case.
Before Integral can be barred either by law-of-the-case principles or something analogous to issue preclusion, it must have had a fair opportunity to be heard in the contempt proceeding.
I have no contractual arrangement with the Oregon District Court. I have not asked “for a fair opportunity to be heard“. However, it seems that to be heard is my prerogative, if I choose to exercise it. Under the current circumstances, I see no reason in the world to step into the jurisdictional world of the Oregon District.
If it is possible for a journalist to be held in contempt of court for the mere act of excerpting segments of unclassified material from the discovery of a public trial, then this country is in a lot more trouble, and closer to a true police state, than I have ever imagined.
Sometimes, I wonder if these guys even read the cases they cite, or just jump on a case because they think it will sound impressive.
II. The Court Has Jurisdiction to Enforce Its Order Beyond the District of Oregon
This Court’s authority to effectuate its own orders extends beyond the usual reach of this Court’s subpoena power to the entire country. For example, when a party transferred assets to a non-party in violation of a court order, the non-parties who resided outside of the district court’s jurisdiction (in Texas) were nevertheless subject to that court’s jurisdiction (in Mississippi); indeed, enforcement of the injunction “must occur in the issuing court’s jurisdiction because contempt is an affront to the court issuing the order.” Waffenschmidt v. McKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Static Control Components, Inc. v. Darkprint Imaging, 201 F.R.D. 431, 433-34 (M.D.N.C. 2001) (rejecting argument that to enforce discovery order, party had to file motion in non-party’s judicial district); Platinum Air Charters, LLC v. Aviation Ventures, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-01451-RCJ-LRL, 2007 WL 121674 , *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2007) (same).
Now, we get into “subpoena power” and violation of a court order. However, the order in this one is directed at the party subpoenaed, and, there is aiding and abetting the completion of that crime. Let’s look at the first part of the decision in Waffenschmidt v. McKay.
Nonparties who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of a district court may be subject to that court’s jurisdiction if, with actual notice of the court’s order, they actively aid and abet a party in violating that order.
So, just what is “aid and abet”? Black’s Law Dictionary provides the answer:
Help, assist, or facilitate the commission of a crime, promote the accomplishment thereof, help in advancing or bringing it about, or encourage, counsel, or incite as to its commission.
Now, I have yet to see anything presented by the US Attorney that might even remotely bear a resemblance to that definition. I was the recipient of some information. I explained why it was not criminal to excerpt, as opposed to disseminate, and, my possession of the material was not criminal, as I was not among those listed who were subject to the Protective Order.
As to the next two cited decisions, they are both District Court decisions. They are not stare decisis. That means that they are not precedence. There is no reliance on them by other courts. So, it appears that the government has fallen into a belief that quantity beats quality, and they have just thrown those in so as to increase the quantity, but none of these cases bear any aspect of quality.
Now, before we get into the last of the three items, I think it worth mentioning, at least to the subject of giving out information that the Court has determined should not be given out, or vice versa, and, yes, they are on the side of the courtroom that is subject to Court Orders. Let me provide some quotes from an Oregonian article, “Oregon standoff: Defense lawyer argues feds ‘wantonly disregarded’ terms of Facebook search warrant“. This had to do with the government giving out irrelevant Facebook information that they were told to remove from Discovery, prior to dissemination.“…the federal government “wantonly disregarded” the terms of the search warrant, and [Per Olson] accused government representatives of “hiding the ball.” The warrant called for investigators to separate relevant from irrelevant Facebook account information, and then secure the irrelevant material. “It also shows an utter lack of respect for the process for the seizure and securing” of private Facebook communications,” Olson argued. He argued that no one in the FBI took their responsibility seriously to safeguard this material.“
I’m just confounded how they ought to be allowed to do that,” Olson said.” I hate to use the word lie, your Honor, but somebody did.”
Consider that the government seemed to have no concern when, well, they screwed up. But, isn’t what’s good for the goose also good for the gander?
Finally:
III. The Court Should Expand the Protective Order
Finally, in the ordinary case, all parties comply with court orders. This has proven to be an extraordinary case; therefore, if this Court were to revisit the terms of its existing Protective Order, further language specifically addressing the Court’s intent to ensure compliance with its orders for both direct and indirect violations—wherever they may occur—would be appropriate.
Here, the government suggests that the Court extend its authority beyond its lawful reach, in both jurisdiction and persona. I suppose that since judicial activism by higher courts, to make laws that were never intended by the Legislative Branch, has a new birth in lower courts. Now, the US Attorney is suggesting not only that this Court can legislate, that it can do contrary to the case law submitted by the Prosecutor in the Memorandum. Then, they apparently want to go one step further to enact an Order (law) to prohibit what I have done, not in violation of the existing Order, but will be guilty of if Judge Brown simply waves a wand and changes the wording of the existing Order, making me, ex post facto, in violation of the Order and subject to punishment, therefore.
Share this:
