150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[monty]

Judge Anna J. Brown in her personal war on the Contitution orders Gary Hunt to appear in Portland.

http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/16/ju...er-free-press/

BREAKING: Judge Brown Signs Order Against Free Press


HUNT HAS BEEN ORDERED TO APPEAR IN FEDERAL COURT IN PORTLAND, OREGON ON MARCH 10, 2017

February 16, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured, Gary Hunt, Oregon 1

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C400

BREAKING: Judge Brown Signs Order Against Free Press

Gary Hunt Ordered To Appear In Portland Federal Court

by Shari Dovale

February 16, 2017
https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=209%2C300
ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION (#1788) FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

As we have seen all too often recently, US Federal Judge Anna Brown in the District of Oregon has had her own personal war on the US Constitution. She showed this stance on multiple occasions with the case of the US vs. Ammon Bundy, et al.

The second Malheur Protest Trial is proving to be no different from the first. She does not intend to allow jurors to consider the US Constitution as law, only what she dictates the law should be.

Additionally, she has decided that the defendants will not be allowed their right to a jury trial on all of the charges. She will decide on several of the verdicts herself through a bench trial.

But her fight with the people does not end there. She has decided to slap down the First Amendment, and Freedom of the Press. Specifically, she has begun with Gary Hunt.

Judge Brown signed an order today to claim jurisdiction over Hunt, though he resides in the District of California. She has directed him to appear in her court in Portland, Oregon on March 10, 2017 and to file a written response to her by March 3rd.

https://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=207%2C300
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

She has decided that Mr. Hunt should not be allowed to bring the truth to the public, specifically the truth about the Malheur Protest Trials and the the informants involved.

Brown had previously thought that the identities of the confidential informants was not to be public, or even go to the defense. The defense was finally allowed redacted information that was meant to confuse them and hinder their chances at a fair trial. She ordered that these documents were not to be published.

These documents have not been published.

However, nothing is good enough in this case unless the government can justify it’s $1million+ price tag by getting any kind of tally mark in their win column.

You can read all about the case here.

At the time of this writing, Hunt had not been served with these papers. When he is finally served, probably tomorrow morning, he will make a decision on how he will respond. Until then, we must inform the public of the continuing saga of Judge Brown v. US Constitution.

Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by our Constitution. We cannot let the overreaching government take away our right to the truth.

U.S. Constitution
Amendment I
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.

Share this:

[monty]

Jason Patrick posted on facebook that Attorney General Jeff Seesions has endorsed the prosecution inmthe Malheur Trial.
I am not able to find where Patrick is getting his information. MrsB Stacy's video



https://youtu.be/X4vgYGHK9YQ

[Jewboo]

Jason Patrick posted on facebook that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has endorsed the prosecution inmthe Malheur Trial.
I am not able to find where Patrick is getting his information.

http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i...8/rtx30bsh.jpg

I think Jason Patrick made this up...no source linked. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is currently very busy working on the "Immigrant" thingie for Trump and probably doesn't even know what the Makhuer Trial is about.

[monty]

This was published by Gary Hint on February 8, 2017. Because of the similarity of the title to a previous post I missed it.


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

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ndmills-03.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 08, 2017

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

Now, let’s get on with the boring stuff. However, there will be some really good stuff towards the end.They begin the Memorandum with a statement of what it will address:
1. The District of Oregon is the proper venue for this Court to enforce its own Protective Order against a third party;
2. Third-party Gary Hunt should be held in Civil Contempt of this Court’s Orders after he has had an opportunity to appear and Show Cause why he should not be held in contempt;
3. There is a factual basis to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that third party Gary Hunt is aiding and abetting a defendant (or defendants) in this case in violating the Court’s original Protective Order (ECF No. 342), the new Order (ECF No. 1691), and the Supplement to the original Protective Order (ECF No. 1692); and
4. There are no prior restraint issues or “press” privilege issues.

So, we will begin with Part I. Under the heading in the Memorandum:
I. The District of Oregon Is the Only Proper Venue for This Court to Enforce Its Own Orders
A. Proper Venue Under the LawThe first case cited is:Myers v. United States, 264 U.S. 95, 101 (1924). The Supreme Court in Myers held that venue is only proper where the court rendered the decree sought to be enforced.

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

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

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

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

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

Next citation is United States v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 882 F.2d 656, 666 (2d Cir. 1989)
This was also brought under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Here we have a “consent decree”; however, it dealt with whether Twentieth Century Fox had a right to a jury trial over the contempt proceedings against one of Twentieth Century’s employees, for violating said “consent decree”.

Oops! There’s that pesky Sherman Antitrust Act, again.

Then, we have Steers v. United States, 297 F. 116, 118 (8th Cir. 1924). I haven’t been able to locate anything but citations referring to Steers. But, it appears that it had to do with Divisions within a District, not between Districts, just like Myers. So, they strike out.

Moving right along, we find Eli Lilly & Co v James B. Gottstein 617 F3d 186 (2d Cir 2010)
Gottstein was a party to the action. He was enjoined from disseminating the documents. If the Prosecution is looking for Mr. “X”, or perhaps “Waldo”; is it possible that what I have came from his own ranks? From that decision:
Understandably alarmed, Eli Lilly applied for and received a series of orders culminating in an injunction, which barred Gottstein from disseminating the documents and required their return. In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d 385 (E.D.N.Y.2007). Gottstein now appeals that injunction, claiming that the district court erred in finding that his issuing subpoenas was part of a sham proceeding, that he aided and abetted the violation of the protective order, that the documents at issue were confidential, that the court could bind him under the protective order and that the court possessed personal jurisdiction to issue the injunction against him. We affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

Gottstein was subject to the Protective Order, and he violated that Order. Are they trying to imply that I am subject to the Ammon Bundy, et al, Protective Order?

Finally, we come to In re Special Proceedings 291 F Supp 2d 44 (DRI. 2003). This is interesting in that they are not looking at me. Here, they are, once again, looking for “Waldo”.

On August 8, 2000, while Corrente was awaiting trial and the grand jury investigation of other, later named defendants was continuing, the district court entered a protective order prohibiting counsel in the Corrente case from disclosing the contents of audio and video surveillance tapes that had been made by law enforcement officials and furnished to defense counsel during discovery. The aim was to safeguard the on-going grand jury investigation of Cianci and to avoid pretrial publicity that could prejudice the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Well, this had to do with Corrente and a fellow named Taricani. “The aim was to safeguard the on-going grand jury investigation.” Taricani obtained discovery footage of a corrupt civil servant receiving a cash payment and then aired that footage. This is a far cry from exposing informants, the precedence, which, incidentally, was established by the Prosecution when they intentionally exposed one informant. Another informant came forward on her own, and the third was subpoenaed by the defense after their exercise of the same sort of diligence that is my standard practice.

There is no grand jury investigation in progress in the current case. At this point, the future condition of the defendants, as well as the knowledge of the means by which the police state government operates, is at stake. My acts will taint No investigation. And, unlike Corrente and Taricani, who were in the same district, I am not.

The next subject area in the Memorandum is:
B. Proper Venue Based upon the FactsThe government makes this allegation:
The District of Oregon is the proper venue to enforce this Court’s Orders because third-party Gary Hunt is aiding and abetting a defendant or defendants and their counsel in the violation of the original Protective Order.

Now, I am going to paraphrase a juror in a recent trial in Portland. The juror stated that the verdict was based on the fact that although there might have been an effect, there was no intent. The government is alleging that they know something, which must be true, since they say that it is. The information that I have put out in the articles may have the effect of aiding the defense, both defendants and counsel, though that was not the intent. I have sent nothing to the defense attorneys, unless they chose to join my mail list.

A thorough investigation of me by the prosecution would clearly demonstrate that there have been two objectives in my reporting for over two decades. First, to expose “the misdeeds of government“, and second, to cover stories where “the government is pointing their guns in the wrong direction“. The Prosecutor’s mere words cannot define my motives, and especially so when my motives have been made quite clear, both in the written words and the historical accuracy of my reporting. The public does have a right to know what their government does — behind their backs.

They go on to state:
Defendants or their counsel are the originating point of access and whoever provided the material did so in violation of the original Protective Order. Hunt has admitted the protected material is subject to this Court’s Protective Order.

Now, their assumption that “the originating point of access…” is just that, their assumption. Their assumption does not make it truth, it simply shows that they think that they know what they really don’t know.

They correctly state that the “protected material is subject to [the] Court’s Protective Order”, omitting that I have also “admitted” that I was not subject to the Court’s Protective Order. Of course, the Court later expanded the Protective Order to include thousands of people, but the government has offered nothing to suggest that the Court can, after the fact, revise a Protective Order when that Order was issued subject to the legal limitations of the imposition of that Order, which, by the way, is quite clear in the above cited cases. You can’t change horses in midstream. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, even to the Congress. Can the Court then assume that it can do what the Congress cannot? However, I might add that it was the Prosecution who first suggested that the Court should change that horse.The Prosecution continues,
As described in the Government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order and Special Agent Ronnie Walker’s supporting Affidavit, defendant Ehmer’s Facebook post provides insight—when asked “Who is Gary Hunt?” the answer was “He is working with our lawyers.”

It is amazing that the government presents an unsubstantiated Facebook post as factual statement, and especially when they and Duane Ehmer were in the same courtroom. For whatever reason, it didn’t suit them to ascertain the truth, when it could have been so easily accomplished. Instead, they rely on the hearsay of Facebook.

Let’s be clear about what I have stated (In Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”):
“For the record, I have never spoken with any of the defense attorneys or investigators in this case. 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 have no doubt that they neither enjoy nor look forward to my next article. And, that is the way that it should be.”

So, the Prosecutor, who chose not to get affirmation as to the veracity of Duane Ehmer’s Facebook post, when the opportunity was right in front of him this past Monday and Tuesday (the latter being the date of this filing) during hearings, failed to do so. Further, having knowledge that I had made that statement, “for the record”, they chose, instead, to manufacture their own truth. It is apparent that justice has no role in this little ploy, the purpose of which is to win, at any cost, with any deceit, and that appears to be their mantra.

Then, they state:
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 Intern. 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);
I have discussed Reebok in both Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings” and Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order. Nothing has changed. The authority came from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and is not on point with regard to the current matter. At this point, we can assume that whoever drafted this Memorandum did not do any homework, or the government believes that neither the Court, nor I, are paying Attention.The same is true of Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepard Conservation Soc’y, discussed in #4, except that case was a direct aiding and abetting, which in this case is only a claim of the Prosecutor. They have offered nothing to show that aiding and abetting is a part of this current matter. It is extremely difficult to prove that something that is not true, is true, despite their feeble, yet desperate efforts to do so.

This Section, Part I, concludes with:
Venue for the Motion to Show Cause is properly in the District of Oregon and not in Eastern District of California. In addition, venue is proper in the District of Oregon because government has made a prima facie showing that Hunt is aiding and abetting one or more of defendants in violating this Court’s original Protective Order (ECF No. 342). The Orders has failed to comply with were issued by this Court and the District of Oregon is the proper venue to enforce those Orders.

The cases cited above, by the Persecutor, demonstrate that the Order cannot cross-District jurisdiction, unless other elements exist. In an effort to create that element, they claim that they have “made a prima facie showing that Hunt is aiding and abetting“. Apparently, the prima facie case is what one person said on Facebook, without regard to my clear and concise statement to the contrary. Now, if they can’t figure this out, then they have no idea what prima facie means.

Let’s move on to:
II. Third-Party Gary Hunt Should Be Held in Civil ContemptI will begin by admitting, as I did early on, that it was time consuming and that I am not being compensated for correcting their errors, with regard to citations.

This Part deals with contempt of court. The Prosecutor seems to base his arguments on whether it is civil or criminal contempt. However, contempt of court only applies to those who are parties to the action. I have addressed this from the outset. The Protective Order was directed to the defense attorneys, investigators, and the defendants. It did, however, fail to address the Prosecution, their staffs, the investigators for the government, or even the Court’s staff. It surely didn’t address me, though the aforementioned Supplement to the Order, if it is even legal to incorporate others at this late date, would even include those in the FBI (SA Ronnie Walker), the Prosecutions staff, and even the Court’s staff, for passing on my articles. Now, they are being coy, in that SA Walker does not use the words that were of the forbidden nature, addressing only the Bates number (example – MNWR _0059424), though surely, the articles were passed around FBI headquarters. The same would be true of both the Prosecutor’s staff and the Court’s staff. They are all included by the Supplement, though they were not addressed in the original Protective Order. How can that have retroactive merit? This doesn’t even touch on the jurisdictional limitations of the Court.

They do cite United States v. Chandler, 380 F.2d 993, 1000 (2d Cir. 1967. Well, let’s just look at what the Prosecutor says that Chandler says:
Contempt of court is an act of disobedience or disrespect towards the judicial branch of the government, or an interference with its orderly processes, and includes refusals by witnesses, without just cause, to obey a direct order of the court.

I have not been disobedient to the Court; as there is no nexus between the Court and me that warrants obedience. If I have been disrespectful, it has only been done to the extent necessary to assert both my rights as press and my reader’s rights to know the workings of their government. However, disrespect, when warranted, cannot be illegal. I have not interfered with the Court’s orderly process. I am not a witness, nor do I have any obligation to said Court. So, if that is all the Prosecution can make of Chandler, then they need a better drawing board to return to.

In citing United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1042 (6th Cir. 2007), they state:
Civil contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

What evidence have they presented? They had the opportunity to get verification of a few words posted on Facebook. I think that I understand why they didn’t question Ehmer, under oath, when the opportunity availed itself. That would have removed the only shred, and meager at that, of “evidence” of what they attempt to present as truth.They go on to state:

After third-party Gary Hunt has had an opportunity to be heard, the United States will be asking the Court to hold Gary Hunt in civil contempt and incarcerate him until he complies with this Court’s January 11, 2017, Orders directing him to remove the protected material from his website and not further disseminate the protected material. Civil contempt sanctions can be imposed in court proceedings upon notice…

There is an old saying about opportunity knocking, though I see no opportunity in voluntarily subjecting myself to the jurisdiction of the Portland District. Additionally, it is quite apparent that I am being heard by an audience, which has increased substantially due to the actions of the Prosecutor.

I do love how these guys think. If I were incarcerated, how could I remove anything from my website? Would they give me special privilege; allow me to take a laptop computer to jail, and then provide a hot spot so that I could connect? However, this does demonstrate an almost comical level of incompetence. This has become abundantly demonstrated, these past few weeks.

In Part:III. The Government Has Established by Clear and Convincing Evidence That Gary Hunt Is Violating This Court’s Lawful and Direct Orders
And, I make the best hamburgers in California.

They then go on to provide a history of their one-sided paper chase with the Court, giving the history from the Letter to Cease and Desist, mentioning my continued publication of forbidden material, and their additional efforts to quash the Freedom of the Press.

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

Well, I’m glad they brought up Roviaro. I brought it up, as well, in two previous articles (#1 and #3), though I didn’t really get to the meat of it. Come to think of it, the Memorandum didn’t get to the meat of it, either. So, let’s see if we can find the beef. I’ll just provide a few of the quotes from that decision:
First, however, let me address two of the points made (above) by the Prosecution. They say, “The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established.” That is correct. It is referred to as the informant’s privilege. Then they say,
[I]“f we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.” So, we can see that by quoting those two portions, the Prosecutor’s primary intention is to secure a continuing ability to monitor the activity, maybe even encourage illegal activity, of the targeted group of people. In escalating a police state, it is necessary to have the means of keeping track of the activities of dissidents, or in this case, the people that still believe that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land.”

However, they ignore the final decision in Roviaro. The lower court ruled that the government did not have to identify the informant. Here is some of the reasoning behind the final decision, which reversed the lower court.

We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.

In that balancing, it must show that the identification of the informant must rest on “the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” So, let’s look at the Group 1 trial. First, they no longer wanted McConnell, so they exposed him. Then, Terri Linnell came forward and testified. I spoke with an alternate juror and was told that Linnell’s testimony had very little to do with what her verdict would have been, though she did catch that the Prosecution tried to get Linnell to lie.

Next came Fabio Minoggio. His testimony was critical to the verdict. If he had not been tracked down and made to testify, the verdict may have gone the other way. However, his role in training the occupiers, demonstrated by a video that the Prosecution showed four times, was of someone working for the government who staged the violence.

Proof then, exists, that under the particular circumstances, and especially with the number of informants at the Refuge, that absent the names of the informants, to give the defense the opportunity to determine if their testimony might affect the “individual’s right to prepare his defense“, is absolutely necessary
However, most importantly, is that the people have the right to know what their government is doing. Not only by numbers of informants, which was approaching a majority of able-bodied people on some days, but also what the nature of their activity was. That can only out be found by knowing who the informants are, so that the attorneys can question them as to their role (effect) –by knowing what they have reported. This leaves the public with an understanding of not just that there are informants, but what affect their role might have played in what resulted in a mountain of charges against the defendants (intent).

The circumstances of this case demonstrate that John Doe’s possible testimony was highly relevant and might have been helpful to the defense. So far as petitioner knew, he and John Doe were alone and unobserved during the crucial occurrence for which he was indicted. Unless petitioner waived his constitutional right not to take the stand in his own defense, John Doe was his one material witness. Petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine Police Officer Bryson and Federal Narcotics Agent Durham was hardly a substitute for an opportunity to examine the man who had been nearest to him and took part in the transaction.

Repeating myself, Minoggio’s testimony has proven that absent such information, those who have been paying attention (observing as an informant) may be the best witnesses for the defense. And, again, the public does need to know whether the informants are there to serve the government, or o serve justice.

Continued . . .

[monty]

. . . . Continued from http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2040

Now, let’s cover those other two points made in the Memorandum.
First:
No one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order
I have not challenged the legitimacy of the Order, though I have challenged the applicability (jurisdiction and authority) of the Order. Why do they keep avoiding that point?

Then:
permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger
Now this really gets me. I am, and have been so, for over two decades, a journalist. I suppose that there is nothing that I can do about how they choose to describe me, but that coin does have two sides. The US Shyster, and minions, can continue to refer to me as they please. I am free to do the same. Henceforth, USA (United States Attorney) and AUSA (assistant to same) will be referred to as USS and AUSS.

Let me add that my writings, since 1993, are still posted on my webpage. They have more facts in them than most Mainstream Media (MSM) stories. Nearly all of them have the five W’s of journalism (Who, What, Why, Where, When), more than most MSM, and especially television news.

However, since we are talking about Portland, Oregon, let me reference a case for the benefit of the USS and the AUSSes. I will not go into the detail, though I will, in the future, if I am not able to respectfully refer to them as attorneys. The case is Obsidian Finance Group LLC v Crystal Cox – Ninth Circuit.

Now, we get into a rather interesting subject (I thought they would never bring it up) known as prior restraint. They open the topic with:
This discovery material was not in the public domain in any form. This Court should be able to enforce its Protective Order and prohibit wide dissemination of discovery which includes confidential FBI reports. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (an order prohibiting dissemination of discovered information before trial is not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment scrutiny)
First, the “confidential FBI reports” (that sounds really good) were not. The top of every page has this notation, “UNCLASSIFIED// FOUO”. So, they are “unclassified”, though they are For Official Use Only. Why must the shysters try to make what is into what isn’t? Is that just another form of obfuscation?

Now getting to another point, it was after the Group 1 trial that I began exposing informants. The government set the stage for exposing them, not I. Are we not able to contravene a limitation if the government willfully does so? Are the attorneys (defense, not government) exempt when they expose an informant? The only difference is that to identify and expose the informants (the same as the attorneys did with Minoggio); I needed to deduce from the CHS reports just who might be able to identify an informant based upon the information contained within the reports. Once identified, I could just name names, but that would subject me to ridicule and denial, since it would seem so much like we see throughout various communities. I think that would best be described as gossip. Absent the substantiating proof, the text from the documents, what I wrote would have no merit, and it would destroy the reputation for truthfulness that I have been building for 24 years. In the same paragraph mentioned above, the government states, “We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case – or even the informants.” Why can’t they get there story straight?

Then, they cite
In United States v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (1990), the issue was the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN.

Interesting. All of a sudden, they are concerned with “the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN.”

Aren’t they saying that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right outweighs the right of the Press? If that is so, if any defendant comes forward and asks me to remove the forbidden material, I will do so, without hesitation. At least the shysters and I agree on that one — that the right of the defendants comes before any other rights of informants, the shysters, or the Court, itself. And, to assure those rights, it cannot be left to the Court or the shysters. Our Liberty is best kept secure in the hands, and minds, of the people.

Now, to the final Part:
V. Conclusion
Accordingly, the United States asks that this Court order third-party Gary Hunt to appear in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and show cause as to why this Court should not hold him in contempt.

Now, let me state that it is the United States Shyster that should show cause why such an Order is issued. I think that it is quite apparent that they (AUSS) have not demonstrated any justification for such an Order to be granted. On the contrary, it appears that this Memorandum does more to hurt, than to help, their request.

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  84
• Google

[monty]

Gary Hunt ~ Outpost of Freedom "Judicial Discretion" and Tyranny

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2051

February 20, 2017, 7:20 am

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

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ev-244x300.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 20, 2017

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

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

These events were preceded by a number of articles that I had written in the “Burns Chronicles” series. In those articles, I exposed FBI informants associated with the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Oregon. The information used to identify and expose the informants was derived from some Discovery documents I had obtained.The original Protective Order, dated March 24, 2016, lays out the restrictions placed upon certain described individuals. Those prohibited from “disseminating” information contained in the Discovery are described in that Protective Order:
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense counsel may provide copies of discovery only to the following individuals:
(1) The defendants in this case;
(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and
(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.

Upon my indicating to the FBI agent that hand-delivered the Cease and Desist Letter, that it was not applicable to me, the government filed a Motion to Enforce Protective Order (Expedited Consideration Requested), dated January 6, 2017. That Motion states:
Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby moves this Court for an order enforcing the Protective Order against a third party illegally in possession of protected sensitive discovery materials in this case.

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

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

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

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

I had been working on a response to that Affidavit and its erroneous presumptions, though I never completed it (maybe I will, when time allows), when the government came back with a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order, dated January 10, 2017. That Motion has a rather interesting statement made when they refer to the Affidavit filed in support of the Motion. It states:
In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”

The Ronnie Walker Affidavit in Support of that Motion, also filed on January 10, 2017, states:
On January 6, 2017, another individual posted a question on that same page asking “Who is Gary Hunt?” That same day, the message “He is working with our lawyers” was posted in reply from defendant Duane EHMER’s Facebook account. Sarah Redd-Buck and Duane EHMER’s Facebook accounts are not private and can be viewed by anyone accessing Facebook.

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

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

Now, there is a subtle difference between the two, however, the Affidavit is more accurate than the statement made on the Motion. Perhaps we should go to the source and see what was really said (this image is taken from the Affidavit):http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...mer-answer.jpg

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

Also, see “5.” In the event…”, below. The have yet to even suggest that Duane Ehmer is the “source”, the condition that the Judge imposed on the government, and a requisite necessary to extend the Protective Order to me.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that the government will continue to rely upon this Facebook post as truth and absolute proof that I “aided and abetted” someone. Keep this in mind, as we will soon return to the subject of aiding and abetting.

On January 9, the day before this Motion and Affidavit were filed, I put out Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You. I was hoping that Judge Brown had not taken leave of her senses, but I was wrong.

The day after the Motion and Affidavit were filed, we find the Court’s Order, in part, of January 11, 2017. In this Order, she does realize that the legal criterion for lawful authority has not been met.
1. The Court DIRECTS Hunt to remove all protected material and/or information derived from material covered by the Protective Order from his website(s) within 24 hours of the service of this Order;
2. The Court ENJOINS Hunt from further dissemination of material covered by the Protective Order or information derived therefrom to any person or entity.
3. The Court DIRECTS the government to serve Hunt personally with a copy of this Order together with a copy of the Protective Order (#342) and the Supplement (#1692) thereto as soon as possible and to file immediately in the record a certificate stating it has effectuated such personal service or otherwise ensured Hunt has personal knowledge of the contents thereof.
4. In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. ¹
5. In the event that the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source from which Hunt obtained the protected materials, the Court trusts the government will seek appropriate relief from the Court without delay.

[Footnote to #4]
1 Because the question is not presently before it, the Court does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings.

The first three items are intended to be authoritative instructions to, or regarding, me. However, there is a caveat in both #4 and “5. Let’s deal with #5 first.

If “the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source“, then the government may “seek appropriate relief“. So, how does that work? She says that items 1 through 3 apply, yet that is exactly the relief they are seeking. If it is invalid, absent the proof of aiding and abetting, by providing reliable evidence, then there is no authority to proceed with any sanctions against me. The nexus to the source is the only element that will, perhaps, bring me under the authority of the Protective Order. However, that will also be addressed, again.

Next, we need to look at #4. It says, “the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. ¹” Don’t overlook the superscripted “1”, as this refers to the footnote. If the Judge says that it “does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings“, then how is it that she can assume to have legal authority to give the orders given in #1 and #2, and to send the government on a fool’s errand by serving me this Order?

The Order also explains the reason for the following Supplement. It states:
In order to make clear in the public record that the Protective Order prohibits even third parties from disseminating protected materials and information, the Court is filing a Supplement to the Protective Order together with this Order.

So, the Court is going to make clear that which was made clear in the initial Protective Order. In truth, the Court wants to change the original intent of the Protective order to encompass those that were not included in that Order. They were probably not included as there is no authority to go beyond the reach of that Order when it was written. That explains why aid and abet is a significant part of any Protective Order extending beyond the legitimate reach of the any other than parties to the action.

In the Court’s effort to extend the Protective Order of March 24, as just described, she does endeavor to ex post facto that Order with a Supplement to the Protective Order, dated January 11, 2017. In it, she extends her Protective Order, and, presumably, her jurisdiction, to the four corners of the Earth.

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order Granting in Part the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, the Court supplements the Protective Order issued March 23, 2016, as follows:
Any individual or entity that obtains materials protected by the Court’s Protective Order is prohibited from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.

Based upon the tens of thousands visits to my page, alone, the information has likely been shared to at least that many times. So, at the stroke of Brown’s pen, they have become subject to the Protective Order w/ Supplement. Darn, that is one powerful pen.

In Response to the Affidavit previously mention, filed on January 10, I wrote Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”. To refute the frivolous comment made by Duane Ehmer, I stated:
For the record, I have never spoken with any of the defense attorneys or investigators in this case. 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 have no doubt that they neither enjoy nor look forward to my next article. And, that is the way that it should be.

It seems that the government, once again asserts the veracity of Ehmer’s comment, and submitted hearsay from Facebook as evidence, while ignoring a direct statement from my article. However, we will touch on this, again.

In that same article, I addressed the shysters by citing Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). For whatever reason, they ignored what the Court determined in that decision. The defendants had a right to know the identity of the informant, even in the high risk situation of a drug case, if that informant’s testimony might be exculpatory, and might affect the verdict. So, where was Judge Anna Brown’s judicial discretion when she chose to allow the government to redact the identifying information?

In response to the January 11 Memorandum resulting in the issuance of the Order of January 12, I wrote Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order. In that article, I addressed the case law the government cited in the Motion and Memorandum. It seemed that they just threw cases against the wall, hoping some would stick. It appears that all of the case law cited supports my position, not theirs.

After the January 11 Order, there was silence. It would be 19 more days before the government could figure out their next move. That came on January 30, 2017, when they filed Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause, and, not to be out done, they filed an Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause. Interestingly, in the Affidavit, they entered my Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order into the record. So, now, they have introduced both the “Burns Chronicles” and “Freedom of the Press” series. This, then, would make all of my articles in the series’ a part of the record. You cannot enter a page and not include the book. I’m sure that in hindsight, they realize that this was not a good move.

That Motion was chocked full of case law, though, as in their previous Motion and Memorandum, the case law tended to support my position.

Their case law, of course, was rebutted by my January 30, 2017, Freedom of the Press #5 – “Tilting at Windmills”. In this article, I, again, rebutted their case law, showing that what they cited supported my position, to their detriment.

Now, we move into the recent happenings. Instead of heeding her own edicts, particularly #4 and #5 from her Order of January 11, 2017, she Grants the government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause of January 30.
4. In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. ¹
5. In the event that the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source from which Hunt obtained the protected materials, the Court trusts the government will seek appropriate relief from the Court without delay.[Footnote to #4]1 Because the question is not presently before it, the Court does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings.

Their argument regarding jurisdiction (#4) is without merit. Reading “Tilting at Windmills” will set that record straight. None of their citations were on point to the situation in Oregon, and some specifically addressed the limitation on contempt to be within the Judicial District that had jurisdiction over the case, though it did extend to other parties, even employees of those parties, to the case, who were in other Districts. It would also apply if one were found to have aided and abetted a party to the action (#5). However, as she stated on that Order, it required reliable evidence of the aiding and abetting.

However, they have simply repeated the Facebook hearsay, asserting Duane Ehmer’s out of sequence statement as fact. Now, just last week Ehmer was in Court, they could have sworn him in and proven, or disproven, the veracity of that Facebook claim. They could also determine, while Ehmer was under oath, whether he was the source from whom I received the Discovery documents. Their ability to prove, or disprove, was in their hands, and they chose not to go there. Is it difficult to understand just why that remedy was not pursued?

Then, on February 7, the government, in an effort to bring some big guns to bear, or, perhaps realizing just how weak their argument was, filed their Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause.

I addressed portions of this Supplement in Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux. However, I left a portion out, intending to address that portion in a subsequent article (which will follow this one).

Although rather lengthy, it does put the proper perspective on what has transpired. For example, two of the cases cited by the shysters came under anti-trust acts, and being within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, are not relevant. The cited Myers v. United States, 264 U.S. 95. In that case, defendants, “in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, [were] attempting, within the Southwestern Division of the same District, to prevent certain railroad employees from continuing at work. The order ran against men on strike, and the cause is treated as one within the purview of the Clayton Act.” There was no crossing of jurisdictional lines between Districts, only between Divisions. However, in her majesties judicial discretion, she ignored Division boundaries in both Grand and Petit Jury selections, yet now decides that District boundaries have no limitations
I would like to refer the reader to an article that appeared in the “Burns Chronicles” series. To understand what was written about some of the recent shenanigans in the Group 2 trial, currently underway, which parallel this current discussion. Read Burns Chronicles N^o 57 Collusion or Conspiracy?

On February 16, 2017, Judge Anna Brown Granted the “Government’s Motion for Order to Show Cause” and an “Order to Show Cause“, addressed to “Gary Hunt”, who is not a party to the proceedings.

In so doing, she has ignored the arguments that I have made in the Court of Public Opinion. Apparently, she doesn’t realize that my arguments have been made a part of the record, thanks to the actions of the government shysters. In her majesty’s judicial discretion, she has ignored case law since the beginning. She ignores case law, now. She simply asks the shysters to give her a piece of paper that appears to say what it does not say, and then uses that, in her judicial discretion, to rule from her throne.

In allowing the government shysters to add additional misdemeanor charges to the Group 2 trial, now commenced, the use of her judicial discretion is suggestive of her desire to obtain the Group 2 defendants, even if those guilty verdicts must come from her lips. The government having spent a fortune in the prosecution of the Group 1 trial, left the government empty-handed. It appears that the government wants something to show for their efforts. It appears that her judicial discretion is being used to aid the Executive Branch Department of Justice to save face. She is also using judicial discretion to endeavor to silence the press, in its rightful role of exposing misdeeds of government.

So now, let’s look very closely at judicial discretion.

From: “Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union” by John Bouvier, Philadelphia, 1856 (aka Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)DISCRETION, practice.

1. When it is said that something is left to the discretion of a judge, it signifies that he ought to decide according to the rules of equity, and the nature of circumstances. [citations omitted.]
2. The discretion of a judge is said to be the law of tyrants; it is always unknown; it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly, and passion, to which human nature is liable. Optima lex quae minimum relinquit arbitrio judicis: �optimus judex qui minimum sibi*. [citations omitted.]

Black’s Law Dictionary: 2nd EditionDefinition. Optima lex quae minimum relinquit arbitrio judicis: �optimus judex qui minimum sibi:
That law is the best which leaves least to the discretion of the judge; that judge is the best who leaves least to his own. [citations omitted.] That system of law is best which confides as little as possible to the discretion of the judge; that judge the best who relies as little as possible on his own opinion. [citations omitted.]Now, all that is left is for the reader to decide if Judge Anna Brown’s Judicial Discretion is in accordance with the first, or the second, definition.

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  49
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

[Glass]

Unfortunately the Government and Judiciary are creating a controversy to which his person has become attached. They will continue to move forward until they reach the appropriate juncture under which they can reach a position where bailment can be implemented.

Merely citing laws that the Judge and Government are not constrained by will not protect him.

So far they have not been warned off and as we know criminals will continue their exploits until warned off. He needs to either make motions to deny their motions which he would probably be unwise to do Or he needs to have someone else warn them off. He needs to start some action within his state or at a much higher level for relief from the actions of these people. Some injunctive relief that will stop them arresting and deporting him. Or some superior telling them to pull their heads in.

If he doesn't he will find himself kidnapped and taken to the other jurisdiction where they will walk all over him....... at the Judges discretionary pleasure. And that could be a very long time.

[Joshua01]

Trump needs to fix this!

[monty]

Trump needs to put this old woman on senior status and appoint a new judge in her place. At the same time fire all the prosecutors.

[monty]

Duane Ehmer ready for court ~ Feb. 21, 2017, not sure I like it, to each his own.

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...39&oe=592B29D2