Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads

Burns Chronicles No 31
Public Lands – Part 3
The Queen Has Ruled – Off With Their Heads

anna-brown-judge-clr-w-crownGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 29, 2016

In two previous articles, Shawna Cox brought the matter of Jurisdiction to the Court.  The first, explained in “Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, was filed in response to the government’s “Motion for Judicial Notice” (1229), providing proof of ownership of the land upon which the MNWR headquarters sit.  In that Motion, filed September 9, 2016, they cited no previous motion to which they were responding.

Shawna, based upon a chain of title that she had received, had no dispute with the ownership.  However, neither the government’s request for judicial notice and attached documentation nor the chain of title provided any indication that the land, which both parties agreed, had been in private hands before the government reacquired it, had been ceded back to them by Oregon.

Shawna then filed her “Response to and Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area” (1245).  In that Motion, she stipulated the government’s ownership and asked the Court to take Judicial Notice that the subject lands had not been ceded back to the federal government by Oregon.  The Motion was quite simple and simply stated that since no proof of ceding had been provided, the Judicial Notice was in order.

The government then filed its Response (1272) to a number of motions, including Shawna’s Motion.  Geoffrey A. Barrow, the attorney that signed the Response, apparently has a reading disorder.  Shawna never contested the government’s motion for judicial notice.  Instead, she stipulated that they did own the land.  However, he chose to read into her motion what he thought the Judge might like:

Cox opposes the government’s request (ECF No. 1229) and, in turn, moves for judicial notice consistent with the separately filed McIntosh Declaration (ECF No. 1252). McIntosh repeats the adverse possession theories that this Court has already rejected many times, although he reads the government’s Houghton Declaration (ECF No. 1230) as further support for his views. McIntosh’s theory is that the federal government simply could not have obtained lawful title to the MNWR absent permission from the state. His theories are contrary to the law that this Court has already recognized controls this issue, and his stated credentials (i.e., his stated directorship of two web-based, environmental-sounding organizations) reveal that he is an advocate who shares defendants’ misguided views. (One organization promises to give a “strong voice that will dominate and control state and federal bureaucrats”).
Cox’s counter-Motion for Judicial Notice should be denied.

Now, Shawna never mentioned “adverse possession” in her motion – she simply sought judicial notice that the land had not been ceded back to the government.  This is quite consistent with what the government had cited in their judicial notice, when they said:

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits this Court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.” The Advisory Committee Note to the rule explains that “adjudicative facts” are those that “relate to the parties, their activities, their properties, their businesses.” Courts routinely take judicial notice of recorded property records.

Now, the government has proffered no argument establishing that Oregon had ceded back jurisdiction to the federal government.  If it had been ceded back, then it would have, as required by the Statute of Frauds, been recorded in the public records.  There is no argument, except the false association with Ammon’s motion, which would be cause for the Court not to take “Judicial Notice”.


Barrow’s ad Hominem fallacy is compounded when in his Response (1295) to an Ammon Bundy Motion, he says:

Like defendant Shawna Cox in her Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 1245), Ammon Bundy also relies on Mr. McIntosh’s Declaration (ECF No. 1252), which espouses the same faulty adverse possession theories.

Let me repeat, Shawna Cox, in her Motion, never mentions adverse possession, she simply seeks Judicial Notice of a fact consistent with the record that the government provided, that the land had not been ceded back.  Now, at this point, you have to begin to wonder if the Judge and prosecutors are conspiring to set things up to avoid taking such a critical Judicial Notice.  After all, they have no idea how the jury will take such an admission of no jurisdiction.

Next, we have the Judge siding with the erroneous argument given by Barrow when she files her “Order Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge…” (1317).  In that Order, she states the following:

II. Ammon Bundy’s Emergency Motion (#1248) to Enjoin Prosecution and Shawna Cox’s Arguments in her Response (#1245) to the Government’s Motion (#1229) for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Area

Defendant Shawna Cox filed a Response (#1245) to the government’s Motion on September 12, 2016. In that Response Cox acknowledges the government has demonstrated it owns the land in question, but, nonetheless, she contends the government does not have any regulatory jurisdiction over that land because it did not obtain the consent of the Oregon State Legislature as required by the Enclave Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Related to Cox’s arguments, Ammon Bundy requests in his Emergency Motion (#1248) to Enjoin Prosecution that this Court reconsider its previous orders denying Ammon Bundy’s Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the basis that the record now clearly reflects that the property on which the MNWR headquarters sits was not part of the land the federal government has owned since before Oregon statehood, but instead was acquired from the Eastern Oregon Land and Livestock Company in 1935.

Well, at least the Judge read Cox’s motion correctly and did not assert that it denied ownership, as Barrow did.  However, when we read the entire Order, she does relate Ammon’s Motion to Cox’s argument, and then denies Ammon’s Motion.  However, at this point, she has not denied Shawna’s Motion (1245), nor has she taken Judicial Notice.

So, on September 22, 23016, Shawna filed a “Motion to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice, in part” (1322), in order to attempt to force the Court to take Judicial Notice that the land had not been ceded back to the government.

In the denial of Ammon’s Motion (1317), the Court cited Kleppe v New Mexico 426 US 529 (1976).  Apparently, Barrow did not read the decision; he probably simply resorted to Key notes.  As Shawna states in her Motion:

The government offers Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543 (1976) to support their broad contention of jurisdiction un Article IV, § 3, clause 2, however, Kleppe addressed jurisdiction over land that had not been transferred out of the government’s ownership, and to that, there is no contest. Kleppe merely attached the federal jurisdiction to the burros, whether on, or off of, the public landsThis is akin to the parent’s jurisdiction over the child, both inside and outside of the home. It is only for the return of the burros, and of the children. It does not carry with it a jurisdiction over the land where the burros roam, except to the extent of the right to retain ownership of the burros, and obligation to remove them, when so notified. Kleppe addressed an Act of Congress appropriately titled “Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act”, as it applied to the presumption that the home of the burros was the public lands, and they had simply decided to wander away from that home. It did not apply to burros that were raised and branded by a private owner.

Then, in referring to the rather feeble substance of the same Order, she responds to the footnote on page 6 that the Court seems to present as authoritative when she says:

The Order cites, in footnote 1, page 6, that “at trial Harney County Sheriff David Ward testified the state exercised jurisdiction over the MNWR concurrently with federal jurisdiction over those lands.” That does not meet the statutory requirements set forth in 40 US Code § 3112. It can be considered to be nothing more than an unfounded opinion, not support by any factual proof.

Now, to support what she had stated, she offered an existing statute that should put the whole matter to rest.  She cited 40 US Code § 3112 (b) & (c):

(b) Acquisition and Acceptance of Jurisdiction. – When the head of a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government, or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent establishment, considers it desirable, that individual may accept or secure, from the State in which land or an interest in land that is under the immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control of the individual is situated, consent to, or cession of, any jurisdiction over the land or interest not previously obtained. The individual shall indicate acceptance of jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by filing a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated.

(c) Presumption. – It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.

That should have been the end of the matter, and the Judge should have taken Judicial Notice, since there was no argument, or document, that established any ceding back to the government over the lands where the headquarters buildings were situated at MNWR.

But, the persistent Queen Judge was determined that truth was not a factor, and that she was not going to allow the jury even to begin to believe that possibly the government had no jurisdiction over the land in question.  She was committed to using her power to assure a conviction, with no regard for Justice.  So, now the ball is back in Queen Judge’s Court, on September 22, 2016, she files another “Order Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” (1327).

In that Order, she incorporates both of Shawna’s Motions:

The Court has now reconsidered the entire record on these matters, which includes the following…

** *

Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area1;

                        1 The government did not file a reply in support of its Motion (#1229) for Judicial Notice.

She does acknowledge that the government never did file a reply to the challenges to the initial request for Judicial Notice of Ownership, probably, because they can find no rational argument.  So, this leaves the entire responsibility, not on the Prosecution, but on the Queen Judge Brown.  What is supposed to be an adversarial proceeding, where there are two sides, and the judge’s duty is to assure fairness and justice, is now turned into a situation where the judge has become the adversary to the Defendants.  So, the judge exempts the Prosecution from having to respond:

In addition, on September 22, 2016, Cox filed a Motion (#1322) to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice. Although Cox’s Motion to Reconsider related to the Court’s now-withdrawn Order (#1317), the Court, nevertheless, has reviewed Cox’s arguments therein and considers them as part of the record on these Motions. Accordingly, the government need not file a response to Cox’s Motion (#1322) to Reconsider.

She then “DENIES Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion (#1322) to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice.”  However, she never denied Shawn’s first Motion to take Judicial Notice.

She then cites the authority for taking Judicial Notice:

“Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

Well, apparently, it is not “generally known”, or a blind eye has been turned to the fact, or, the Court expects Shawna Cox to prove a negative.  Or, as Shawna put it in her Motion (1322):

It is impossible to prove negative, and for that reason, 40 US Code §3112 sets the standard for proof that there exists a jurisdiction, whether exclusive or concurrent. Any determination to the contrary is Arbitrary and Capricious.

For whatever reason, the docket then shows the same Motion (1322) that Shawna filed on September 22, filed again on September 26 (1344).  However, Shawna’s signature is dated September 22, 2016.  There is no explanation as to why this document was filed, in identical form, 4 days later, and after the Court’s Order of September 22.  Perhaps, in an effort to cover up the misdeeds of government, the Court and Clerk are getting overwhelmed and confused in trying to obfuscate the issues brought up by the Defendants.

In a final assertion of her authority, even though the Prosecution never contested Shawna’s motions, Queen Judge Brown chops the head off of her victims in a Minute Order (1350), dated September 27, 2016 (repeating what had already been stated) which states:

ORDER by Judge Anna J. Brown as to Shawna Cox (7). The Court DENIES Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion [1344] for Reconsideration, which is identical to her Motion [1322] for Reconsideration that the Court denied in its Order (#1327) Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 40 U.S.C. § 3112 does not deprive the federal government of jurisdiction over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) because, as owner of the MNWR, the government may lawfully exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. See United States v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2010). (bb)

Interestingly, however, it appears that the Judge never denied Shawna’s original Motion for Judicial Notice (1245), though she never did grant the requested “Judicial Notice”.  She only denied the Motion for Reconsideration (1322 & 1344).

Regardless, there is a significant, un-convoluted, matter for the Appellate Court, as to whether Federal Jurisdiction exists at the MNWR.

So, regardless of a statute (40 US Code § 3112) and no case law to the contrary, the Queen Judge has shown total contempt for the laws and her judicial obligation for justice, in her rulings in this matter.  Her obsession with keeping her schedule and upholding, not the rule of law, rather, the rule of the government, are so clearly demonstrated in the above sequence, that we can clearly understand that law and justice have vacated the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, in Portland Oregon.  All that remains are injustice and some patriotic political prisoners.



  1. The 13th Amendment is now and has been since 1812 a valid part of the constitution for the united States of America. The courts the congress since 1812 have not been in compliance with the Laws if this country. and this point is demonstrated by these non-citizens running this court. Every attorney and the judge in this court holds a title of nobility and has ceased to be a citizen and is incapable of holding any office of trust or profit. Since 1812 there has been no valid congress because since 1812 there has been a person or persons in one house or the other or both of congress who have held titles of nobility. There have been not valid amendments to the constitution adopted. There have been no states properly added to the union. There have been no valid laws passed. The Attorney General holds a title of nobility and serves unconstitutionally. Since 1812 the supreme courts of most of the states are required to be members of the British Accreditation Registry and hold the title of “Esquire”. These courts including this court in the Malhuer Refuge case, are unconstitutionally staffed. If we are a nation of laws, if the laws mean anything, then tis point of law must be corrected before we as a people can move forward. We are and have been since 1812, not in compliance with the law. This is our constitutional crisis. The people in this case or in any case can not and will not get a fair trial until this can be corrected.

    “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” [Journal of the Senate]

  2. Diane Ransomsays:

    Article IV Section 4 is being violated by the very court and government it’s self. I call domestic violence on the Land by The Government who in the same Article Section 3 is doing nothing needful in regulating Oregon or the United States. Where is Congress?

  3. […] XXXI. Public Lands – Part 3: The Queen has Ruled Off with Their Heads [9/29/16] […]

  4. […] Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads […]

  5. […] Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads […]


Burns Chronicles No 32 – Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)

Burns Chronicles No 32
Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 12, 2016

{October 6, 2015}

On Friday, September 30, 2016, I received a phone call from someone I had spoken with before.  This call, however, brought to light the extent of the government’s efforts, often misguided, to do what the country used only to do to foreign nations and enemies.  Now, it has become a modern practice of government to pay people to infiltrate and inform.  It works even better when infiltration is not necessary, as that person is already considered a member of the community that is the target of the spying.  Now, that is a rather harsh word, but the tactics of government can be considered nothing less than any other form of spying, throughout the ages.

Nowadays, they have access to almost all electronic media, where the can grab phone conversations, emails, Facebook pages, and any other internet communications.  They have parabolic microphones that can listen to conversations from over 100 yards away.  They have bugs, electronic listening devices that require no wiring and have a battery life of days, weeks, or even months.

They still, however, want someone who can testify, when necessary, and gather information that is not random, as with other methods, but can be directed, by asking questions.  And, this is about one of those human resources, aka “CI” or confidential informant.

That phone call and some email correspondence eventually resulted in a  quasi-affidavit as to the role that this person played in the recent events of Burns, Oregon.

Now, don’t jump to conclusions.  It is rather ironic that the government subsidized a patriot’s trip to Burns to cook for the very people that were to be spied upon.  All expenses were paid, and at the conclusion; a cash windfall was also provided.

But, let’s hear the story from the other party in that phone call.  This is her story:


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

To Whom It May Concern:

I, Terri R. Linnell, aka Momma Bear, swear and affirm everything here is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Now many of you think I’m a fed, or informant, or whatever because of rumors created by Jaime M. Hawley, aka Jaime Spears Aldazabal in 2014. That’s simply not true, but those rumors later did give me the ability to take advantage of a unique opportunity, which I did do.

In March of 2015, a year later, I had 2 officers, stating they were US Marshalls, come to my house to ask me questions about Jack Farrell of one of the Carolina’s, whom I had met at a protest in DC in May of 2014. He was a young man who was very impulsive. In December of 2014 he had shot two people in the back of the head and stolen their car to see his girlfriend in another state. I know of nobody who felt his actions were in anyway acceptable, so I sat down with these officers. Eventually the topic led to the real reason they were there… the militia. Specifically, the militia he belonged to. They read me a list of names, of which I knew none, except one. I suspected the one was a test question for honesty, so I admitted to knowing Manny Vega and explained everyone knows him. If you’ve been to DC to protest, he’s there. I later called Manny and told him. The one US Marshal told me he was a local Detective, and double badged.

Later in the summer of 2015 I started meeting with the Detective, and one woman of the FBI, I will call ‘Martha’, who turned out to actually be the local Domestic Terrorism Team in San Diego. I saw both their badges on that first meeting and both worked on the team as a Joint Task Force. Since then I’ve met several times with the woman and she always brings a second person, but that person differs from meeting to meeting. The Detective is no longer at any meetings. Only the first few he was there. We have a regular meeting spot in a shopping center.

They track local groups, such as Militia, Oathkeepers, III%, Sovereign Citizens, Black Lives Matter, Occupy, KKK, as part of their jobs. I was asked to go to OathKeeper meetings and report back my thoughts on their leader. I did so. I reported he was very nice. A leader who clearly did not have any nefarious intentions. I never once saw him break the law, or attempt to do so. It wasn’t his style. The group was quite small, and nobody was what is called a sovereign citizen.

A III% group opened up in our area and I joined. I worked my way up to potentially the leader. When I told the DT Team I was up for nomination, they told me I couldn’t lead it and still work with them. It would create a conflict of interest if anything were to go to court, or if anything went wrong with any of the members they would be held responsible with me as a leader. At that point my decision was to lead if I was asked, and break it off with the DT Team. I was not nominated, so I continued working with the DT team. Why do you ask would I have taken the position? To get a good group of people started in the right direction and find a leader once the group was established to take over.

On January 2, 2016, Ammon Bundy had moved his protest to the Refuge. I notified ‘Martha’, but that’s all. She asked me to follow it. I sent her public articles.

I wanted to go so bad. I was very sick and had barely not been hospitalized. My doctor said on Friday if I hadn’t seen him when I did, it would have been full pneumonia by the end of the weekend. Then my son had totaled my car. My husband was putting in a new tranny in a car we had just bought. Between Christmas, the doctor bills, and the car, we were flat broke. God just was stopping me dead in my tracks. Ugh.

Later ‘Martha’ told me they were considering sending me to the compound, which is what she called the Refuge in Oregon. By then I had a running car and I was well. I jumped at the chance. Finally, God was letting me go! By this time, I was hearing reports from the movement that it was a no fly zone, and that all 911 services were removed from the area, including to the neighboring ranchers. I did not get this verified with ‘Martha’. I can’t recall if I even asked her.

On the day before I left, a Monday, January 11, 2016, I met with ‘Martha’ for a situation type update and a briefing on the rules, etc. She gave me $1000 cash for the trip. I was to keep receipts. I was allowed up to $80 a day for a hotel. Food expenses were so lavish, I don’t even remember the amount it was so ridiculous.

The situation on the ground according to ‘Martha’ was they were very concerned there was a bad influence on Ammon Bundy. Their attempts to get any informants into the compound failed. She was very concerned if I stayed at the compound I’d be found out. She was also concerned for my safety. I assured her I would have no problem. She eventually was ok with me going to the refuge, but I know she was very worried for me. ‘Martha’ also told me not to carry a gun there. Absolutely not. Although I always carry at a protest, I conceded and went along with it, but we did compromise to let me travel with my gun, since I was a woman driving there alone. I should point out, I drive, not fly. I travel alone most of the time and I am not comfortable without my car. I prefer to arrive and leave when I choose, and not be reliant on others.

I woke up in the dark the next morning on the 12th and started my drive. When I stopped for a rest I would call ‘Martha’ and tell her where I was. Many of the miles I couldn’t even get my Pandora to work the cell reception was so horrible. I remember seeing a sign saying not to use cellular devices in such a remote location I could see no houses and had no reception. What a waste of a sign. I went through California, then Nevada, and dropped into Oregon.

Once I hit Oregon on the 78 West, I was pulled over by a State Trooper. The first thing she told me was everything was being recorded and pointed to her body cam. I was going 75. She told me the speed limit was 55. I was honestly surprised, because I try my best to read all the signs, especially those when I enter a new state. That’s often times when speed limits change. Somehow I had missed it, I guess. She let me off with a warning and told me basically the whole state was 55. I immediately set my cruise control for 55 when I returned to speed. (Pls note the speed limit said 65 on the photo of Devine Pass) I then hit my next turn, the 205. Google maps told me to take a right. I did, even though I saw a previous sign saying the refuge was to make a left. The 205 ended up turning into the 395, called the Devine Pass. It was drop dead beautiful there. Well named, because it did look like God had truly touched the earth. Windy roads, tall pine trees, and beautiful rock formations jutting out on the steep cliffs. I never knew those type of formations were in any other state besides Utah. As the sun set it started to snow. This was only my second time ever driving in the snow. My first time was many years ago in Pennsylvania when I was 16 and my dad was sitting next to me, teaching me what to look for in snowy conditions. As the snow got thicker on the road I kept going slower and slower. It was pitch dark. I was down to about 20 mph, white knuckling it, almost sweating, when a car zoomed past me. The snow blew away! Well, I then realized it was what they call powder and increased my speed.

This is about the time I realized I was lost. I was supposed to have been there by now. Once I got out of the pass and saw signs of life, I found a man driving a snow plow. He told me he didn’t know where the refuge was, but thought it was maybe the back in which I had come. Ugh. I called into the refuge for directions, because I did know the phone number of one person there. Reception was still very spotty. As I was driving back down through Devine Pass, I asked the woman to text me the directions, because I would receive the texts when I got reception. This helped a lot and I finally made it there. I had been about 50 or so miles in the other direction. I was on empty, but knew if I needed gas, there would be some at the protest site and wasn’t worried. Large protests like these get plenty of supplies with each person bringing extra of what they have for others. I met those in the chow hall and was assigned a bunk. There was one other man in my room, and a couple. I was almost immediately told there was a real Judge and two US Marshals also staying at the protest. I was curious about that, but would figure it all out later.

The next day, the 13th, I found out there was a gas station only 6 miles away. I got a list of what was needed for the Chow Hall and left. I stopped for gas and then went into the town of Burns. For a town with only a few thousand people, it was much larger than I expected. I live in a town 5 times that size and still only have one main street for all the shopping. I suspect I was followed there by the ‘Judge’. Once his truck left, I called ‘Martha’ to tell her I arrived safely. Then I got the groceries and supplies needed. I spent about $150.

On one of these beginning days, one of the local ranchers did a big barbeque for us with all the fixings. I talked with him, thanking him. He had butchered a pig for us, and smoked it at home. We had a large spread of delicious cole slaw (which is the first time I ever liked cole slaw), smoked pig, and numerous other delicious foods. Everyone was there along with some other ranchers. We probably had a good 80 people come and go.

The 14th I went to town again, with Deb and Corey. Deb and I picked up a tail at the grocery store. There was only one in town. Corey was in the store with us and told us to hurry up, that we were being watched. I looked around and did see a man in a suit watching us. By the time we got out to the parking lot, a police car drove by while we were unloading groceries. We got in the car to go to Deb’s bank. The police car must have doubled back on us, because he was behind us before we got to the bank. He turned on his lights. I pulled over in the bank parking lot. Deb went to the bank, while I got out of my car and dealt with the police. Corey stayed in the car. The officer said my tail light was out. I was again surprised. He didn’t write me a ticket, he just asked me what I was in town for, where I was staying, etc. I was surprised at the question, so he said they were trying to pay attention to who was where because of all the hubbub. I told him I was staying with friends in town, that I came because of all the news, but I didn’t know what the address was I was staying at. By then Deb was out of the bank, talking with the other officer. I walked up to Deb and asked her if we had our friends address in town. She said she didn’t know either. Then I walked back to the officer who I was talking to and we struck up small talk. He said he had come from nine hours away, and pointed towards his truck. I said wow, that must be hard on your department to handle things at home with so many officers away. We all wrapped up the convos and I drove back to the protest. I do not know what would have happened if we had said we were part of the protest, but I do think at a minimum we would have been brought in for questioning, so did Corey and Deb.

That night Melissa told me Jaime Hawley was coming the next day. I was furious. She’s a gossip queen and has no business at a protest like this. Please realize, gossip is a sin worthy enough for the Bible, and I’ve come to find out personally from Jaime how sinister it is when she accused me of being a fed two years previous. Jaime is the type of person who thrives on discord, and if a situation were ever to occur, she’d be standing in the middle of it, crying like a toddler, lost and frozen, only thinking of herself, not able to take a direction from anyone… and I bet my bottom dollar she’d be at the bottom of the gossip, covered in a nest of lies and half truths. She always has food for everyone, pays for campsites, her own cabin, etc. Jaime also keeps in constant contact with the protester she’s going to meet up with during her drive. In this case, it was Melissa Cooper.

On Friday the 15th , (I thought it was Saturday, but arrest records say it was Friday) Melissa Cooper and a couple others went into town. She kept telling me how great it was because they sent the stickers for the trucks to the refuge, so they could drive them on the road. I was in the chow hall when the call came in that Ken had been arrested for driving the truck. The other man was safe, but needed picked up. It got real hectic quick. I said I would go get him, and grabbed my stuff. The guys didn’t want me taking anyone with them, because they worried their militia gear would not look good. I grabbed a media person, Jon, and left. He thought for sure he’d be arrested. I said no, it’s just a retrieval, we’ll be fine. Please note, I was not immune from the law. If I did something wrong, I would have been arrested, ticketed, etc. I was required to follow the law. If I did get picked up for any reason, I was to just give them my name and keep my mouth shut. The FBI would at some point see my name, and take care of it. I’m still scratching my head over the fact that I could have been picked up merely for going to a protest, but that was the atmosphere.

Jaime arrived late that afternoon. Kricket had driven Jaime from Vegas, and apparently Jaime flew from FL to Vegas to meet up with Kricket. Everyone knew how I felt, so when I confronted Jaime on the lies and gossip she’s said against me, and told her to leave, she was ushered into the Coopers room. She did not come out until Blaine came out, yelling, obviously upset, and told us that his kids were taken by CPS. They were supposed to be coming for a visit to see their parents that weekend. Jaime was standing behind Blaine, sniffling, with tears in her eyes.

When I went out by the fire after dinner, several of the guys said to me I was right… the drama came with Jaime, just as I’d predicted. The next day Jaime came out to fill her plate with breakfast, and she and Kricket left at around 11 am. I heard they stayed in a hotel in Burns and did not return to Vegas, where Kricket lived.

Pretty quick I figured out the ‘Judge’ knew the Bible better than the law and that it was the judge causing the commotion ‘Martha’ was concerned about. I did not believe he was a real judge. He had two men with him, the ‘US Marshals’. One seemed very well trained. I attempted small talk with him. His name was Marshall Smitty I think. I asked him where he got his training and he said no place. I told him I was surprised, because he reminded me of how the Navy Seals at the Amphib base acted with how he carried himself. The other guy with him laughed and said to him I called it well. Smitty said thank you to me. I walked away. Another time in the kitchen I heard the ‘Judge’ say he wasn’t a US citizen. I was about 10 feet away, and replied loudly, “I’m a proud United States citizen and I feel that only a United States citizen should be able to take the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” After that, the crowd around ‘Judge Bruce’ was a lot smaller. That night he offered to swear in anyone who wanted to be a US Marshal the next day. As far as I know, not one person did.

To give an idea of what it was like, we had many people coming and going, bringing food and supplies, wood, clothing, boots, mattresses, blankets, sleeping bags, and anything else we needed. Often times they travelled a long way to see us. Sometimes they arranged to stay in town, other times they would bunk with us. Local ranchers, business and home owners would come from neighboring counties, some to bring us stuff, others begging for our help where they are, too. This put a lot of pressure on Ammon to help them. We also had a plane that looked like a little Cessna, always flying during the day. I think the guys tracked it at four loops, then refuel.

The weekends were typically very busy. Many people would come in support when they weren’t at work. At this time we had plenty of help in the kitchen, unloading and organizing supplies, taking watches, etc. Please realize, I’ve been to a lot of protests over the years. Typically, the police protect the protesters and anti-protesters. It’s very normal to see guns at protests, or where the protesters stay. The police have them. The protesters travel with them. Normally, the police are very careful to keep the two groups separate, protesters and anti-protesters. In the protests where we’ve had our own ‘security’, their job is to alleviate the police’s duties, such as helping stop traffic during marches, providing medical aid, etc, so the police don’t need so many officers and can continue their regular duties. This is especially important in larger protests. This is the first protest where there was no police protection. This naturally added to the duties of our ‘security’.

About every other day two men would come to the chow hall as anti-protesters. The first time I talked with the tall one, and he seemed in agreement about federal land needing to be more locally run. I was surprised when he returned the second time. That time the other guy, an older man, held a sign saying “Keep our land public”. I said to the older man, in front of the press, “It’s not a King’s forest.” He looked at me with a twinkle in his eye, like he agreed. I went in and got some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and offered it around to everyone. When I offered it to the guy holding the sign, he again looked at me with surprise and had a twinkle in his eye. It was like we had a secret game, move and counter move. When I offered it to the tall guy, he took one. (The tall guy later ended up being called out by Santilli for being at the airport where the feds were set up)

I called in to ‘Martha’ almost every day. Usually I just stood outside the chow hall and chatted with her. Every time I was asked about 5 or so individuals. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Jon Ritzheimer, Blaine Cooper, Ryan Payne and Pete Santilli. I was asked about Joe O’Shaughnessy, but I explained he wasn’t there, that I heard he was staying in town. I was also asked about where the weapons were kept. I explained there was no stash, no warehouse, it was just people’s personal weapons. I also said all weapons were legal that I saw.

Now realize, ‘Martha’ told me things, too. The weekend before I left she told me the FBI knew Ammon was not at the refuge. She told me they had someone closer than me there, too. (This was before I saw McConnell there. I’m positive there’s another informant.) She asked me if Ammon was going to return. I said I’d heard Ammon’s family was coming, and that I’m sure he’d be back.

Well, back to the subject. On Thursday, January 21st , Melissa Cooper asked me if I knew where the sign in book was. I said I hadn’t seen it. She said she noticed it missing the day before, on the 20th . On Friday at dinner I asked Melissa about the book, and she said it never turned up. I then told Ammon the sign in book was missing. I know this sounds like something mute, but wait for it…

Freaky Friday. Yes, I’ve got to talk about freaky Friday. First, let me tell you about an incident that happened either Thursday morning or Friday morning. The press was there. We were opening mail to put in the burn barrel. One box was a box of shit with maggots crawling around. We threw it in the barrel, but unlike the norm, we did not stand around the barrel for warmth. Who wanted to stand around burning shit? I went inside. Then I heard a shot fired, very loud. I went back outside. It turned out to be someone had shit on ammo and mailed it. One of the members of the press really was very interested in the negative mail. Ryan Bundy asked him to specifically not print it, because it would cause more mail like that. The guy seemed undeterred. I walked up to him a few minutes later, and told him if he printed that story about the box of shit with ammo, that yes, he had freedom of press, but not to the point to make a situation dangerous. I told him flat out, looked him straight in the eye, if I found he printed that he would have to deal with me. (I found out later he heeded my warning. It was not printed.)

I called ‘Martha’ about this. I was very upset anyone was put in danger. She seemed uninterested, even after I pointed out mailing ammo in the US mail was a felony. She didn’t know it was a felony. That day on the whole was eerily quiet. There was no plane flying. Things seemed ‘off’. After dark, then we heard it. I was in the kitchen doing dishes when it flew by so low, so loud, I ducked. I ran outside, wondering if it had landed or something. The guys were all animated too, saying they thought it was a drone, because it had a big light on the bottom of it, pointing straight down. After that we did hear the Cessna… without running lights. The moon was almost full, I could see the plane, but no lights. It did the typical laps, just like it was daytime.

The next day was awesome. We had a huge Harney County Resource Center grand day opening. A lot more protesters showed up, and we escorted them to the opening ceremony.

I left that night. I told everyone I would be back in a week, that my daughter was flying into town from Utah. The guard at the gate said I will be missed. I didn’t know who he was because he had a ski mask on, it was so cold out there. I stopped somewhere out in the middle of nowhere, because there was a sign that said next gas station was 82 miles. Whatever gas station was nearby, I couldn’t find. It opened the next morning at 9 am. Town with a population of 14. I arrived home that night. Sunday the 24th .

Tuesday the 26th of January is a day I will never forget. I was sitting on my mom’s blue couch visiting with them. My daughter was in the chair across from me. My cell phone rang and I answered it. It was about 4:30 pm. My friend said twitter was blowing up, Ammon was arrested, someone was shot or dead. That was the initial story. I immediately called Deb at the refuge. I later texted her Lavoy was dead. I called again around 7 pm. She said it was calm there. They’re serving dinner. I called some friends in San Diego, to see if they were going to help get the people at the refuge out. They said there was a conference call in the morning to determine what to do. There was a primary contact in Burns who would be on the call. The next day I found out everyone was told to ‘stand by’. Nothing would be done.

I met with ‘Martha’ a few days later and gave her the change from the money for expenses, plus the receipts. I was still livid. Emotional. Torn up. Downright hostile. Those feelings didn’t go away easily. I don’t think they ever will go all the way away, they’re just not as raw as they were. We met the following week, where she gave me $3000 for my ‘pay’. I really don’t know what I did to deserve any pay. Lavoy was dead, and the FBI did as they pleased, not listening to anything I said. But I guess the goal was achieved, all the people they kept asking about were arrested. Who cares if those men broke the law or not, right? That’s not how I feel at all. I care deeply our laws are upheld. I care deeply our police remain neutral and protect citizens equally. I did ask what was the reason for the ‘routine traffic stop’. Martha’s answer is that they have a right to pull over someone when a phone call is received. I didn’t push the point, but knew instantly that was a typical response when an officer does not have cause to get access. The officer must still see something illegal. Most people thinks this response means they must give access and concede.

Between the phone calls and meetings I was told two important things: One, that the person who signed the doc to send the FBI to Oregon came from the ‘highest command possible’. ‘Martha’ explained further and said it was the President.  This is further evidenced when the Oregon governor appealed to the President to end the occupation of the refuge sooner. Second, ‘Martha’ said the FBI had the sign in book.

Lavoy’s funeral was February 5th , 2016. It was open casket. There were several local police outside. Everyone was cordial. Over 2500 showed up from all over the country. Jaime Hawley showed up, driving a vehicle with Florida plates. Blaine Cooper was there. This is when I found out about John Day. PPN was supposed to provide a convoy type escort for the two vehicles. They never showed. When I returned home from the funeral I called my San Diego friends and informed them PPN had dropped the ball. They said that was crucial information regarding the ‘stand by’ that was done. I would say more about the funeral, but I’m still too emotional.

On February 10th I received a call to pick some guys up in Mesquite, since Joker J had just been arrested. I did. They stayed with me for 2 weeks. No, I did not harbor any fugitives. There were no public arrest warrants or indictments released. I was called by ‘Martha’ to go to the local Lavoy Rally. I did so in order to not call attention to anyone staying with me.

Since then, I have not given ‘Martha’ any information besides public information of news articles. In the last meeting, on September 21, a Sunday, I was asked what the movement’s support was in the Presidential race. I said it was more split before the primaries, but not that Bernie is out, many are supporting Gary Johnson. Most are supporting Trump.

Let me tell you about these men being targeted.

Ammon Bundy: Very well spoken. Strong moral fiber. He’s the type of man who is free, unlike most. Most people think ‘what if’. Ammon is a free man and walks this earth as a free man. He doesn’t recognize fear. Anyone can disagree with Ammon, yet he’ll still give them the shirt off his back if they need it, disagreeing or not. Never carried a weapon.

Ryan Bundy: Not quite as well spoken as Ammon, but his strong point is law and legal terms. Strong moral fiber is woven within him and how he sees the law. He is also a free man. Obviously these men were raised together. Carried a pistol, nothing more.

Shawna Cox: She seemed to me to be an administrative assistant or secretary type. She was always seen carrying paperwork and folders in her arms. Never carried a weapon.

David Fry: Young, he had an interest in philosophy, religion. Loved to learn. What I remember best about him is his sleeping on the couch. He would be sitting straight up, then hunch over, practically folding himself in half and he was out. For hours he’d sleep in that position, with his head resting on his legs. Never carried a weapon.

Ken: I only briefly saw walking from a vehicle into a room. Later that day he was arrested.

I don’t believe I knew the other men at all.

Concerns after the fact and reviewing evidence. Who stole the sign in book and why was it placed into evidence 4 days before it was stolen.

The ‘routine traffic stop’ was not in any way, shape or form a traffic stop. There must be a reason to pull someone over. None given. Why did that public FBI statement on their website get rewritten, and all articles in all media was edited. This is pretty clear evidence that the media is required to put out stories according to political whim. Why was there no warrant. The search warrant was done after the fact. One would think the govt had figured out if there was a crime before the arrest. It’s not like anything these people did was hidden.

The 65 mph sign, looks new to me in the video ‘McConnell Secret Recording’ search. Did they lower the speed limits in the area? There is a woman that swears McConnell was in her old classroom at the school and that the video was NOT taken with PPN as McConnell said.

Ammon Bundy, Joe O’Shaughnessy, Jon Ritzheimer, and Blaine Cooper were all targeted, all from Arizona. Did McConnell tell lies to the FBI because of his dislike of these people? Three of the four all were part of some sort of militia.  Is that why ‘Martha’ swore up and down if I saw the evidence, I would agree with her? McConnell is arrogant and derogatory. Very demeaning. To him, he’s the real thing, and all others are wanna-be’s.

As far as doing this all again. I’m undecided if I even helped any of these men by doing what I did. I’ll know more once the trial is over.

More importantly, would I do another operation in this manner? No. I found the FBI all knowing, distrustful, political pawns. As ‘Martha’ said, the FBI does everything ‘big’. Big is not better, sorry to say. The sheriff failed to do his job. The FBI should have then asked why he refused to protect the protesters. Instead, they encouraged him. When they were told that a man from Grant County said the Grant County Sheriff told him the Harney County Sheriff asked for his help, that he wanted the protesters all dead. ‘Kill them all’. Yes, the FBI was told, and now the Grant County Sheriff is being investigated. Go figure. Was it something I said? Probably. By telling the FBI evidence that all did not seem as it appears, and to look deeper, they instead used that to destroy good people. Political? Absolutely. The movement was growing. Across the nation people were standing up, shaking off their fears… if the FBI hadn’t broke the law and killed someone, this would still be happening. People would still be standing up. If they had simply walked up to Ammon with an arrest warrant, people would still be standing up. Their goal was to strike fear in regular people, continue the oppression that was so clear in Oregon, and everywhere else I’ve traveled.

Therefore, please realize not only is this important to know, but know all is not as it appears. We have a very powerful enemy and our names are on his desk. He hates we woke up the nation. He hates he can’t control us. We represent the one thing he hates most. American Pride. American Independence. I’m currently being tested. I was given a name of a local to check out. How do I know this is a test? I’m not stupid. They’ve never given me a name before. I’ve had to figure things out myself. Why the change, when they should be trusting me less?

/s/ Terri R. Linnell

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


Terri testified at the trial, Tuesday, October 11th.  She was not called by her benefactors, the government.  Instead, she was a witness for the defense, specifically, David Fry, though all of the other Defendants, as well as the government, had an opportunity to examine her.

According to reports from the courthouse, her testimony was very contrary to what the government wanted from someone that they paid over $3000 to.  But, they knew her testimony would not serve them very well.  However, they could not, under any conceivable argument, argue that their paid informant could not take the stand for the Defense.

Terri’s testimony refutes many of the government’s claims, including display of weapons, leadership, and any danger posed by the occupation.  She had nothing but praise for the Patriots.  She also refused to let the Prosecution put words in her mouth.  Though they didn’t proffer the FBI reports as evidence, they appeared to read from them.  However, when they stated something contrary to fact, Terri would say that she didn’t say that.

We must wonder how the jury perceived testimony from someone the government “planted” into the group, and then supports the Defendants position with her truthful statements.  It has to be very embarrassing to realize that she got no dirt, when that was her task.  What more can be said of the fallacy of the entire government line.

I trust that this will put to rest the accusations that have been made against Terri over the past week.  And, I pose this question to you; who else has managed to get the government to pay expenses and $3,000 for to go to Burns and cook for the Patriots?


  1. Lavoidsays:

    This is not notarized. It is fake.

  2. ghuntghuntsays:

    Many Facebook comments have been critical of Terri. What follows is my response to those critics:
    The Defense has Discovery. There are restrictions on what information can be made public. However, Per Olson, David Fry’s attorney, apparently saw good cause to subpoena Terri, where the FBI chose not to put her on the stand. It would also appear that whatever information Terri provided to the FBI was of little value in attempting to obtain convictions. However, Olson saw that it would serve the defense. And, according to my conversation with Brand Thornton, who was there for her testimony, it helped immensely. John Lamb’s video pretty much suggests the same.
    So, we have an attorney and two observers who have judged her testimony to be beneficial. Then, we have others who have made their judgment from the comfort of their armchair.
    As Terri explained, her job was to report on the six people, only. She did so. To suggest that they didn’t already know that the six were there is, well, ludicrous.
    I’ve seen what Bill Goode referred to as “gossip” in the patriot community for over twenty years. Most often, I refer to it as a “hen fight”, as women tend to see it as a necessary element of evaluation, and perhaps competition. If we deem that a bad characteristic, well, I guess we will simply have to ignore about 90% of it.
    What most fail to see is the courage that Terri had to come out in the open with what she had done. Would you, had you for whatever reason, agreed to inform for the government, even consider “coming clean” with that role? Coming clean is probably the best expression of finally seeing the right thing, as a number of IRS agents have done, in the past. Regardless of what financial damage they might have cause for patriot families, they are accepted, warmly, when they “see the light” and come clean.
    To not accept Terri back into the patriot community, with warmth and respect, though perhaps, unless and until earned, trust, is to discourage others, who ma have stepped into bad ways, from seeing the light. They will know that they will be rejected, and will then decide that the consequence of changing from one side to the other is not worth the consequences. Now, this is not a new thought. I wrote on the subject in “Informants Amongst Us?” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=197), back in 1995.
    More than likely, Terri Linnell is more reliable now than some of the people that you know and believe to be reliable. In any established group, there is a probability of easily 10% being government informants or agents. However, once exposed, they are out of the picture — unless they choose to expose themselves, which, more than anything, is a badge of both courage and honor.
    Personally, because of the many conversations she and I have had lately, I both trust and respect her. And, I consider her to, at least now, be a true patriot.

  3. Dirk Williamssays:

    After reviewing ” mama bears, statement, I’m in disbelief. This letter was forwarded to me by friends in Bend Oregon. ” Due diligence here. I am a retired police officer. ” after reading this persons vain attempt to rationalize her position of patriot, yet receiving money for being a paid for, FBI INFORMANT, is simply an unrealistic attempt to justify her actions.

    A case of real time consciousness.

    This lady is as responsible for Lavoys death as the HRT, and OSP troops are.

    You can’t have it both ways. Your in, or your not.

    Dirk Williams

    • ghuntghuntsays:

      Interesting theory.
      But, wouldn’t that make everyone at the Refuge, for any reason culpable?

      • Dirk Williamssays:

        Mr Hunt, if the others were agent provotours, then yes they would be complicit in Lavoys Murder, at the hands of the FBI, and OSP.

        Sir, we’re human, we try and rationalize our actions at many cognitive levels, thought, our words, we are accountable for. Surely our heart our actions and our motivations are also on the mantal for review.

        How would/could Moma bear truly rationalize her actions. Did she, or you think the FBI, were simply footing the bill for a lil fun in the sun. Na, not how it works.

        Listen, i have sympathy for this person, doesn’t mean I Have apathy for her actions, she is not worthy of my apathy. For roughly 4000.00 dollars she participated in an event, in which a clear natural leader was singled out and murdered by our govt. that’s how contagious LaVoy was.

        Even the White House recognized just how effective LaVoy was, he was ” contagious” his style of patriotism was infectious. The FBI, the Govt, knew this, and had to remove him.

        If I recognize Lavoys natural leadership qualities, do you think the FBI, didn’t recognize his abilities and the fact that many many patriots were willing to follow him, thru the gates, of tyranny. That sir would include me.

        I’ll close with this. What We The People learned regarding the HRT teams tactics, their shooting of Lavoys truck, their policing their brass, their lying and lawyering up during DCSO’s investigations leads me to the only logical conclusion.

        The tactics used that day are Taught tactics. Lavoys incident was not the first time HRT, used this tactic, this was the first time they were caught phusically, and with physical evidence.

        These shameful tactics were taught to HRT, these tactics are/ were authorized by upper echelon administrative deep state managers.

        LaVoy was clearly marked for death by the highest office in our land. And Mama bear was a complicit on the ground operative, with real time Intel, fed back to the FBI.


        Dirk Williams

        She sold her sole, and she wants it back.

        Dirk Williams

        • ghuntghuntsays:

          So, if they are “agent provocateurs”, they would be complicit. But, you said that Terri was complicit. She was not a provocateur, she was simply an observer as to what transpired at the Refuge, and left days before the murder of LaVoy Finicum. Now, others were also observers, though they did so simply their presence. Some of them have already been called to testify. Whether paid by the government, or not, otherwise, the observations are the same.
          What she observed had nothing to do with the murder of LaVoy. If you had dinner with some people, and then some of them robbed a bank, would you be complicit in the bank robber?
          I won’t contest the fact that Terri rationalized her role, nor will I contest that you are also rationalizing, though you are doing so from a distance and she did in what she was a player in.
          Finally, she is not seeking sympathy, or apathy. She is coming out with the truth so that we all understand how the government plays the game — which she could only do but setting herself up for accusations as to her motivation.
          We can criticize her, or we can learn, from a player in the situation, what we could only surmise, before. She may have sold her soul, but, she is now paying, dearly, to get it back.

  4. Ski Bumsays:

    I admire Terri Lindell for coming forward with the truth. It is her inside information that helps expose how Corrupt the Government is. Now at a Federal Level I read many FBI Agents may resign in Protest of the Corruption around James Comey an those who are covering for Hillary Clinton’s crimes.

    Talk about being bought off? How did Comey make $6 Million from the Clinton Foundation? Will Wikki Leaks dot the iiiii”s Will this Trail fall apart now will the Jury do the right thing and acquit? I think Wikki Leaks is helping to expose the BLM and Courts Corruption and helping this case to fall apart.

    When you have an informant telling the Truth and saying the Protesters broke no Laws, that is a Positive for the Defense. Where is the better paid informant Mark McConnell who made a Video .. with the background supposedly the JR High School which was an FBI command post not a Hotel Room ?

    In Pod casts Mark McConnell has stated that he has been doing Border Patrol for a long time. He has said that he befriended Blaine Cooper and Ryane Payne ect at least a year before the Bunkerville stand off. Sounds like the FBI had their Radar on these guys well before Bunkerville.

    I assume that Terri Lindell had no Idea an Ambush and Murder was planned. She did not help in the Assassination of LaVoy Finicum, but if Mark McConnell helped to plan the Convoy and loaded extra Guns into the vehicles how does that look? I have read that McCon was very upset when things didn’t go as planned. Two women ended up in LaVoys’s Truck that was not the original plan..

    I hope some one uses FOIA when this is over to try and find out how many Millions the FBI spent on this Cluster mess. It was a great exercise to show how the FBI Operates. I thought the FBI was only authorized to investigate other Government Agencies.. the FBI should be Investigating the Corrupt BLM FWLS and USFS ect not Ranchers who are being harassed flooded out burned out and bankrupted by ridiculous logging and grazing policies..

    Back to the FBI resigning in Protest of the corruption of James Comey .. the sad part is only the good ones will resign ..Same with Cops only the good Cops will resign in protest of Corruption. I agree with Dirk Williams only about what he said about LaVoy being too good of an educator and they wanted to shut him up. Dirk Williams must have been a Cop some where that is not Corrupt like 70% of Police Forces that will lie and cover for w each other then they do something wrong . Now Black Lives Matter are ambushing and executing Cops just like the FBI did to LaVoy.. The sad thing about these Ambushes , is it seems they always Kill the Good Guy Cops and don’t take out the Corrupt ones. Then again BLM is simply a Soros Funded Terrorist organization trying to bring down the USA.

    One of the most Disturbing things in this whole Protest is how Corrupt Judge Anna Brown who was appointed by Bill Clinton is..

  5. Dirk Williamssays:

    while I agree with you on her paying a price, that won’t bring LaVoy back. Had she been a young misguided youth, with little life’s experience, I might agree with you. She’s not, she took the money, she informed on the movement, she contributed to the overall Intel picture.

    That overall picture, that model was used to work up a detailed assault eventually. Although her part might have been a minor contribution, never the less, it was a ” paid for” contribution.

    . She willingly became a paid asset of the FBI, for money. she used her good standing within the Patriot,community to infiltrate the refuge, the core group. Then she admittedly informed on those who trusted her, without question.

    Keep up the good work.

    Dirk Williams

    • ghuntghuntsays:

      If she wasn’t an informant, and she testified as she did, with the exception of her role as an informant, you would be praising. her.
      Now, when I went to Burns, I was funded by some patriots. She got there because of the FBI. I got there because of some patriots. Does it really matter just how you got there if all that you did only served the patriots?
      I think that you simply don’t want to admit that you are wrong.

  6. Admit I’m wrong, amusing. You had patriots support, you supported the patriots. She is given 3000.00 dollars to spy, and your rationalizing her actions. Holly cow. I can see how I got this wrong, and your right.

    Your liberal left wing thinking is exactly why this nation is in the shape it’s in. It’s not my place to forgive her, is it really your job to rationalize her tyrannical actions, of representing the federal govt, while good patriots are being spied on.

    Their words, actions and deeds being reported to the FBI, by a bought and paid for snitch. And I’ve got it wrong.

    Perhaps it is you, who ” Vetted” her, cuz she’s sorry now? That is afraid to admit your position perhaps was not well thought out.

    A retorical question, can a leapard change its spots, maybe. Can a paid FBI informant be forgiven sure. But not by me.

    The damage done isn’t nessisarily to the patriot movement, it’s to the perception of the movements direction. The psyological spin placed on her action by the FBI, the Lap dog media, to cause discontent and confusion it’s “Sun Tzu” at his finest. Using trusted members of the movement, to defeat the actions of a large ideology.

    Sir, if I’m wrong I apologize, was never my intent to trade barbs with you. It’s your site, and you can and will do what you want.

    My observation is simply that my observation. If the patriot movement leaders choose to overlook/fore give her, no worries.

    Have a great day.

    Dirk Williams

    • ghuntghuntsays:

      Some people have a broad perspective, others a narrow one. So, let’s start with “If the patriot movement leaders choose to overlook/forgive…” The patriot community, at this point, is in a sense leaderless. There are leaders of small groups, but mostly, it is individuals, And, each of those would have to decide, if the opportunity to trust or not trust, forgive or not to forgive, arose. You have made your call, in your narrow perspective.
      Now, I tend to look with a broad perspective. And, as it turns out, some additional good has come out of this situation, already. How good is yet to be determined. However, based upon the exposure of Terri, Mumford, using the exposed event, has filed a Motion to have all of the informant/agent, and their reports (129 of them) provided to the defense. The Judge first wants to the government to provide to her unredacted reports and all other information regarding those 15 informants/agents. The door had not been opened before, and at least one motion requesting such information was denied.
      Now, at least, some, if not all, of that information will be provided to the Defense.

  7. I last question, do you think Mama Bear would have self disclosed her FBI informant status, had she not been exposed via a federal summons for this case.


    • ghuntghuntsays:

      I can’t speak for her. I can say that in my conversations with her, she had really begun to appreciate what they were doing.
      There is a strong likelihood that she would not inform on them, again — if at all.
      When LaVoy was killed, she got a dose of reality that will never leave her. The government was no longer the good guys.

    • Several months ago Linnell told me in a phone call that she was expecting to be called to testify. We had even discussed her staying with me if that were the case. So, she knew SOMEONE was going to have her testify.

  8. […] said she intended for her testimony to be helpful to the defense, not the govt. And although she admits it, Linnell does not actually account for the fact that she has been informing on the “Patriot” […]

  9. Josiahsays:

    GHUNT, Are your convictions coming from a desire to defend a woman (white knight) who is now being roundly criticized for her actions? I am truly puzzled by this. I do not know what others have said about this woman. I only know that she was a paid informant against the patriots at Malheur. I am saying this because I understand that it is natural for good men to want to rush to the side of a woman, they view as being attacked. I might even say that it is a part of our instincts as men. If it is the case as stated above then I have more compassion for you as a protective man, than i do for the woman that you are protecting. I believe what is stated above, she had the opportunity to not cooperate with the Feds, yet she chose to cooperate. In Summary, this woman chose her path, as we all must. She chose to betray and take purse of silver. Now a good man is dead, murdered at the hands of the Feds and now his blood is on hands of those who shot him and those who colluded with them as agent provocateurs. We all have a choice sir and we all must live with the consequences. This woman must live with the consequences. If she couldnt handle them, she should never have informed.

  10. […] was an “obvious lie”.  This whole program was based primarily on my article, “Burns Chronicles No 32 – Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)“, and the host’s subsequent interview with […]

  11. […] initial article on informants was “Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)“.  That article was written because Terri had contacted me prior to testifying in the […]

  12. […] Postscript: For better context, please read The Demonization of the Costilla County Off-Grid Homesteaders: How the San Luis Valley “Just Us” Group was Sabotaged, Fake Judges: How & Why Sovereign Citizens are Undermining Patriot Groups, The National Liberty Alliance is Attempting to Subvert the Committee of Safety Concept, and Burns Chronicles #32: Terri Linnell (Mama Bear). […]

  13. […] Postscript: For better context, please read The Demonization of the Costilla County Off-Grid Homesteaders: How the San Luis Valley “Just Us” Group was Sabotaged, Fake Judges: How & Why Sovereign Citizens are Undermining Patriot Groups, The National Liberty Alliance is Attempting to Subvert the Committee of Safety Concept, and Burns Chronicles #32: Terri Linnell (Mama Bear). […]


Burns Chronicles No 33 – Ryan Payne’s Plea Withdrawal

Burns Chronicles No 33
Ryan Payne’s Plea Withdrawal


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 13, 2016

Back on July 13, Ryan Payne signed a plea agreement.  As will be explained, below, he has now requested the Court to Withdraw Guilty Plea and Proceed to Trial by Jury and go to trial on the charges.

Though it won’t be mentioned in the Motion, in addition to what follows, Ryan was threatened with a Terrorism Enhancement, if he went to trial and was convicted.  That would be a 30 years sentence, but, as I said, the Court cannot recognize that, as it was part of negotiations.

So, let’s look at the picture that the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea gives us, at least in pertinent part.  I will leave the citations in, for those who wish to review previous decisions on the subject:


After entering a plea of guilty to Count 1, Mr. Payne stated the following as a factual basis for his plea, in the words of Ryan Payne:

“Ah, your Honor, the very first adult decision that I ever made was when I was 17, to join the military of the United States.  And in so doing, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I traveled to Harney County, here in Oregon, under the pretense that this was my intent. That I was coming to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

“In pursuing that effort, I understand I — I have come to understand that folks who were — who work for the Government, that that Constitution ordained, perceived my actions as threatening or intimidating.  And, thereby, I – I understand myself to have been guilty of the charge that I’m charged with.

The Court inquired whether Mr. Payne agreed that his actions actually impeded government officials. Mr. Payne responded, “[a]s it has been presented to me, it is my understanding that I did, your Honor.”

So, Ryan went to the Malheur Refuge with the intention (not a criminal intent, rather, a patriotic intent) to defend the Constitution.  And, that is what this whole trial is about.


Then, he points out, not that he threatened or intimidate, rather, that those folks at the Refuge “perceived” his actions as threatening.  So, he “understands”, rather than believes, that he is guilty.  That is based on the information provided to him, as well as any other influences as to what the consequence might be if he proceeded to jury trial (see the second paragraph for one of those influences).

Now, getting to some conditions that justify his withdrawal of the plea, we find that there had been a lot of information withheld from him — upon which he was to make that decision.  Here are two elements of information that was not made available, which we now find had exculpatory (possibly proving innocence) evidence that has since come to light.

Subsequent to the change of plea hearing, the prosecution produced seven additional volumes of discovery to all defendants. The later discovery productions included materials that became exhibits in the trial of co-defendants currently ongoing before the Court.

Additionally, subsequent to the change of plea, the government acknowledged the use of confidential informants,such as Mr. Mark McConnell, that had not been disclosed to Mr. Payne on the date he entered aplea.

Now the legal basis justifying his right to withdraw:


Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) governs withdrawal of guilty pleas. The Rule “directs a district court to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing if the defendant comes forward with any fair and just reason for doing so.” United States v. Ortega- Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879, 887 (9th Cir. 2004). Although a defendant may not withdraw a guilty plea “simply on a lark,” the fair and justice standard “is generous and must be liberally applied.” United States v. Ensminger, 567 F.3d 587, 590–91 (9th Cir. 2009).

The timing of the motion to withdraw a guilty plea is critically important. Before sentencing, a defendant “need not prove that his plea is invalid” in order to meet the standard for withdrawal of the plea. Oretega-Ascanio, 376 F.3d at 884. Instead, a more liberal standard applies, permitting withdrawal of the plea on grounds including “inadequate Rule 11 plea colloquies [formal discussions]newly discovered evidenceintervening circumstances, or any other reason for withdrawing the plea that did not exist when the defendant entered his plea.” Id. at 883 (citing United States v. Turner, 898 F.2d 705, 713 (9th Cir. 1990)). If a defendant demonstrates one of these grounds, withdrawal of the plea should be “freely allowed.” United States v. Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009).

Then, in itemizing the elements that are mentioned, his attorney, Rich Federico, provides the following:

A.  Intervening Circumstances in the District of Nevada Provide a Fair and Just Reason for the Court to Permit Mr. Payne to Withdraw his Guilty Plea

As stated during the change of plea hearing, the foundation of the Oregon plea agreement was that an agreement would also be reached in Nevada. Mr. Payne was given a very short period of time in Oregon from the date the plea offer was received on July 12th, before that offer expired at 5:00PM on July 13th. On the date Mr. Payne signed the Oregon plea agreement, the Nevada offer was only in a draft format. Notably, the entire “statement of facts” section of the Nevada plea offer had been left blankWhen Mr. Payne arrived in Nevada, he was only then provided a “statement of facts” that Nevada prosecutors demanded he agree to in order to secure the deal. Subsequent negotiations have not been able to break through the differences between the parties in Nevada.

On the date he entered a guilty plea in Oregon, had Mr. Payne known all the terms of the deal in Nevada, he would not have signed the deal in Oregon.

Additionally, Mr. Payne’s case is unique in that he is being prosecuted simultaneously in two federal districts, in complex trials. This Court previously acknowledged that having Mr. Payne and his co-defendants be charged in both districts was “a most unusual situation the defendants are facing here.” The “unusual situation” of simultaneous prosecutions should be considered by the Court when weighing whether intervening circumstances in another case, in another district, are compelling to meet the “fair and just” standard. Because the parties and Mr. Payne were clear at the change of plea hearing that the “foundation” of the Oregon plea deal was reaching a similar deal in Nevada, the change in circumstances upon Mr. Payne’s arrival to the District of Nevada weigh in favor of granting withdrawal of his plea.

Ryan had been deceived by Nevada, and given an incomplete document, relying, instead, on verbal promises — which prove to be worthless.  He had been led to believe what the Nevada plea would entail, but found that it was not as represented.  He also had to consider the “most unusual situation” where he would have to prepare defenses in both states, while still detained, under guard, with limited access to attorneys, and nearly no access to those outside who may have been able to help him prepare his defense.

B.  Newly Discovered Evidence Was Provided After Mr. Payne’s Guilty Plea

Although many of the facts of what occurred at the Malheur Refuge are not in dispute, the legal significance attributed to those facts is highly disputedProof of a conspiracy requires intent. Thus, any and all statements of intent, motive, and purpose are extremely relevant to an ultimate determination of guilt.

Subsequent to the change of plea hearing, the government produced seven additional volumes of discovery to all co-defendants. Some of this new information was particularly germane to Mr. Payne. For example, it included a video that depicts Mr. Payne talking to many others at the Refuge on January 7, 2016. In the video, Mr. Payne is shown discussing the goals of the protest, discussions he and others previously had with Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, and Mr. Payne’s clear statements to alleged co-conspirators that they do not want violence. The existence of corroborating evidence of Mr. Payne’s non-violent intentions is a factor for the Court to consider when evaluating the effect of new evidence.

More significantly, prior to Mr. Payne’s change of plea hearing, the government had not disclosed the extent of its use, nor the names of confidential informants employed by the government to infiltrate meetings at the Refuge and elsewhere. It has now been revealed that some of the inculpatory [proving guilt] conduct and statements attributed to Mr. Payne apparently were made to confidential informants, a fact previously unknown to Mr. Payne. Had Mr. Payne and his counsel been aware of this basis for impeachment of the government’s potential witnesses, they could have evaluated the strength of the government’s case differently.

Newly discovered information need not be exculpatory in order to warrant withdrawal of a guilty plea. United States v. Garcia, 401 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that defendant need not “show that the new evidence exonerates him or that there is a reasonable probability he would not have been convicted had the case gone to trial”). Instead, the question is whether the new evidence “could have at least plausibly motivated a reasonable person in [the defendant’s] position not to have pled guilty had he known about the evidence prior to pleading.” Garcia, 401 F.3d at 1111–12. Again, in weighing whether newly discovered evidence provides a basis to permit Mr. Payne to withdraw his guilty plea, the Court must apply the standard liberally towards the relief he seeks.

If we understand that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, then we find that the government has provided, in Discovery, hard evidence of things that might have been said.  And, no evidence that might exist that would dispute the inculpatory evidence, so that there was a means of countering what had been provided.  Where having that which had not been provided might, at least, afford a fair hearing, might be the reason for pleading out of frustration, rather than fighting the battle in court.

C.  The Rule 11 Plea Colloquy Demonstrated that Mr. Payne Did Not Fully Agree to the Factual Basis for his Plea to Count 1

It is clear from his responses at the change of plea hearing that Mr. Payne had serious misgivings and reservations regarding the factual basis for his plea. His responses were equivocal, at best, regarding the factual basis and whether he believed he was really guilty of the crime. For example, Mr. Payne stated that “I have come to understand that folks who were — who work for the Government, that that Constitution ordained, perceived my actions as threatening or intimidating.” This followed a statement in which Mr. Payne said that his true intent in traveling to Harney County, Oregon was to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” He also stated that “as it has been presented to me,” it was his understanding that his conduct actually impeded federal officials through threat or intimidation. The only response regarding the factual basis that was unequivocal was a simple affirmative response (“I did, your Honor”) to the question pointed specifically towards whether he entered into an agreement to intentionally engage in conduct. The Court need not find that Mr. Payne’s plea was invalid to allow him to withdraw it. Oretega-Ascanio, 376 F.3d at 843. When the Court liberally applies the “fair and just” standard, it should consider, as a matter of fairness, that Mr. Payne was extremely equivocal in his responses regarding the factual basis for his plea. His equivocations, coupled with the pressure of the situation and the statement of his true intent to engage in lawful conduct, may also persuade the Court that Mr. Payne’s guilty plea should be withdrawn.

So, when you do not have the means, or evidence, to prove the truth, and the government, through discovery, has only provided that which offers no substantiation of the truth, you have little choice but to capitulate.  But, wait, the government was withholding that exculpatory evidence until after the plea agreement was signed.

So, it appears that those three conditions necessary for the Judge to grant his Withdrawal, are clearly supported in the Motion.

Finally, what Ryan is seeking is, “a trial by jury at a date and time to be determined.”

This is a rather interesting turn-around and creates an even more interesting dilemma for Judge Anna Brown.  It would be difficult to join Ryan with the remaining Oregon defendants, since their trial will be going on at the same time as the Nevada (Bundy) trial, in February.  This would require either rescheduling the next Oregon trial to avoid that conflict, or try Ryan separately, at some other time.

However, what led to this are the mountains of Discovery information, and then the Prosecutors feeding out only inculpatory evidence, leaving the defense attorneys to paint a rather dismal picture, concerning being able to obtain a not guilty verdict.  And, as pointed out, above, the threats of a 30-year sentence cannot even be considered, as they, unlike the plea agreement and transcript, are not a part of the Record.

This is just one more instance of chicanery by the government’s Department of Justice that leads to many thousands of plea agreements, and no fair hearing in court.  It also provides us even more insight into the technique of spying, not on foreign enemies or foreign governments, but on the people of this country;  Those  who tend to believe that the government continues to eliminate, piece by piece, those fundamental rights the Founders fought for, and then embodied in the Constitution, almost 230 years ago.


Note: There is an article, written by Ryan Payne, posted today, at “Bundy Affair“. It includes some discussion of the events related to the Burns event.


  1. […] In an article posted today, at “Burns Chronicles“, Ryan Payne has moved to withdraw his plea agreement, partially based upon trial based […]

  2. Paul Niblocksays:

    Once again, Gary, I have to thank you for your efforts. I have been more optimistic ever since the defense had started presenting their case and this latest news indeed increases that. I have never lost faith in Ryan nor the validity or righteousness of his and others involved actions, though I admit I started thinking he may have. I can only imagine life has been much stranger for him with a lot more time spent on introspection. It may not play out, but he should be a person remembered fondly by history.

  3. […] October 12, 2016, Ryan Payne submitted to the Court a Motion to Withdraw his Plea Agreement.  This was filed over two weeks before the Jury verdict (October 27, 2016), […]


Burns Chronicles No 34 – “shall enjoy the right… to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”

Burns Chronicles No 34
“shall enjoy the right… to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

As I watch these events unfold, I often compare them to the Constitution, as it is written — so that any man could understand it. But, when I try to fit the puzzle pieces into that image of what our Founding Fathers envisioned for us, they just don’t seem to fit.

The had decades of experience of the British government, whether Parliament or the Ministers, slowly encroaching upon their historical rights. So, when it came time to leave the Articles of Confederation behind, and to form a new limited government under the Constitution, they reflected on those encroachments, and both within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, provided such limitations as they saw fit. Their purpose was to exclude any governmental authority that could subordinate those rights.

In this instance, the amendment that we should concern ourselves with is the Sixth. It reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused [not defendant] shall enjoy the right… to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.

Putting that aside for a moment, we need to consider a couple of phrases that are probably well recognized, with regard to legal proceedings. First is “preponderance of evidence“, which is most often associated with civil actions, where there is not a crime, rather, a determination of which side is most likely to be correct in their claims.

Next is “beyond a reasonable doubt“. Now, this is only applicable to criminal cases and requires that the jury is unanimous in their determination of the guilt of the accused party. However, this doesn’t mean that when a criminal trial has “facts” that are in question, that the preponderance method shouldn’t be applied.

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose Witness “A” says that the Accused did something, and then Witness “B” says that they did not. Both are supposed to be relying on their personal knowledge, though there is always the question of the interpretation of an observation. Now, with both “A” and “B” providing conflicting “facts”, which shall the jury accept as proof?  Suppose, however, that there were a number of other observers to those facts. Let’s say that we have Witnesses “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, & “G”. Wouldn’t their testimony provide the jury the means to more readily make a determination as to what appears to be the correct “fact”?


Now, equating that with the absolute right embodied in that Sixth Amendment, the “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor“, we can easily understand what was intended. If there is no contest as to the facts, then perhaps no additional witnesses are necessary. However, the Amendment provides that you have the “compulsory” (required to be brought or asserted in a pleading because of having arisen from the occurrence that is the subject of litigation) right. So, if it is “required”, that is an imposition on the judiciary to assure that the right is recognized and secured. It is NOT a discretionary act of the judge; it is “compulsory“. To hell with what the Rules of Criminal Procedure might say to the contrary. How can a self-serving rule override the Constitution?

So, now we see both the role, and the necessity, of “preponderance of evidence“, as it applies to a criminal prosecution. And, we also see that the Founders contemplated such a perversion of justice in providing a means of preventing the government from pursuing the same course the British did.

Now, before we talk about the witnesses, we can first look at what excesses the government was allowed in their presentation of the government’s case. Remember, the government attorneys are all “working for a paycheck”. The Defendants are working for their future. The following is based upon hearsay. In the need to be able to provide a simple demonstration of the government’s deed during the trial, I relied on information from people that were present in Portland, though not present during the display of weapons and ammunition, they only heard about it. I trust that the details are close to the truth of the matter.

The government spent 5 hours over two days in a display that can be considered nothing less than “cumulative”.  The paraded 22 long rifles and 12 handguns, it is easily presented to the jury that there were “twenty-two long guns and twelve handguns recovered at the Refuge. Since they couldn’t tie the weapons to individuals, they didn’t need to provide the detail that they did, on each weapon. Now, “they were found…” would be sufficient for the jury to know what was found where.

Then there was the ammunition they found. They could have simply stated that 18,000 rounds were found, and briefly explain where those rounds were found and what caliber they were. The jury should have no problem with that picture. Instead, the government spent hours discussing the guns and parading plastic containers of those 18,000 rounds in front of the jury.  This was simply a display of exaggerating their performance to increase the juror’s emotional reaction to that evidence.

So, though the government has no “compulsory process“, the Court surely has no desire to diminish the theatrics of the process everybody had to endure.

When we look at what “compulsory process” has become, with regard to the Defendants, we get a different picture. They were denied the testimony of Governor Kate Brown, though she is the one that insisted on the federal government dealing with alleged criminal acts within state jurisdiction. They were denied FBI Special Agent Katherine Armstrong, who could testify as to how false information was included in the Criminal Complaint that was the foundation for the arrest warrants and subsequent Indictment. So, we will never know just how many fabrications were necessary to achieve the warrants and Indictment.

There were over 40 witnesses the Defendants wished to call “in [their] favor“. The judge has gone with the Prosecution’s arguments of “cumulative”, “irrelevant”, and even “hearsay”, when that testimony is of discussion that the potential witness had with some of the Defendants. It is such testimony that has made much of the government’s case. Only a handful of those witnesses called by the Defendants will be allowed to testify. And, when only one witness is allowed refute something a government witness has said, which one, “A” or “B”, will the jury rely upon during their deliberations?

Let’s add a rather interesting aspect to this whole scenario of witnesses. The government has admitted to having 15 informants involved in their investigation. However, only one of those informants has testified, and only one other has been identified but did not testify. So, we must wonder why the government paid people to be witnesses, then denies the Defendants the right to call those witnesses to testify.

Could those witnesses provide exculpatory testimony, demonstrating that what the Defendants claim to be the case really is what happened during those rather interesting days, while the citizens occupied the Refuge? Even more intriguing, would those informants be able to testify as to what their instructions were? Were they instructed to provoke or incite certain activity? What did they learn from their “handlers”?

However, unless Judge Brown allows that “compulsory process”, we will never know what might be kept from the jury.

What was the intention of the Founders? Was it to allow the Defendant that “compulsory process“, and then for the jury to decide as to relevance? Or, did they intend for a government appointed judge, being paid by that government, to determine relevance?

Let me quote from the Declaration of Independence:

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Why would they have had such a grievance? Why would they have written the Sixth Amendment? Was it because their concerns were much like those that are suggested in the foregoing?

Burns Chronicles No 35 – From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”

Burns Chronicles No 35
From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 25, 2016

Having obtained a copy of the Jury Instructions, as given to the jury in the U. S. v. Ammon Bundy, et al, by Judge Anna Brown.  I had sought them, as I was curious as to whether the instructions, at least, conform to the laws.  In Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute, an example of what is referred to as “Pattern Jury Instructions”, and how the wording of the instructions is contrary to the wording of the Statute.  So, let’s delve into Anna Brown’s mental state and cognitive abilities in advising the jury on the “letter of the law”.  (A PDF format of the Jury Instructions.  References will be to {page} number.)

What is the Law?

Regarding the obligation of the jury, with regard to their deliberations, on {4}, she says:

“Upon your return to the jury room, it is your duty to weigh and to evaluate all of the evidence calmly and dispassionately and, in that process, to decide what the facts are.  To the facts as you find them, you must apply the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with the law or not, which is just as you promised to do in the Oath that you took at the beginning of the case.”

John Peter Zenger was tried in a New York court, in 1735.  He had violated the written law on sedition by an article he had printed.  Though in violation of the working of the law, the jury acquitted him, and in so doing, vacated the law.

Later, when the Constitution was written, the jury’s action in that trial provided an understanding that the People were the final arbiters of the laws enacted by Congress, as the colonists did with regard to Crown written laws.

Now, I do not intend to discuss FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), though I would suggest that you would find them a source for what was intended to be the role of a jury in our justice system.  I am going to provide an historical context as to what “jury” meant in the age of the Founders, and what one State did to assure that the original intent would be adhered to.

Maryland ratified their Constitution on November 11, 1776.  From that Documents Declaration of Rights, we find:

III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances

XVII. That every freeman, for any injury done him in his person or property, ought to have remedy, by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.

XIX. That, in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the indictment or charge in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; to be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses, for and against him, on oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.

Now, those are the only references to juries, and I will suggest that it was understood by everyone, in all of the colonies, that the jury could judge both facts and law.  To support this, we also find that the People are the ultimate authority under that Constitution.

I. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.

II. That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof.

But, I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it, so let’s look at their 1867 Constitution.  This was ratified after the chaos and turmoil created by the Civil War.  Apparently, concerns over the acceptance of the past understanding of both the jury process and the authority of the People, we find these changes in the new Constitution, ratified on September 18, 1867.  Again, from the Declaration of Rights:

Article 1.  That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

So, they have the right (not the Legislature) to alter or reform.  However, it does not say how that would be accomplished.

So, since the power resides with the People, they have provided, and reinstituted, a means by which those laws enacted by the legislature can be judged by the people.

Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

For a final affirmation of what was intended, and readily understood, back in 1852, we have an “Essay on Trial by Jury“, by Lysander Spooner.  We find Spooner’s explanation of the right to judge the laws in Chapter I, Section I (page 4 of the PDF.):

“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”

He goes into a greater explanation, though I believe that this is sufficient for our purposes.  Unfortunately, today, the Rules being used by the Court allow the Judge to deny that which is in the Constitution, by the intent of the Founders, and clearly what was understood to be the right of the jury, without question.

However, as we see by the instructions, the Rules and the words of Judge Anna Brown obviously circumvent the intent of the Constitution.  And, isn’t that what this trial is about?

Later, on {4}, she says:

“Because you must base your verdicts only on the evidence and on the Court’s instructions, it remains essential that you not be exposed to any information about the case or to the issues it involves beyond what has been received here in open court in your presence and the presence of the parties.”

She reaffirms that her “instructions” must be obeyed, and, by the way, don’t think very hard.  I’ll do that for you”.

Government’s Use of Informants


On {12-13)}, we have the Judge vindicate some characters that are far more unscrupulous than any of the Defendants — by a long shot.

“You have heard evidence that one or more informants may have been involved in the government’s investigation in this case.  In order to investigate criminal activities, law enforcement officials may engage in stealth and deception, such as using informants who may assume the roles of members in an alleged conspiracy.”

I find it interesting that the “informants may have been involved“.  Heck, it has been admitted (stipulated) that they were involved.  Why couch that instruction in language that defies the testimony and evidence?  It seems likely that she does not want the jury even to think of the ramifications of a police state, where paid individuals infiltrate and spy on Americans, and then have the audacity to claim it is gospel.  The question as to whether their efforts are rewarded on performance, and the more dirt they get the more compensation they receive.  Nor does it preclude the possibility, since they have already given up their integrity in favor of the police state, and be willing to lie to increase that payment.

It is also worthy to note that the Court, in a sidebar, acknowledged that there were 15 informants, though by stipulation, the Defendants could only acknowledge nine of them.  After all, it would look far worse if informants numbering over twice their number, instead of a paltry 2-person advantage, outnumbered the seven people on trial.

The Written Word

Given that the law is composed of written words, it should be those words and what they intended that controls the Jury.  It is those words that, of themselves, should be the objective of the determination of the Jury as to the validity of the law.

So, let’s look at some of the Counts that the jury is charged with determination as to whether each of the parties is guilty, or not.  If someone is named in a Count, then that person, and any others named therein is a separate deliberation.  In some instances, we will have to look to the past to understand the intent, and we will also have to look at a legal definition that applies to us, though the government redefines that same word when it works to their benefit.

The General Charges:

On {13-14}:


The government has charged the Defendants, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, and Neil Wampler, with committing various crimes in violation of three different criminal statutes as follows:

In Count One the government charges each of these Defendants with “Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States” in violation of 18 United States Code § 372.

In Count Two the government charges Defendants Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, David Lee Fry, and Jeff Wayne Banta with Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation of 18 United States Code § 930(b). You may recall at the beginning of this trial I told you Count Two was also pending as to Defendant Shawna Cox. Count Two as to Shawna Cox is now no longer before you. Do not speculate about why that charge is no longer part of this trial.

In Count Four the government charges Defendant Kenneth Medenbach with Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.

In Count Five the government charges Defendant Ryan Bundy with Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.

Please note that Count Three is not pending in this trial.

Now, you will note that Count One has seven Defendants, Count Two has four Defendants, Count Four has one Defendant, and Count Five has one Defendant.  Therefore, the Jury is, in a sense, deliberating on 13 different cases — Each Defendant, singularly, to each Count that he is charged with.

Note, also, the wording of the violation within each Count.  There will be even more detail, below, but, then, this is where it gets really interesting.

However, a final comment, before we proceed:

On {16}, we find a simple statement:

An informant may not be considered a co-conspirator. Thus, the acts and statements of an informant cannot form the basis of an illegal conspiracy or be attributed to any Defendant.

So, these are not even law enforcement officers, yet they have immunity from being charged with criminal activity that you or I could be charged with.  Now, that is police state reasoning.

Count One

From {17-19}:

As noted, each of the Defendants are charged in Count One with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States in violation of 18 United States Code § 372. In order for any Defendant to be found guilty of Count One, the government must prove as to that Defendant each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, beginning on or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through on or about February 12, 2016, there was an agreement between two or more persons, and an object of that agreement was to prevent an officer or officers of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of his or her office by force, intimidation, or threat; and

Second, the particular Defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of that objective and specifically intending to help accomplish it.

Now, we have all heard the legal expression, “on or about”, but here we have three months and one week in which the alleged crime occurred.  I understand that her instructions sort of, kind of, explain it, but if someone is charged with a crime, shouldn’t the day, with reasonable tolerance, be necessary to establish that a crime had been committed?  Or, is it sufficient to just sort of throw the whole darned calendar in and say that it happened on one of those days?

Now, is arrival at the Refuge proof of involvement in the conspiracy?  If so, would that date, or at least the day that the accused became hardcore is indispensable to the charge?  How can the jury determine if someone did something, when the jury really doesn’t know exactly when they did it?  Or, is our justice system based on the guess/opinion of law enforcement officers?

However, this gets even better.  There is an article that covers this aspect more extensively at “Officer?  What Officer?“.  However, we will address the short version, here.  To do so we must first look at the wording of the Statute:

18 U.S.C. § 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Now, we are a nation of laws, and those laws are written so that we can, as the People, read and understand just what the law is.  Not what some judge wants it to be, since then we would be a nation of men, not of laws.

You will note that the law says “officers”, it does not say employees.  However, on {19}, she provides a redefinition of officers:

The term “officer of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management” means any person who is employed either full-time or part-time by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or Bureau of Land Management.

So, she has redefined “officer” to include secretaries, custodians, and even part-time employees, as officials of government.  However, if you decide to read “Officer?  What Officer?“, you will see that “officer” is a much higher level of employee than what the Judge has decided (rule of man) to force upon the jury, in their deliberations {21-22}.


As noted, Defendants Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, David Lee Fry, and Jeff Wayne Banta are charged in Count Two with Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation of 18 United States Code § 930(b). In order for any of these Defendants to be found guilty of Count Two, the government must prove as to that Defendant each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, beginning on or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, the particular Defendant possessed or caused to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon;

Second, in a federal facility;

Third, the particular Defendant acted knowingly; and

Fourth, the particular Defendant — or someone the Defendant intentionally aided and abetted — acted with the intent that the firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime (in this case the Count One charge of Conspiring to Impede Officers of the United States) at least in part within that federal facility.

A defendant may not be found guilty of Count Two unless he or she is found guilty of Count One. If your verdict on Count One is “not guilty” as to a particular Defendant, then your verdict on Count Two must also be “not guilty” as to that Defendant.

The term “federal facility” means a building or part of a building owned or leased by the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

She then further defines this Count Two in more detail {23-24}:

FirstPossession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities, as defined in these Instructions, was committed by someone;

Secondthe Defendant aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured that person with respect to at least one element of Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities;

Thirdthe Defendant acted with the intent to facilitate Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities, as defined in these instructions; and

Fourth, the Defendant acted before the crime was completed.

Note that the second set seems to suggest “aiding, counseled, commanded, induced or procured“, however, we find no such wording in the Statute (below).  We have to wonder just how Judge Anna Brown makes this stuff up.

So, let’s look at what the Statute says, though with irrelevant paragraphs omitted, and qualifying paragraphs included:

18 U.S. Code § 930: Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(g) As used in this section:

(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

By omission, the Judge has left the jury with a total misunderstanding of the law.  Some information can be found in “Firearms Not Allowed“, which will explain that the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in their brochure, stated that firearms come under State law.

Now, the Indictment addresses only paragraph (b), and the instructions, in both First and Second, say:

“possessed or caused to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon… in a federal facility”

The Third and Fourth give us:

“Defendant acted knowingly… acted with the intent that the firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime (in this case the Count One charge of Conspiring to Impede Officers of the United States).”

I believe it was rather gracious and surprising, that the qualifier of having to be found guilty of Count One was included.  However, she leaves the jury with an impression that it is illegal to possess a firearm in a federal facility.

For example, (a) makes it illegal, without the crime aspect, subject to the exceptions in (d)(3), which makes that “other lawful purposes” demonstrates that possession in such a facility is an accepted practice.  Then (h) provides that the property must be posted.

If the jury had such information, would they be less likely to find someone guilty?  After all, the Second Amendment, as was attested to in Court, provides that the Defendants had every right to possess those firearms, providing a completely different standard to the jury, upon which to weigh any aspect of firearm possession.

At least, given the entire Statute, the jury could determine, supposing that someone was found guilty of Count One, whether their possession of a firearm at the Refuge would have been within the acceptable provisions of the Statute, or was specifically with criminal intent.  As the Judge gave it, if they were Guilty of Count One, they would also be guilty of Count Two.

Count Five

This Count charges Ryan Bundy with theft of a camera, or cameras.  However, the evidence shows that the cameras were retained and made available for the FBI to pick them up at a press conference, or at any other time, at the Refuge.

So, perhaps we should start with “theft” in common legal usage — which would apply to you, or to me.  This is from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Theft.  A popular name for larceny.  The taking of property without the owner’s consent.  People v. Sims, 29 III.App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, 179.  The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consentwith intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.

It is also said that theft is a wider term than larceny and that it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession of property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker’s own use is guilty of a “theft”.  Kidwell v. Paul Revere Fire Ins. Co., 294 Ky. 833, 172 S.W.2d 639, 640; People v. Pillsbury, 59 Cal.App.2d 107, 138 P.2d 320, 322.

Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.

See also Auto theft; Embezzlement; Extortion; Intimidation; Larceny; Robbery; Theft by false pretext.

There was never any intent to convert the property to the use of Ryan Bundy, or any other person at the Refuge.  The offer to return the property was made within hours of the removal of the cameras.

Now, as far as consent, well, there was no name on the cameras, so there was only an assumption that they were owned by, or under contract to the FBI.  However, let’s look at what you might do if someone were spying on you.  Suppose you found an audio “bug” in your house.  You don’t know who it belongs to, but you assume that it is either a private contractor (private eye) or the government.  Now, if you took it down, is it stolen?  Suppose you put a sign on your front door, “Bug Found, will return to the owner upon proof of ownership.  Please enquire within.”  Have you stolen it?

Now, if you sold it, or managed to connect it to your Smartphone, for your own use, then, well, you have stolen it.

However, let’s, once again, look at the Statute that Ryan Bundy is charged with:

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

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

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

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

Well, I can find nothing in that Statute that is applicable to the circumstances of the charges made against Ryan Bundy.

So, now, let’s look at how the Judge decided to instruct the jury, with regard to his Count {25-26}.

First, the Defendant knowingly stole or converted to his own use or the use of another cameras and related equipment, with the intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of this property;

Secondthe cameras and related equipment belonged to the United States; and

Third, the value of the cameras and related equipment was more than $1,000.00.

A person acts “knowingly” if the person is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident.  You may consider evidence of a Defendant’s words, acts, or omissions, along with all of the other evidence, in deciding whether a particular Defendant acted knowingly.

A person acts “with the intention of depriving” the owner of the property if the person has a purpose or conscious desire to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property.

Now, note that in the First, it begins with the “stole or converted to his own use or the use of another”, while the Statute says, “Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another.”

So, both the instructions, which were somewhat ambiguous, and the Statute are contrary to the word “theft”, as it would apply if something were stolen from you or me.  However, we can look to the definition of “with the intention of depriving“, which was never the purpose of the actions by Ryan and others.  Their sole purpose was to protect themselves from intrusive spying being conducted on them, and nobody has come forward with a warrant to allow that spying by the federal government.

For a final thought on the legality of the government spying, the camera was mounted on a public road.  To install those cameras, it would require both a “right-of-way utilization permit” and permission from the owner of the poles that they were mounted on, to be legal.  The government has shown no proof of either, nor have they shown proof that the cameras were owned by the government.  They simply want not to have to answer those questions to the jury, so the issues are obfuscated in the Jury Instructions.

How did we convert (not for our own use or the use of another) the Rule of Law into a system that has become a Rule of Man?  Or, in this instance, woman, who converts the written word into something that it was never intended to be the law that was enacted by the Legislative Branch of Government — the Congress?


In the final portion of the 30 pages Jury Instructions, we find what is probably the most problematic portion of the document.

We have all taken multiple-choice quizzes.  So, what happens when you find that your answer lies somewhere between two choices, or not at all?  Now, when the courts decided to give a simple yes or no worksheet for determination of guilt, what happens if your answer is somewhere between the two?  So, here is that Instruction {29-30}:

A separate verdict form has been prepared for you to complete as to each Defendant.  After you have reached a unanimous agreement as to the verdict for each Defendant, your Presiding Juror should complete the verdict forms as you have agreed, sign and date them, and then advise the Courtroom Deputy that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

In the forms I have seen, before, it would have a statement such as, “If you find that Mr. X did hold a weapon, you must find him guilty”.  Have we become so dumbed down that we cannot, as a jury, rely on the law and the facts, and then judge both?

Let’s look at it this way.  We are supposed to obey the laws.  The laws are written in English.  Those few remaining Americans who speak English should be able to understand the laws, as they are written.  So, if they are the laws that we are supposed to read, understand, and then obey, why does the Jury have to have someone interpret them into terms that the Defendants are bound by at trial?  Bottom line is that the Jury is not judging the by the law, rather, by what the government wants the law to be.

Challenging that same government for subversion of the Constitution and denial of the enumerated rights of speech, assembly, and redress of grievances has resulted in the government, through chicanery at trial, proving the point that was being addressed when those Americans entered the Refuge back on January 2, 2016.


One Comment

  1. […] XXXV. From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!” [10/25/16] […]


Burns Chronicles No 36 – Words from the Poor Losers

Burns Chronicles No 36
Words from the Poor Losers


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2016

Quite often, while writing an article, my heart is heavy over the actions of government that is suppressing the rights that are our birthright, as posterity of the Founding Fathers.  However, as I sit at my keyboard, today, it is with a sense of pleasant surprise and extreme joy that so many felt, yesterday, when the verdict was announced in the Ammon Bundy, et al, trial.

The pleasant surprise comes because for the first time in over twenty years of watching Patriots stand trial for pretend crimes, the jury came back with a verdict that was not what the government wanted.

In a recent article, “The Bundy Affair – #16 – The Legal Shotgun“, I explained how there is a tendency for juries to find defendants guilty of something, especially when many charges, or counts, are a part of the prosecution.  This seems to be based upon the infallibility of government.  If they say that someone did something wrong, then we, the jury, must find them guilty of doing something wrong.

The jury found that though the government tried, desperately, to prove “intent”, they saw an “effect” in the matter of government employees failing to go to work during the occupation.  Interestingly, as explained in another article, “Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer?   What Officer?“, the law that was cited in the Indictment applied only to “officers”, not “employees”.  So, the jury being denied that information, what the law really is, still found no cause of intent, on the part of the defendants, to have kept any employee from doing their duty.

Before we move on to extreme joy, we will lay a foundation for a better understanding of what led to the exultation.  And, it is mostly predicated upon the various government bureaucrats’ reaction to the verdict.


We will start with News Release from the FBI, the investigators and shooters in the events of this past January, with a statement by United States Attorney Billy J. Williams, in charge of the prosecution for the government (emphasis mine):


News Release from FBI – Oregon
Posted on FlashAlert: October 27th, 2016 5:24 PM

United States Attorney’s Office Press Release
USAO Contact: Kevin Sonoff
(503) 727-1185

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal jury today delivered its verdicts against seven defendants charged with conspiracy, possession of firearms on federal property, and theft during the 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  Jurors found Ammon Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, and Neil Wampler not guilty on all counts.  Jurors found Ryan Bundy not guilty on charges of conspiracy and possession of firearms, but were unable to reach a verdict on the charge of theft.

Co-defendants Jason Blomgren, Brian Cavalier, Blaine Cooper, Eric Flores, Wesley Kjar, Corey Lequieu, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Ryan Payne, Jon Ritzheimer, Geoffrey Stanek, and Travis Cox previously pled guilty.  Co-defendants Dylan Anderson, Sandra Anderson, Sean Anderson, Duane Ehmer, Jason Patrick, Darryl Thorn, and Jake Ryan will stand trial beginning February 14, 2017.  Charges against co-defendant Peter Santilli were previously dismissed.

While we had hoped for a different outcomewe respect the verdict of the jury and thank them for their dedicated service during this long and difficult trial,” said Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon.  “We strongly believe that this case needed to be brought before a Court, publicly tried, and decided by a jury.  Despite the verdict reached, I want to personally thank all of the law enforcement personnel who worked tirelessly to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Malheur occupation.  I also want to thank the residents of Burns, Hines, and Harney County and members of the Burns Paiute Tribe for their patience and resolve throughout this process.”

“For many weeks, hundreds of law enforcement officers — federal, state, and local — worked around-the-clock to resolve the armed occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge peacefully.  We believe now — as we did then — that protecting and defending this nation through rigorous obedience to the U.S. Constitution is our most important responsibility,” said Greg Bretzing, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oregon.  “Although we are extremely disappointed in the verdict, we respect the court and the role of the jury in the American judicial system.”

The case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Geoffrey Barrow, Ethan Knight, and Craig Gabriel, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Oregon.

Note that the government still calls it an “armed occupation”, though later they also say that they “respect the court and the role of the jury”.  They suggest that they will still hold the remaining defendants who “will stand trial beginning February 14, 2017”.  I guess they haven’t yet realized that if the ringleaders are not guilty, then it is simply a waste of time and taxpayer money (so far over $100,000,000 has been spent in this persecution) to do so.  But, maybe they are trying to pull a victory out of defeat.

They talk about the “law enforcement personnel who worked tirelessly to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Malheur occupation“.  Do they not realize that this whole thing really began with the Murder of LaVoy Finicum, definitely not a peaceful event.  And then after the verdict, Marcus Mumford was thrown to the floor by five US Marshal goons, then tazed, right there in the “halls of justice”, while the judge was only concerned with appearances when she ordered the courtroom cleared.  (Here is a short, 2’40” video of Mumford explaining what happened).  Then, David Fry, who was found not guilty by the jury, was handcuffed and put in a solitary holding cell, where he sat for hours before he was “processed out” as a free man, effectively saying that the government still retained him incarcerated.

So, we have an event that occurred over an extended period of time.  The sides began to clash over a shooting that was not peaceful, and the final act in the first trial ended in an act that was not peaceful.  The Defendants perpetrated neither of these acts — the government perpetrated both.  Boy, the spinnever stops.

Now, the real kicker in this press release is a statement by Greg Bretzing, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oregon, when he says, “that protecting and defending this nation through rigorous obedience to the U.S. Constitution is our most important responsibility.”  Especially when that Constitution that he was “protecting and defending… through rigorous obedience to the U.S. Constitution“, and the Court absolutely refused to let the word “Constitution” be spoken during the trial.

Next, we can look at the press release of Harney County Sheriff David Ward, a key player, and supposed lawful authority in Harney County.  His statement is quite brief:


October 27, 2016

I have been notified of the not guilty verdict in the United States Federal trial of Ammon Bundy and other individuals involved in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover.

While I am disappointed in the outcome, I believe our form of government and justice system to be the best in the world.  These folks were tried in a court of law and found not guilty by a jury of their peers.

This is our system and I stand by it.

David M. Ward
Barney County Sheriff

However, Sheriff Ward assumed guilt by his participation, and submission, to federal overreach.  The fact that he was “disappointed” is indicative of his belief that he was right and the jury was wrong.  Then, considering how weak he has been through the entire ordeal that comes as no surprise.

Next, we hear from, well:

Governor Kate Brown

Statement regarding the Malheur Refuge Occupation trial:

“While I respect the jury’s decision, I am disappointed.  The occupation of the Malheur Refuge by outsiders did not reflect the Oregon way of respectfully working together to resolve differences.  I appreciate the due diligence of our federal partners and stand with the communities of Harney County and residents of Burns.

Governor Kate Brown”

She begins by “respect[ing] the jury’s decision“, but in the same breath, says that she is “disappointed“.  How utterly condescending can one be, especially with that being her opening statement?  She then refers to those in the Refuge as “outsiders“, but rather than dealing with those “outsiders” as the Governor of Oregon, she calls in some other outsiders, the federal goons, to deal with what is, and as determined by the jury, not a federal problem.  Civil eviction, under state law, would be the proper remedy.  But, well, what kind of governor is she?  Now, she can refer to the other outsiders as “federal partners“, but those many supporters in Harney County, and from other parts of Oregon, are not allowed to have the support of their partners, the Defendants.  Finally, we can look at her reference to “resolv[ing] differences“, and wonder why nobody was willing to address the “Redress of Grievances” that included her as one of the addressees of that obvious “difference”.  She simply ignored the “differences” that she suggests are “the Oregon way“.


Finally, let’s look at what the operators of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge have to say:

While we are profoundly disappointed in the outcome of the trial, we are eager to move forward.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to the security, healing and comfort of our Malheur National Wildlife Refuge employees and the Harney County communities they serve, and to continue strengthening the collaborations and positive relationships cited throughout this trial.

Dan Ashe
Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Jason Holm
Assistant Regional Director–External Affairs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region

Again, we find that they “are profoundly disappointed” in the verdict.  However, they are “committed to the security, healing and comfort of our Malheur National Wildlife Refuge employees“.  Dan Ashe, also tells us, in a February Oregon Live video (3’15” @ 2’06”), the direct cost of the occupation was $2,000,000.  Then, he tells us that the direct cost includes the “relocation of 17 employees who received threats, along with their families and expenses, to Portland, Bend, or Seattle, for their safety, to live in hotels.”

There is no indication that any of those “employees” suffered (though they may feel “offended” and need a safe space) and need any “healing”.  After all, they did not lose a day’s pay, during the entire event.  And, at least one of those employees visited that Refuge during the occupation, though that testimony was never presented to the jury.

What stands out is that they who have taken an oath to the Constitution, and are paid by the government the Constitution created, are so “disappointed” when the Constitution is adhered to.  They attempt to transfer the responsibility back on the defendants.

However, they do want to transfer any sympathy from those who spent 9 months in jail, paid thousands of dollars for their defense, and suffered undue hardship at the hands of local, state, and the federal government.  They don’t address the “security” of the Defendants and their families — especially financial security — as they lost their jobs and source of their sustenance.  They offer nothing with regard to the “healing” that the Defendants and their families will have to achieve only among themselves, their friends, and supporters.  They have offered nothing in the way of “comfort“, especially Jeanette Finicum, who lost her husband, at the hands of those seeking to resolve the armed occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge peacefully” or “respectfully working together to resolve differences“.

None of them has extended a hand of care, or an APOLOGY, for the hardships that they have imposed on others, as is truly warranted based upon the verdict of the jury — that process that they claim to revere as our constitutional form of government.  They are nothing more than hypocritical leeches, sucking at the government teat.


  1. Trena Schuster says:

    Even with the victory the Federal Government still treats the American public like something they are trying to scrap off their boot. I also believe that these men and women that stood together in this fight, prove that “We the People” are not as STUPID as the Government claims we are. Now we need to challenge the Hammond’s 1st and 2nd conviction, Bundy’s and supporters out of Jail, Mr Robertson, in Colorado, etc, etc, etc, My Neighbor is more important than the Government’s interests.

    • Victor Klinger says:

      I agree with all of the above that the Federal Government has got all of these and more people under their thumb. The Governor, Dave Ward, the Judge all of whom have taken an oath to protecting the constitution and is eveidence for impeachment or removal from their positions they presently hold. It has become evident that it is the federal govenment agenda to have the constitution disqlified as the premable that controls how they operate. It’s call treason against the United States of Ameiica. The patriots did every thing right in the take over in burns ,some of you ask how or what do you mean, because the fedetral government is guilty of causing tyrany against the farmers in Harney County trying to get people thru force to think the constitution has no meaning, and no force. All of the people involved in this mess trying to stop the patriots have violated their oath of office and they will never stand behind the people in the US. They are all worthless. So now all of us can learn a lesson here when some one say that our constitution dosen’t hold water instantly we should defend the constitution to the point of Levoye Finican did with his life he knew that at all cost we have to defend the constitution and remove any one that stands in the way for or life our childrens lives for every one. The actions of the people that could have stoped all of this should be asshamed for what they have done and we need the removed from our government at any cost they are the comunist that have started this war and we need to finish it now.

  2. Deborah says:

    I love reading your articles. Amazing as always. “Barney” County Sheriff’s is hilarious. BUHAhahahaha. Perfect! There was not a peaceful resolution as these fake federal/government POS like to claim. I anxiously await sweet victory of lawsuits to follow. Jeanette needs to not pay another dime to an attorney and her investigators need to know that it was FBI or OSP that killed her husband. It was mercenaries.

  3. […] after the verdict in the first Oregon Conspiracy trial, I wrote Words from the Poor Losers.  It was based upon statements made by government ‘officials’ who were upset over the […]

  4. […] XXXVI. Words from the Poor Losers [10/29/16] […]


Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect

Burns Chronicles No 37
Intent v. Effect


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 30, 2016

There has been no substantial interview regarding the deliberations that resulted in 12 Not Guilty Verdicts, and One Verdict where the jury could not get consensus.  However, we do have a bit of information that is probably the most critical single piece with regard to understanding just what happened that led to those verdicts.

Juror #4, the juror that brought Judge Brown the indication of bias by Juror #11, has stated that the government failed to show that the occupiers had the intention to impede the government employees.  That the failure of the employees to report to the Refuge may have been an effect of the occupation.  Since the Jury Instructions required the government to prove “intent”, the jury had to find them Not Guilty, at least with regard to Counts One and Two.  In a written statement, Juror #4 said, “All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation.”  The difference between “effect” and “intent”, then, becomes the foundation for this article.

However, first, a bit of an explanation.  I seldom bring politics into any of my articles, however, to put this situation in a proper context, I think it is necessary to do so, now.  Whether what I am going to bring to your attention had anything to do with their verdict, or not, is yet to be known.  If it was not considered, then the irony of the comparison still should be of interest to all.

Addressing those matters that were brought to our attention, this past Friday, regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server and the possibility that criminal pedophiliac material may have gone through that server.  That material could possibly be emails from former Representative Anthony Weiner (New York (D)), through his wife, Muslimah Huma Abedin*, through Hillary’s rather suspicious email server, to an underage girl.

* Huma Abedin – Former deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and still a prominent figure in Hillary’s campaign for President.

If that were the case, then suspicion of such activity would warrant, as in all pedophile investigations, the seizure of phones, computers, photographs, records, and almost anything that might prove to be evidence of criminal activity.

At present, there is no public knowledge of the suggested connection, FBI Director James Brien “Jim” Comey, Jr., has advised Congress that the Clinton email scandal investigation has been reopened.  Rather ironically, this information comes out the day after the Verdict of Not Guilty in the Ammon Bundy trial.

However, this email scandal had its roots back on July 5, 2016, when Comey stated that, “[W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton, or her colleagues, intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information…” (video).  In his almost unprecedented statement, he recommended that the Justice Department not prosecute, because of the absence of intent.

However, it appears that the Jury in the Bundy trial had more sense than either Comey or Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the Oregon District.  Comey chose not to prosecute and Williams, probably based on the recommendation of Greg Bretzing, FBI SAIC, chose to prosecute.  All three ignored what even a blind man could see.


Criminal activity should be judged on intent.  If an act is done inadvertently, with no intention of the act being criminal, then it should not be criminal.  However, the government has not been known to play that way.  Especially with patriots.  But, that is exactly what Clinton did.  She set up her private server, she conducted communication with her staff, and others, she allowed others who also worked for the government, to access her computer, and she let those with no ties to the government not only have access, but to maintain, the server.

That’s almost like saying, I jammed the door to the bank so that they couldn’t lock it, but I had no intention of robbing the bank.  When the means to create criminal activity are conducted, they become the intent.  Neither the jammed door nor the private server were accidental.

On the other hand, those who occupied Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) conducted their activities in the open.  Anybody that wanted to visit was allowed to visit.  Anybody who wanted to eat was allowed to eat.  Anybody who wanted to spend the night was allowed to spend the night.  Only those whose behavior might be of concern for the safety of others were asked to leave.

The government enlisted 15 people to inform on those who occupied the MNWR.  At least nine of them actually visited the Refuge and were treated equally with everyone else.  They were supposed to “get dirt” on the principals.  However, they could get no “dirt”, so the government never called them to testify.  The Defendants, however, saw a benefit to having two of the informants testify on their behalf.

On the other side of Burns, at the Airport, the FBI set up their “headquarters”.  There were numerous battle dressed guards on duty at the gates and questioned anyone that approached them.  Their operation was about as secretive as you could get, and access was denied to all but those chosen soldiers of the government.

When the activity of those at MNWR and those at the airport are compared, which of the two groups reeks of intent?  Which one reeks of armed force?  Which one reeks of conspiracy?

However, at the other location, the jury clearly understood that there was no intent of conspiracy, and that the government employees would be as welcome as anybody else would, though they stayed away as an effect of the occupation, not as a result of it.

When that government, established to serve the people, determines to serve itself, it has failed its purpose.  When that government turns its forces to persecute those who challenge its abuse, intending to make political prisoners of them, it has failed in its purpose.  When that government, created by the Constitution, refuses to abide by that Constitution, it has failed in its purpose and has become despotic.

But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotismit is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Addendum (October 30, 2016)

In the article, I had taken some available information that seemed to suggest that Weiner had used Hillary’s server to send email to an underage female.  This may still be true, but the bigger story is that Huma Abedin had been sending highly classified documents to her own server that she shares with her husband, Anthony Weiner.

Huma, being an avowed Muslim, may well have sent some of the documents to her friends in Muslim countries.  She may also have provided herself and Weiner some “life insurance”, though it appears that that policy may have just expired.

One Comment

  1. […] XXXVII. Intent v. Effect [10/30/16] […]


Burns Chronicles No 38 – If You Can’t Continue To Punish Those Who Are Not Guilty, Then Punish Their Attorney

Burns Chronicles No 38
If You Can’t Continue To Punish Those Who Are Not Guilty,
Then Punish Their Attorney


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 4, 2016

On October 27, 2016, in a Federal Court in Portland, Oregon, Not Guilty Verdicts were read by the Court and affirmed by the Jury.  Shortly thereafter, a rather interesting and unusual event occurred.

One of the ex-Defendants, Shawna Cox, described what happened when the Jury was excused:

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

As we stood for the Jury to leave the room, I watched in disbelief as the Judge told us to all sit down and remain seated while the US Marshalls removed Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and David Fry from the room.

We were still standing and Mr. Mumford raised both of his arms and leaning down into the microphone on the desk in front of him he said to the Judge:  “NO Your Honor.  These men are leaving this room with me, as FREE Men!  The Jury has just acquitted them and they are free to leave!”

Judge Brown responded, “The Marshalls are going to take them back to the jail.”

Mumford said:  “You Honor, the jury has just rendered the Not Guilty verdict, and you have no more jurisdiction, do you?”

Judge Brown responded, “Stop yelling at me Mr. Mumford, don’t ever yell at me again, ever.  And No, I don’t.  But the US Marshalls are going to retain them until they are returned to Nevada to stand trial there.”


Then Mumford said:  “I have looked all day yesterday and all this morning and I can find no warrant for their arrest.  Show me the paper!  They were taken into custody the first time with no Warrant and you are not going to do it again!  Show me the warrant!  Show me the paper!”

Judge Brown said: “There is probably paper somewhere”.

During all this conversation, the US Marshalls had moved in close around Mr. Mumford who was still standing in his position behind the court table.  There were five of them and more moving in.  Mr. Mumford turned toward them still with his hands up and one of the Marshalls grabbed him by the left arm and another immediately grabbed his right arm and pulled him from behind the desk as they all began to push and pull at him.

One Marshall dropped him to his knees while another pushed him to the floor and put a knee into his back.  Other Marshalls had moved in and now there was a total of eight.  One Marshall on each arm and I could see his hands still open and up while another Marshall is telling him to put his arms behind his back.  It was not possible with officers holding his arms.

Then, I saw them shove his head to the floor as he said, “I’m not resisting!”  One Marshall had his left leg and was twisting his foot and leg (I was surprised at the stripped colorful sock Mumford was wearing) as his pant leg fell toward his knee.

This upset me and I was yelling: “What are you doing?  What’s the matter with you?”  Our victory just went out the window, and I was furious!!

More Federal Agents came rushing from the back of the room as the Judge yelled:  “Everybody Out!  Clear the Courtroom!”  They rushed us out of there, but not before I saw a Marshall taze Mr. Mumford and I heard Mumford say, “You are hurting me!”

I was looking back in shock and horror and did not want to leave him there.  I wanted to help him!  I was very angry

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

At that point, the reaming Defendants and attorneys were removed from the room.

Could a mature Judge have dealt with this matter without resorting to force?  Heck, I thought that was what our judicial system was all about.  Reasoned discussion, then conclusions.  However, that is not what happened when the simply question of legal authority arose.

The Federal Protective Services then took Marcus Mumford into custody.  He was cited for failure to comply with a federal lawful order and disturbance and released with a January 6 date to return to federal court.

When the government loses a case that might have been the “Trial of the Century”, they, like spoiled children, throw a tantrum.  In this case, the tantrum was thrown at one of the few attorneys that really made a difference in this case — by their persistence and pursuit of justice.

And, as so often happens, the government is the victim and Mumford has to return to court after the first of the year — unless the anticipated legal filings result in a dismissal, before January 6, 2017.




  1. Lynn says:

    Shameful and CLEARLY shows just how far down the gutter the court system has gone. I’ve read from many other sources who are absolutely shocked at this behavior! They’d better NOT get away with it–from the Judge’s antics to the U.S. Marshalls! Just disgusting!

  2. Amazing how the Radicals in the Federal no justice system react when people / lawyers bring up little things like LAW.. Papers.. authority… they turn into beasty terrorist mode like unto Saudi Arabia or Red China courts. This is Obama / Clintons style of ruling.. Not Constitutional, but Tyranical! I hope Mumford Sues them all, for abuse of power, kidnapping his clients (no warrants / legal right to keep them in prison) and sues the whole place for millions.. for their lawlessness… Obvious the Federal US Marshalls involved in Oregon, Utah, Nevada, and other states out here in the west are more KGB / Gestapo than USA Marshalls, The Marshall system in America has been radicalized, they are oath breakers not keepers, and abuse their power with glee.. such is tyranny such is terrorism.. sad really I hope there is an audit of the Marshalls to bring them back to a place of honor, for at this moment they are a very dark and evil group of thugs..nothing more than mafia enforcers with a badge and a guns… terror and force is what they have done. In the Oregon standoff and Bundy ranch stand, lawless is what it is… some day there maybe a judgment day.. Nuremburg happened. remember that lawless leos..

  3. Sopater says:

    This is a tragedy, but at least they didn’t “LaVoy” him.

    I hope that Mumford brings charges and justice is served.

  4. Sharon Holmes says:

    Did anyone ever find a warrant from Nevada? Of course not, but the judge in Nevada is out for blood too, so she probably got a judge to issue them.

  5. Bill Goode says:

    The marshals, that beat & tazed Marcus Mumford, should be charged with assault. Anna Brown should be removed from her judgeship for allowing such abominable behavior in her courtroom by those who were there presumably to keep the peace in the courtroom.

    This just shows what a pathetic judge Anna Brown is, allowing this to actually take place in her courtroom.

    • Nathan B4 says:

      It wasn’t just Mumford who was beaten. While in a holding cell waiting for his release, David Fry was shackled then taken out of his cell, forced to the floor and beaten by US Marshals.

  6. question says:

    What exactly did Mumford do that “made a difference” in this case? I thought it was all the wisdom of the bundys that made the case. Were the lawyers actually helpful?

    • ghuntghunt says:

      Mumford simply tried to get Ammon to walk out of court a free man, like the others (with the exception of Ryan Bundy), since they were found “not guilty”. There was no outstanding warrant for either of the Bundys, and there was no legal paperwork that provided for the government to detain them, further. In a hearing a few weeks ago, it was determined that there was not a shared jurisdiction between the two courts. Absent a warrant, or that shared jurisdiction, they both should have been released.
      Nevada would have to issue an arrest warrant for their arrest and had the Marshall’s serve it in court, after the verdict for them to be legally detained.
      Mumford’s role in the trial was to “ring bells that could not be unrung”. With the very broad leeway shown to the prosecution, and the very rigid restrictions on the defense, Mumford risked contempt to say things that he normally wouldn’t have to. That helped, considerably in getting a message o the jurors that, had they complied with the judge’s discretion, would never have been heard.
      However, the verdict, though it did have some of those elements, was based primarily on the fact that the jury found that impeding officers may have been the effect, but that it was not the intent.

  7. God Is The One that made a difference and all the attorneys and defendants and the rest of US have been along for the ride,, and still are.
    Have we recognized Him and His Grace to bring us access to His Law if we will just put away ours and theirs and return to Him.
    God’s people’s enemies have never been able to stand before Us unless we were not right with God Our Father,,
    a very Jealous God He tells us that will not share His Glory with any other would be gods or Authorities.

  8. Lance Williamssays:

    The judge needs to be removed and the marshals know they were breaking the law need to be dismissed of their duties.


Burns Chronicles No 39 – Informants – What to do About Them

Burns Chronicles #39
Informants – What to do About Them


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 6, 2016

Recently, I watched a video of an interview with Terri Linnell that was couched into an in-studio, live “exposé”, purporting to prove that what Linnell had said was an “obvious lie”.  This whole program was based primarily on my article, “Burns Chronicles No 32 – Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)“, and the host’s subsequent interview with Terri.

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

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

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

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

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

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


I’ll skip to the third informant in the trial, since the nature of all three types is what this is about.  That informant is John Killman.  John’s real name is Fabio Minoggio.  According to his testimony, he was born in Switzerland and served 20 years in the Swiss Army.  He took donuts to the Refuge to ingratiate himself, and then provided training in military, self-defense, and even how to remove someone from a car.

He is single and has a 5-year-old son.  Minoggio is now an officer with the Hualapai Tribal Police, in Arizona.  Little more is known about him, except that he received “expenses”, but claims he was not paid by the FBI.

Now, let’s go to the one that has gained the most notoriety, Terri Linnell.  To do so, we must start at the beginning of her decision to testify, as what preceded this event is simply history, and of no consequence at this time.  What follows is from an interview I did with Terri.  If anyone chooses to dispute this, I would suggest that they come up with more than their personal opinion, or else keep their mouth shut.

Terri had tried to contact Mike Arnold, then Ammon’s attorney, during the summer.  Arnold’s office kept trying to get her to speak to one of the investigators.  She did not want to speak to the investigator; she would only speak with an attorney.  She was concerned if word got out that she was going to testify, the government might do something to stop her.

As the trial approached, Per Olsen’s activity caught her attention, so she called his office, and Per spoke with her.  She explained what her testimony would be, and, she advised him that she had been a paid informant for the FBI.  Her subpoena was delayed to give the government as little notice as possible.

When she arrived in Portland, she had meetings in the Witness Room, mostly with Amanda, a member of Marcus Mumford’s team.  They had no problem with what her testimony would be.  The fact that she was an FBI informant led to Amanda beginning to open the door and pursue investigating the informant matter.  Amanda began scrutinizing the 1203 forms and realized that there were many informants.  This resulting in the admission of the number of informants involved and the eventual identification and calling of Killman (Minoggio) to the stand. and he had no problem with what her testimony would be.  Neither had identifiable 1023 reports (FBI – CHS Reporting Document), since the documents in discovery had been heavily redacted.

Her testimony, among other things, cleared David Fry, Neil Wampler, and Shawna Cox, of ever having firearms in the “mess hall”.  It also provided testimony that that she heard of no suggestions of any violent activity.

The only downside was when, in cross-examination, she was asked, as the prosecuting attorney purportedly read from a 1023, whether the people had discussed going to other locations to occupy them.  She stated that she never said that.  So, to clarify the situation, as I know it, many residents in the surrounding area had come to the Refuge and asked for help in their communities.  This led to teams going out and explaining Committees of Safety, the Constitution, and land rights matters.  The idea was to get others thinking, not to provide an armed force to go to those communities.

Since that time, people have, without a real consideration of both the facts and the consequences of their actions in attacking Terri, have continued to attempt to discredit her, and possibly cause some misguided patriot to cause her physical harm.

Many have suggested that Terri’s testimony led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum.  Nothing she testified to could, in any way, shape, or form, led one to such a conclusion.  Then those naysayers say, well, she was working with the FBI.  However, as I have pointed out in a previous articles, Brandon Curtiss had agreed to help the Sheriff, whatever decision he made — with regard to the Hammonds.  It also appears that other alleged patriots passed on much intelligence information to the FBI or Sheriff.  We know that there were 15 informants involved.  Each of those since found out have, at least, claimed to be on the patriot’s side, such as McConnell and Killman.  Both their known and unknown activities had far more to do with raising tensions, especially within the minds of the government people, and would more likely be activities that help shape the situation that resulted in LaVoy’s death.

Mark was outed, Minoggio was tracked down, and Terri came forth voluntarily to try to help the defendants.  Mark actually played a hand in the activity that led to LaVoy’s death.  Minoggio’s role was simply to gather intelligence and create some “evidence”.  Terri’s role was simply to watch six people.  LaVoy wasn’t even on her list.

So, the most important questing is:

How Should the Patriot Community Deal with Informants?

Mark McConnell is a marked man.  Any patriot that thinks that Mark has sympathy for the patriot community deserves what may come to him by associating with Mark.  Simple ostracization is about the extent of what can, legally, be done to address the problem of this type of informant.  Ban himfrom any events, meetings, even discussions on Facebook and other social media cites.  Pretend as if he does not exist.  Then, he can return to the hole that he has dug for himself.

Fabio Minoggio aka John Killman is a foreigner.  Why he decided to go to Burns and become an informant for the government is unknown.  He chose not to use his own name, opting to use an American or Indian sounding name, John Killman.  He, like McConnell, should never be accepted into any patriot group, and should be treated just like the scourge that comes to this country, and then works against its people.

Terri Linnell is the one informant that we need to consider, very carefully, as to how we should look at her.  It is not really her that is to be considered, rather, it is this type of informant.  She had previously informed for the government, however, that back was broken when she chose to testify for the Defendants, even at the risk of exposing her role and relationship with the FBI.  When I asked her why she chose to testify, she said, “It was the right thing to do.”  So, what we have is an informant that has chosen to change sides.  She has chosen to give up the means to make a few extra dollars.  She has changed sides!

Now, let’s look at the ramifications of what she has done.  She has become an outcast, to some.  She is the subject of derision, and is constantly attacked on Facebook and Twitter.  We need not go into the character of those that lead, or participate, is such attacks, because that, in the end is inconsequential.

We need to look well beyond this recent event.  We know that there were 15 informants involved.  Three have been outed, and we have good leads on three more.  However, of all of them, only one has stepped back across the line — to the right side.  So, what becomes extremely important is what example we leave for the next informant that has questioned their participation in informing against patriots.  Do we offer them a comforting welcome?  “Hi!  Welcome.  We are pleased that you have decided that you were on the wrong side and come to join us.”

Or, do we discourage them from coming to our side — which leaves them on the wrong side — because, by example, we have said, “So, you decided to help us by admitting you were an informant.  But, since you are an informant, we will never accept you into our community.”  If we do this, we can rest assured that we have precluded having some that may help us; may, if they don’t come out in the open, even serve as a double agent; and, deny adding someone to our ranks, when we need every body that we can get.  We have forced them to remain our enemy, as there is no refuge, if they did want to leave the bad side.

We can spend hours trying to convince others that our cause is just, hoping to get them to understand the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.  Yet, unless we change our ways, we will reject those who, by their own participation, have seen what is right, and what is wrong.  We discourage them from making a decision that we spend hours trying to get another to make.

If we do not see the benefit of open arms, though that may never really include trust, we have, in a sense, become our own worst enemy.


The entire Burns Chronicles series of articles is listed and linked at Burns Chronicles



  1. Torch says:

    Snitches are a dying breed! But with everything that’s going on just about every group/organization has been infiltrated in one way or another. We are to an extent our own worst enemy. When Ammon and the others “took over” the refuge SO MANY “patriots” were bad mouthing them on social media it wasn’t even funny. Now that they’ve been found not guilty those same “patriots” are cheering that they’re not guilty. Instead of us descending on Oregon in the thousands in support of their stand or to bring those to justice who murdered LaVoy, everyone was busy arguing on social media. If there was a real convoy of multiple vehicles PACKED with witnesses I doubt what happened would’ve happened. It’s sad how people turn on each other and because of that it’s no surprise that groups are being infiltrated. Something that is troublesome to me is how people are more “upset” about people in the group making us look bad then they are about RATS running around. That to me is the biggest problem. Maybe it’s because I’m a New Yorker or maybe it’s the life I’ve lived, but I TRUST NO ONE. I prefer to be a “lone wolf” because 3 can keep a secret if 2 are dead.

  2. […] XXXIX. Informants: What To Do About Them [11/6/16] […]

  3. Marksays:

    I have been in the pinch point of this, experiencing the influence of other government agencies’ power, threats, and manipulation. While I do not feel a desire to reconcile or be redeemed- I can see how such situations can manifest, and how people can find themselves outcast from something that they can enrich. We know that the FBI and other government agencies will invent crimes and intelligence because they rationalize it will make people safer. We know that – such as in my case, they will throw you in jail without a reason or even recognition of who ordered your detention.

    It is unfortunate that human nature prevails, but it is also the one redeeming quality that we should always consider before acting out against those who appear to have fallen upon their own sword.


Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner – Wolf

Burns Chronicles No 40
Allen Varner (Wolf)


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 15, 2016

When I wrote “What is Brandon Curtiss?“, I had nothing but gratitude for Wolf.  He had stepped up when I was faced with Brandon Curtiss and his goons.  His involvement allowed me to continue packing in order to leave Burns.  The above picture was taken during this event.

There were some unanswered questions from an earlier incident.  When the shootout occurred at Camp Lone Star, back on August 29, 2014, Varner was with Kevin “KC” Massey and John Foerster, on the Texas Border near Brownsville, when a Border Patrol (BP) Agent fired in the direction of Foerster.  (See “The Arrest of K. C. Massey“.)  Now questions arose as to Foerster’s role, but Varner appeared to be without sin.  Varner, however, was the first to offer his pistol, in his belt under his shirt, to the BP agent, which led to Massey then turning his pistol over to BP.  In hindsight, there were other questionable actions by Varner, though unrelated to the topic at hand.

Varner was quite cooperative in my interview with him and provided some information that only he had, which indicated that much of what BP did, out of sight of Massey, was not consistent with the testimony they offered in court.  This could be interpreted as an attempt to ingratiate himself to Massey and myself.

According to Massey, Varner left Camp Lone Star within a couple of days of the shooting.  He did not return until two days before Massey’s arrest.  Was he there to report when Massey was going to spend the night in the motel room?  Only someone at Camp Lone Star would have that information.  At that critical time, Varner was at Camp Lone Star.

Now, often people have suspicion that someone could be an informant.  I may have reason to believe someone is an informant.  However, I will not write that someone is an informant unless I can prove that someone is an informant.  So, ironically, the person that helped me while I was in Burns is, well, an informant.

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 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.

A Public Trial, as intended by the Founders, was guaranteed so that we could judge both the alleged crimes of the accused and the role of the government.  This article, and subsequent articles on the subject of informants, is about the role of the government.

Informants are nothing less than spies, albeit, they are not spies set against foreign enemies or other countries.  No, they are spies sent by the agents of the government to act against their own people.  Whether they are paid, as was the case explained in my article “Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)“, to avoid prosecution for a crime they may have committed, or simply because they disagree with the politics of whomever they are informing against, they are nothing less than those contemptible creatures who, in most situations, face death if caught practicing their trade.  The only exception would be when they realize that they are on the wrong side, and willingly change to the right side.  This is addressed in another article, “Informants – What to do About Them“.

Using form “FD-1023”, also known as “CHS Reporting Document”, agents assigned to an informant provides information, based upon their communication, face to face, via text or email, by phone, or even secret messages, to place this information into the record.

Unfortunately, some of the records I have obtained are so severely redacted that nothing but the pre-printed form information is visible.  However, often what the informant reported can be compared to information obtained in speaking with victims of the informant, or the information reported may become available in other public forums.  Often, such information is “exculpatory” in nature, meaning that it tends to provide evidence that the accused may not be guilty of the crime with which he has been charged.  So, I will provide some of the text from the reports and offer a perspective regarding both aspects.  The entire body of information will not be provided in this article.  A sampling should be sufficient to provide the reader with understanding of just how these spies operate, and how they may set their own trap.  The spies will identify themselves as “CHS” (Confidential Human Source).

We will begin with January 4, 2016, two days after the occupation of the Refuge and the first identifiable report from Varner.

There are 25-30 people on the property to include 5 women who are assisting in cooking, etc.  Most individuals are carrying side arms and CHShas not seen any Iongrifles, but knows they are there. CHS has not yet seen any explosives and one militia member is in the watch tower approximately 100 feet in the air. The militia will be conducting patrols at night.  CHS will obtain license plates later this evening and saw one militia member driving a white 4X4 truck bearing US Government plate number I487752 presumed to belong to the refuge. The militia is expecting the FBI to arrive and know that they are being called trespassers and not domestic terrorists.

CHS observed the following vehicles:

[Note: first two vehicle descriptions and plate #s not included for the privacy of the owners]:

3) Jason Patrick, White Male, mid 40’s, 5’10″, 230 lbs, beard, mustache, seen driving the white 4X4 truck bearing US Government plate I487752.

So, we can see that this informant, along with others, provided a snapshot, updated frequently, of what was going on and who was present at the Refuge.


The next day, January 5:

Ammon Bundy, Brian Cavalier (Booda), Jason Patrick, Ryan Bundy, Ryan Payne, Blaine Cooper and Jon Ritzheimer are all staying in the main building up front. Pecking order CHS based on behavior observed is 1. Ammon Bundy 2. Ryan Payne and Jason Patrick 3. Brian Cavalier (Booda) and 4. Jon Ritzheimer. Booda is in charge of security. Ammon Bundy will more than likely speak with negotiators. CHS is in not staying in the front building and has not yet observed any formal plans. However, CHS is told the plan is to stay and wait for the FBI to make contact. They know the FBI will say they are trespassing, but believe it is B.S. as they do not recognize the land belonging to the federal government. They do not know what the FBI is thinking. By the FBI not taking any action, it has made militia members nervous/scared about the unknown. The militia does not know who will be arrested or exactly what plan of action will be taken when the FBI does make contact. CHS described the atmosphere as nervous, filled with anticipation and confusion if something were to happen. Some people are sleeping and they sleep in shifts.

No alcohol has been observed and approximately six people have been seen carrying side arms and long guns being .308 or 5.56 calibers on an AR platform. CH$ has been looking for explosives and has not observed any. The militia does have access to propane and fuel from the refuge itself. Patrols are being conducted and there is a person in the watch tower 24/7 with a long rifle and radio. There is a shift change in the watch tower at 3 a.m. CHS has not yet seen other set schedules at this time. CHS has asked about night vision equipment and the response received is that no night vision equipment is on site.

The following vehicle was observed on the property.
1999 Black GMC Truck bearing [state] plate # nnnnnn

The militia’s main objective is to have the property administered by the federal government returned to the people (States/counties). The second objective is to win the support of the American public to create the power needed to accomplish the first objective. At this point, everyone is united with these objectives. The militia believe they are currently winning by gaining support of the American public as well as the locals. They feel more empowered since the local are coming by and delivering supplies and the FBI has not yet reached out to the militia.

If the public demands they leave, CHS doesn’t think the militia will leave until additional pressure is placed upon them. CHS did not know what that pressure would be, but just asking the militia to leave will not work. If the FBI continues to do nothing, the militia will just gain more people on site and more power until the FBI is forced to react. None of the core leaders have made life ending preparations at this point, but Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne have stated they would take a bullet if needed. Jon Ritzheimer stated he would go to jail, but appears very nervous and really does not want to serve any jail time. Militia members for the most part are just wondering around waiting for something to happen.

So, you can see that the FBI had a fairly decent picture of what was going on in the Refuge.  You can also see what the intended (perhaps exculpatory) purpose of the occupation was, as well as the “state of mind” of the principal players.  This was of importance during the trial, so we can understand why the government did not want the Defense to be able to identity and therefore call these people as witnesses.

CHS attended an administrative meeting today at 1:00 p.m. It was decided that three separate militia units will be created and led by Ryan Payne, Jon Ritzheimer and CHS. There are five people assigned to each militia unit leader and they are to conduct security patrols and other missions as requested by the “administration” .The three militia units will grow in size as more people arrive in support of the overall mission. All current fifteen members of the militia units intend to stay for the completion of the occupation…

Now, here is one of the little pieces used to deduce who the informant is.  He is one of three militia group leaders.  However, if we know (and we do) that Ryan Payne, Jon Ritzheimer, and Allen Varner were those three militia leaders, then we also know who “CHS” is.

CHS goes on to rank the principal players:

A ranking by the CHS of the most dangerous members on a scale of 1 to 10, ten being the most dangerous, included the following: Booda 9, Ritzheimer 8, Payne, Ammon Bundy 8 or 9, Ryan Bundy 8 or 9, Robert Finicum would most likely back down.

Rather interesting that he identified Robert (LaVoy) Finicum as most likely to back down.

In the January 6 report, we find more information, some tending to be exculpatory.

At least seven different vehicles driven by locals dropped by today to show support and deliver supplies to include, elk meat, steaks, hamburger meat, blankets, hand warmers, etc. The front porch of the bunkhouse used for cooking is now filled with food and supplies. One local stated he would be back again next week to drop off more supplies.CHS and others have been told to use the refuge’s fuel stored in large tanks for their personal use.

A… “Committee of Safety” held a long meeting with the Bundy’s today. [They were] to show their support for the refuge takeover.  They were also going to explain at the meeting that the militia at the refuge were not “crazy gun toting people” as portrayed by some of the media.

An individual named McConnell claiming to be the leader of the Three Percenters Militia in Arizona showed up at the refuge last night or early this morning. The individual is physically fit, mid 40’s, 6’ in height, blonde hair, blonde mustache, driving a brown colored jeep. McConnell also claims to be a Marine and/or Navy Seal. CHS considered McConnell as strength for the militia at the refuge. CHS could not describe any weaknesses the militia has at this time. If anything, the militia continues to gain strength in morale because the locals continue to come by to show support and deliver supplies.

CHS described the atmosphere as calm and relaxed but still expecting something to happen. Patrols were done every four hours, people have been sleeping and milling around like a normal day.

In the January 7 report, we have another clue that helps to identify the CHS, along with other information.

As of this morning, there were approximately 35-40 people at the refuge. So many people have arrived that the new arrivals are sleeping on the floor and not in bunks. They are expecting a lot more people to show up today.  “Will” is from the Seattle area and driving a Nissan X-Terra bearing Washington Marine Corps plate number nnnnnn. Will is the one who brought in the night vision equipment and it appears to be a night vision spotting scope. Will also brought with him a 300 Win Mag rifle. CHS also observed the following license plates: Nevada tag nnnnnn on a Ford F-150, Arizona tag nnnnnn on McConnell’s vehicle.

Last night at approximately 8:30 p.m., Louie Prepper at two others came over from their camp across the street and requested entry into the refuge and to speak with Robert LaVoy Finicum. CHS refused to allow them in resulting in a physical altercation. CHS was struck in the face and cut by Prepper and “Fat boy” (CHS’ description) from Colorado broke the mirror on CHS’ vehicleCHS got up and kicked Fatboy in the groin causing severe pain to Fatboy. Pete Santilli told CHS to stand down and Prepper and the two others entered to refuge to encounter Blaine Cooper. Cooper got into a physical altercation with Prepper and the two others. Fatboy claimed Cooper broke his nose and was going to file a complaint and they left the refuge.

The ATV was used this morning to take supplies to the watchtower allowing for guards to stay in the tower for long periods of time. Two guys mainly occupy the watch tower which CHS has not yet met.

CHS has observed one 300 WIN Mag rifle, two SKS rifles, three AK-47’s, one 12 GA pump action riot shotgun and quite a few AR-15’s (5.56). Most are mainly carrying side arms and one female is carrying a sidearm.

Patrols continue every four hours and are conducted by 4-5 people in vehicles. Patrol routes around the refuge are not set, more like people driving around in vehicles. People do remain at the front and back gates. Patrols are not done on foot because of the snow. Most active use of communication is via supplied radios, but cellular telephones are also being used.

CHS has not heard any rumors about kidnapping a federal agent. Atmosphere remains relaxed.

A Washington Three Percenter Militia member named Darrel is currently assigned in the watch tower. There is now a flare gun in the tower that will be discharged to warn everyone within the refuge of incoming law enforcement raids. CHS observed the night vision equipment brought in last night and it appears to be mountable on a rifle. The militia still fails to have any grasp on organization. Currently, Patrick is attempting to create a list of shifts and assignments for members within the refuge. The three militia units previously created and led by Payne, Ritzheimer and CHS are still in play, but have not yet been assigned to complete any tasks.

CHS observed California license plate number nnnnnn on a dark blue Chevy Blazer. There are roughly 40-45 people within the refuge. The atmosphere remains relaxed and still waiting for something to happen.

You can see that the FBI had status reports that gave them a day-to-day update on the situation at the Refuge.  We also see that Varner was still in charge of one of the militia groups.  However, another confirmation of his identity is found when he described the broken mirror incident.  In an interview with Varner, he said that he swung his fist to hit Louie (Lewis Arthur), hit the mirror instead, and hurt his hand.

We will skip the January 8 report, and since there were are no identifiable reports for January 9 and 10, go to January 11.

CHS provided two inert grenades taken from the refuge, a notebook recovered from the ground and showed case agent the hand held radio taken from Ritzheimer. People using cell phones are using the Zello walkie-talkie App to communicate. The notebook had several pages removed and contains limited to no useful information (see attached photographs).

The extra support has again made the administration and supporters feel as if they are winning.

The leadership was 1. Ammon and Ryan Bundy, 2. Jason Patrick, 3. Ryan Payne, 4. Ritzhiemer. Ammon and Ryan Bundy, LaVoy Finicum, and Payne remain as the administration of the refuge. Finicum was the self proclaimed media representative.

They group is calling themselves the “Citizens of Constitutional America” and not a militia. The administration is adamant that they do not call themselves a militia.

They have not constructed any defensive structures or positions such as rifle pits, sand bag cover, etc. The militia will more than likely use the heavy machinery on site for cover and have positioned some of this equipment at the entrances to the refuge. The patrol routes remain random around the perimeter and consist of individuals driving around in vehicles.

The interviewing agents showed the CHS an aerial photograph of the refuge complex with the buildings numbered. CHS described the use of the buildings as follows:

Building 19 – Fire Bunkhouse – CHS described this building as having 8 bedrooms, one bedroom has 4 bunks, the remaining rooms have two bunks each¯ All bunks were full.

Building 15 – Payne and Riztheimer were staying in the two small houses across the street from the firehouse

(building 19) . These houses have an exterior bathroom nearby¯

Building 18 – Warehouse

Building 11 – Warehouse/garage with lots of equipment

Building 17 or 16 -Generator building

Building 1 – Admin buildings were meetings are conducted

Building 6 – The two Bundy brothers and Finicum’s sleeping quarters

The third clue as to the identity of the source of these reports is related to the “hand-held radio”.  Ritzheimer said that he gave it to Varner.  In an interview with Varner, when asked directly about the radio, he said that Jon was in his truck with Blaine Cooper and he saw the radio sitting on the seat between them, but it was never given to him.  However, at shift change the next morning, the new guard contacted Jon to say that he had no radio with which to communicate.  It appears that Varner simply showed the radio to his handler, and then kept it for himself.

Two more identifiable reports were filed on January 15 and 16.  They continued updating with regard to the status, positions, state of mind, etc., of those inside the Refuge.  So, we can see that from this one source, a lot of information, some accurate, some not so accurate, was made available to the FBI.  On top of this, understand that there were eight other informants reporting from inside the Refuge.  There were also six additional informants in communication with the occupiers via telephone.  Those occupiers inside believed that they were talking to outside “friendlies”, and managed to provide quite a bit of useful information to those informants.  This topic will be addressed in a subsequent article.

In all fairness to Varner, I called him after I had finished the article.  I read him the statements about the three militia groups, the encounter with Lewis Arthur, and the report where he showed the radio he got from Ritzheimer to the case agent.  He stated that somebody lied — that it was bullshit.  He concluded with, “I ain’t no informant or agent”.



  1. […] that the “sign in sheet” may be the one that Allen Varner (Wolf) reported having turned over to the FBI.  There is no indication that Terri handed anything over to […]

  2. […] Peltier, concerned about what role Kullman is playing, contacted Ritzheimer to explain what Kullman was doing.  She indicates to Kullman that she has spoken with Ritzheimer and that he did not want any numbers to be given out.  Kullman had been given a leadership position; he replaced Ryan Payne as head of one of the three militia units.  The initial militia units were headed by Payne, Ritzheimer, and Varner, as explained in “Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“. […]

  3. Wayne Von Bach, Wayne: Bach, Wayne: Bachmann says:

    I have never seen a picture of him without a hat on. Is allen Varner the old guy that always had a nasty cigar in his mouth, and was usually outside next to the fire? Is he the guy that was in a very secretive conversation with Melissa Cooper and Terry Linell after I got in Terry Linnell’s face about trying to drive me off the refuge? That conversation between them was in front of the sink on the left in the kitchen as one is facing the sinks from the lounge area.

  4. Wayne Von Bach, Wayne: Bach, Wayne: Bachmann says:

    The pic definitely resembles the man I recall, but looks younger. I have never seen him without the hat or that nasty cigar. Get him in front of me in a natural setting, and I will be more firm. I have never seen him with his hair all slicked down like that.

    since he always seemed to have an “attitude” I would really like to see what he had to say about me. I went back to Utah after the rally on the 2nd. I came back just in time for KrisAnne Hall’s presentation on January 18, 2016, and went to the Refuge afterwards on both nights. I had to go back to Utah on the 24th of January, two days before LaVoy was murdered.

  5. […] from the documents. This was explained the first time I excerpted from the document, in “Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“. I stated at that […]

  6. […] from the documents. This was explained the first time I excerpted from the document, in “Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“. I stated at that […]

  7. […] His first mention of the leak was on November 15, 2016, 6:39 pm […]

  8. […] 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 […]

  9. […] 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 […]

  10. […] record.  Those specifically mentioned were from “Burns Chronicles”, to include #40, #41, and #49.  Also quoted is my statement regarding the “prohibited material” taken […]

  11. […] Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner – Wolf […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s