The Last Rancher Standing – Government’s Rustling Hustle of the West

Vincent Easley II
This is “Who” led the Raid on the Bundy Ranch and “What” kind of Management #ClivenBundy didn’t want a Contract with.

The #StalkingHorse Rides Again – The BLM seems set on Killing What it Can.
The #TortiousTwoStep was the Tune at the #BundyRanchRaid
1st they came for the tortious, and then the horse. Whos Next
Why no one died in Bunkerville Nevada in 2014 is because of All those that came that day and Stood in the Gap
*Who, What, When and Where, Why and How
Tell the Whole Truth please Mr. Myhre, US DC Court dist of Nevada

On Thursday, the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board recklessly voted to approve recommendations that call on the Bureau of Land Management to sho
“Whipple said more than 50 ranchers have been run off their land in NV’s Clark County leaving one rancher : his client”

Rustled Cattle: Dirty Dan Love’s (back-door dealings) Government Led Raid on the Bundy Ranch

Fed’s Raid on the #BundyRanch was a Set Up from the Start.
Goes to show the importance the government places (on Justice)
Navarro held “sealed” hearings (about) back-door dealings which led up to the prosecutions..
(Fired for Misconduct).. (Dirty) Dan Love, the Special Agent in Charge of the 2014 #BundyRanchRaid has no problem naming names these days
Why must everything be hidden from the citizens?
Read the Rest from Shari Dovale at Redoubt News

MORE Proof of GOVT Entrapment of the Bundy’s; The Bombshells Keep on Coming as Bunkerville Trial Gets Underway; Was it all designed to entrap Cliven Bundy?

Vincent Easley II – Online


Bundy Ranch Videos from 2014 (link below)






  • Table Setting Saddles Blazing
  • #303 on the witness list in USA vs Bundy et al, Vincent Easley returns with updates from the current Bundy Ranch Trial, first hand accounts to the original 2014 Stand-off in Bunkerville, Nevada and Racism by Cliven Bundy are addressed.

Table Setting Saddles Blazing

The Ochelli Effect 11-6-2017 Meria Heller & Vince Easley Second hour


If you have any questions for Meria Heller , Vince Easley , any other guests, or about our shows, please contact us here at The Ochelli Effect  or if you want to contribute in some way, please do the same.

About the Author: Ochelli

Born in 1972 , With one of the Loudest or most Muted Voices in Political , and Social Circles. The Alternative’s Alternative. Radio Host , Researcher , and A Walking Talking Anti-Myth.

Vincent Easley has hosted several talk shows through UCY.TV and Real Liberty Media. Easley travels from his mountain base in Clinton, Arkansas to the far reaches of the United States talking to people about, “What Matters World Wide.”

Internet Radio Journalist Investigates Cliven Bundy Ranch Case

In April of 2014, social media was alive with buzz about a growing protest in Bunkerville Nevada. A cattle rancher named Cliven Bundy, was in a heated battle with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about the grazing fees for Bundy’s cattle in Gold Butte an area of federally owned land in Clark County.

Easley believes his role in bringing information about controversial topics to the public’s attention is important and wouldn’t hesitate (to do it again).

Voice of Rebellion Radio with Chris Jay, guest Vince Easley   


Post-Production Edit Behind The Woodshed


Some of the Places I’ve Hosted and/or Produced Broadcasts

Bundy Ranch Nevada Standoff Charges

Each defendant faces 16 criminal counts: 

CLIVEN D. BUNDY, 71, Represented by defense lawyer Bret O. Whipple of Nevada

AMMON E. BUNDY, 42, of EMMET, IDAHO, Represented by Nevada lawyer Daniel Hill and Utah lawyer J. Morgan Philpot

RYAN C. BUNDY, 45, of CEDAR CITY, UTAH, Representing himself with standby lawyer Maysoun Fletcher of Nevada

RYAN W. PAYNE, 34, of Anaconda, Montana, Represented by assistant federal public defenders Brenda Weksler and Ryan Norwood of the Nevada Federal Public Defenders Office

  1. Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, between March 2014 and March 2016

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision NotesBased on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 88, 294 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 37, 35 Stat. 1096; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 178a, as added Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 425, 58 Stat. 752).

This section consolidates said sections 88 and 294 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

To reflect the construction placed upon said section 88 by the courts the words “or any agency thereof” were inserted. (See Haas v. Henkel, 1909, 30 S. Ct. 249, 216 U. S. 462, 54 L. Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112, where court said: “The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government.” Also, see United States v. Walter, 1923, 44 S. Ct. 10, 263 U. S. 15, 68 L. Ed. 137, and definitions of department and agency in section 6 of this title.)

The punishment provision is completely rewritten to increase the penalty from 2 years to 5 years except where the object of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. If the object is a misdemeanor, the maximum imprisonment for a conspiracy to commit that offense, under the revised section, cannot exceed 1 year.

The injustice of permitting a felony punishment on conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is described by the late Hon. Grover M. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York, in an address delivered March 14, 1944, before the section on Federal Practice of the New York Bar Association, reported in 3 Federal Rules Decisions, pages 380–392.

Hon. John Paul, United States district judge for the western district of Virginia, in a letter addressed to Congressman Eugene J. Keogh dated January 27, 1944, stresses the inadequacy of the 2-year sentence prescribed by existing law in cases where the object of the conspiracy is the commission of a very serious offense.

The punishment provision of said section 294 of title 18 was considered for inclusion in this revised section. It provided the same penalties for conspiracy to violate the provisions of certain counterfeiting laws, as are applicable in the case of conviction for the specific violations. Such a punishment would seem as desirable for all conspiracies as for such offenses as counterfeiting and transporting stolen property in interstate commerce.

A multiplicity of unnecessary enactments inevitably leads to confusion and disregard of law. (See reviser’s note under section 493 of this title.)

Since consolidation was highly desirable and because of the strong objections of prosecutors to the general application of the punishment provision of said section 294, the revised section represents the best compromise that could be devised between sharply conflicting views.

A number of special conspiracy provisions, relating to specific offenses, which were contained in various sections incorporated in this title, were omitted because adequately covered by this section. A few exceptions were made, (1) where the conspiracy would constitute the only offense, or (2) where the punishment provided in this section would not be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. Special conspiracy provisions were retained in sections 241286372757794956120122712384 and 2388 of this title. Special conspiracy provisions were added to sections 2153 and 2154 of this title.

Amendments1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.

2) Conspiracy to impede or injure a federal, between March 2014 and March 2016officer

§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.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(D), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §54 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §21, 35 Stat. 1092).

Scope of section was enlarged to cover all possessions of the United States. When the section was first enacted in 1861 there were no possessions, and hence the use of the words “State or Territory” was sufficient to describe the area then subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The word “District” was inserted by the codifiers of the 1909 Criminal Code.


2002—Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $5,000”.

3) Using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, 3 counts


A defendant may be found guilty of [specify crime charged], even if the defendant personally did not commit the act or acts constituting the crime but aided and abetted in its commission. To prove a defendant guilty of [specify crime charged] by aiding and abetting, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, [specify crime charged] was committed by someone;

Second, the defendant aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured that person with respect to at least one element of [specify crime charged];

Third, the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate [specify crime charged]; and

Fourth, the defendant acted before the crime was completed.

It is not enough that the defendant merely associated with the person committing the crime, or unknowingly or unintentionally did things that were helpful to that person, or was present at the scene of the crime. The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the knowledge and intention of helping that person commit [specify crime charged].

A defendant acts with the intent to facilitate the crime when the defendant actively participates in a criminal venture with advance knowledge of the crime [and having acquired that knowledge when the defendant still had a realistic opportunity to withdraw from the crime].

The government is not required to prove precisely which defendant actually committed the crime and which defendant aided and abetted.



Use this instruction with an instruction on the elements of the underlying substantive crime.

The Supreme Court has stated that the federal aiding and abetting statute has two primary components : “a person is liable under § 2 if (and only if) he (1) takes an affirmative act in furtherance of that offense, (2) with the intent of facilitating the offense’s commission.” Rosemond v. United States,134 S. Ct. 1240, 1245 (2014). The defendant’s conduct need not facilitate each and every element of the crime; a defendant can be convicted as an aider and abettor even if the defendant’s conduct “relates to only one (or some) of a crime’s phases or elements.” Id. at 1246–47. The intent requirement is satisfied when a person actively participates in a criminal venture with advance knowledge of the circumstances constituting the elements of the charged offense. Id. at 1248–49; see also United States v. Goldtooth, 754 F.3d 763, 769 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing defendants’ convictions for aiding and abetting robbery on Indian reservation because there was no evidence that defendants had foreknowledge that robbery was to occur).

In Rosemond, the defendant was charged with aiding and abetting the crime of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The Supreme Court held that the government need not necessarily prove that the defendant took action with respect to any firearm, so long as the government proves that the defendant facilitated another element—drug trafficking. Rosemond, 134 S. Ct. at 1247. It was necessary, however, that the government prove that the defendant had advance knowledge of the firearm. Id. at 1249–50. See Instruction 8.71 (Firearms—Using or Carrying in Commission of Crime of Violence or Drug Trafficking Crime).

If, as in Rosemond, there is an issue as to when the defendant learned of a particular circumstance that constitutes an element of the crime, the judge should further instruct the jury that the defendant must have learned of the circumstance at a time when the defendant still had a realistic opportunity to withdraw from the crime. See Rosemond, 134 S. Ct. at 1251–52 & n.10 (instruction telling jury to consider whether Rosemond “knew his cohort used a firearm” was erroneous because instruction “failed to convey that Rosemond had to have advance knowledge . . . that a confederate would be armed” such that “he c[ould] realistically walk away”).

Aiding and abetting is not a separate and distinct offense from the underlying substantive crime, but is a different theory of liability for the same offense. United States v. Garcia, 400 F.3d 816, 820 (9th Cir. 2005). An aiding and abetting instruction is proper even when the indictment does not specifically charge that theory of liability , because all indictments are read as implying that theory in each count. United States v. Vaandering, 50 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Armstrong, 909 F.2d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Jones, 678 F.2d 102, 104 (9th Cir. 1982). See also United States v. Gaskins,849 F.2d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1997).

A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) occurs when an individual “puts in motion or . . . causes the commission of an indispensable element of the offense,” United States v. Ubaldo, 859 F.3d 690, 750 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Causey, 835 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1987)).

A person may be convicted of aiding and abetting despite the prior acquittal of the principal. Standefer v. United States,447 U.S. 10, 20 (1980); United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 1998). Moreover, the principal need not be named or identified; it is necessary only that the offense was committed by somebody and that the defendant intentionally did an act to help in its commission. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d at 930 (citing Feldstein v. United States, 429 F.2d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 1970)).

The defendant’s deliberate ignorance of the actions taken by another person who commits a crime is sufficient to satisfy the knowledge required for the offense of aiding and abetting that crime. United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2016) (approving an instruction that the defendant acted “knowingly” if he “was aware of a high probability that [other employees] had gained unauthorized access to a computer . . . or misappropriated trade secrets . . . without authorization . . . and deliberately avoided learning the truth.”). For a definition of “deliberate ignorance,” seeInstruction 5.7 (Deliberate Ignorance).

No specific unanimity instruction on the issue of who acted as principal or aider and abettor is necessary, id., nor does the jury need to reach unanimous agreement on the manner (e.g., “procured,” “aided,” “abetted,” “counseled,” “induced,” or “commanded”) by which the defendant provided assistance. United States v. Kim, 196 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 1999).

The last paragraph of this instruction has been expressly approved in Vaandering, 50 F.3d at 702. It may be unnecessary to give the last paragraph if there is no dispute as to the identity of the principal and the aider and abettor.

4) Assault on a federal officer and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 9 and 12, 2014)

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender’s participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

For example, Andy draws a floor plan of a bank, knowing of Dan’s intention to rob it. After Dan commits the robbery, Alice agrees to let him store the stolen money at her house. Both Andy and Alice can be charged with aiding and abetting, or acting as accessories to the robbery.

How Are Aiding, Abetting, and Accessory Defined?

As with all crimes, the specific elements depend on the state where the crime takes place. In general, aiding refers to differing degrees of support and abetting involves encouragement. Accessory usually involves actions taken to protect the perpetrator after the crime is committed.

If you were to serve on a jury in a federal court, you would be instructed that the crime of aiding and abetting requires the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

  1. A crime was committed;
  2. The accused aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured the person committing the crime;
  3. The accused acted with the intent to facilitate the crime; and
  4. The accused acted before the crime was completed.

Similarly, you would be instructed that the crime of Accessory After The Fact requires proving that:

  1. The accused knew that a person committed a crime; and
  2. The accused assisted that person with the specific purpose or design to hinder or prevent that person’s apprehension, trial or punishment.

A failure to sufficiently prove any of these elements, or those that may apply under state law, means that you cannot be convicted for these crimes.

Is There A Way Out?

Even if you’ve aided and abetted someone before they commit a crime, your state may allow for a withdrawal defense to criminal charges against you. In essence, this means that you have stopped your support and encouragement for the crime before it has become unstoppable. However, this can be difficult to prove unless there is some clear evidence of repudiation (such as a communication to the perpetrator or a warning to the potential victim). Some jurisdictions may require an attempt to stop the crime from taking place by, for example, notifying law enforcement.

Even if your actions don’t clearly constitute withdrawal, efforts to remove yourself from a crime before it takes place can help to mitigate the punishments you might face. Depending on the situation, these efforts could even lead the government to use prosecutorial discretion and not charge you with a crime. This could happen where, for example, you’re facing threats to your safety by coming forward to report a pending crime.

Have an Attorney Review Your Case for Free

The fact that you weren’t there when the crime was committed isn’t enough to protect you from punishment. These accomplice crimes can be tricky and usually boil down to what you knew and when you knew it. If you have some knowledge of a crime before or after the fact, you should reach out to a criminal defense attorney who can review your case for free.


5) Threatening a federal law enforcement officer and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 11 and 12, 2014

18 U.S. Code § 115 – Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member




assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title; or

threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section,
with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officerwhile engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Whoever assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, any person who formerly served as a person designated in paragraph (1), or a member of the immediate family of any person who formerly served as a person designated in paragraph (1), with intent to retaliate against such person on account of the performance of official duties during the term of service of such person, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(1)The punishment for an assault in violation of this section is—


a fine under this title; and


if the assault consists of a simple assault, a term of imprisonment for not more than 1 year;

if the assault involved physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, a term of imprisonment for not more than 10 years;

if the assault resulted in bodily injury, a term of imprisonment for not more than 20 years; or

if the assault resulted in serious bodily injury (as that term is defined in section 1365 of this title, and including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title) or a dangerous weapon was used during and in relation to the offense, a term of imprisonment for not more than 30 years.

kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, or conspiracy to kidnap in violation of this section shall be punished as provided in section 1201 of this title for the kidnapping or attempted kidnapping of, or a conspiracy to kidnap, a person described in section 1201(a)(5) of this title.

A murder, attempted murder, or conspiracy to murder in violation of this section shall be punished as provided in sections 11111113, and 1117 of this title.

A threat made in violation of this section shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or both, except that imprisonment for a threatened assault shall not exceed 6 years.
(c)As used in this section, the term—


Federal law enforcement officer” means any officer, agent, or employee of the United States authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law;
(2)immediate family member” of an individual means—


his spouse, parent, brother or sister, child or person to whom he stands in loco parentis; or

any other person living in his household and related to him by blood or marriage;

United States judge” means any judicial officer of the United States, and includes a justice of the Supreme Court and a United States magistrate judge; and

United States official” means the President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, a Member of Congress, a member-elect of Congress, a member of the executive branch who is the head of a department listed in 5 U.S.C. 101, or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

This section shall not interfere with the investigative authority of the United States Secret Service, as provided under sections 3056871, and 879 of this title.
(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1008(a), Oct. 12, 198498 Stat. 2140; amended Pub. L. 99–646, §§ 37(a), 60, Nov. 10, 1986100 Stat. 3599, 3613; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6487(f)[b], Nov. 18, 1988102 Stat. 4386Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3508, Nov. 29, 1990104 Stat. 4922Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990104 Stat. 5117Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§ 330016(2)(C), 330021(1), Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2148, 2150; Pub. L. 104–132, title VII, §§ 723(a), 727(b), Apr. 24, 1996110 Stat. 1300, 1302; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(b)(9), div. C, title I, § 11008(c), Nov. 2, 2002116 Stat. 1808, 1818; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 208(a), Jan. 7, 2008121 Stat. 2538.)
Amendments2008—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 110–177 added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1) which read as follows: “An assault in violation of this section shall be punished as provided in section 111 of this title.”

2002—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–273, § 4002(b)(9), substituted “or attempted kidnapping of, or a conspiracy to kidnap, a person” for “, attempted kidnapping, or conspiracy to kidnap of a person”.

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 107–273, § 11008(c), substituted “10” for “five” and “6” for “three”.

1996—Subsec. (a)(1)(A). Pub. L. 104–132, § 723(a)(1), inserted “or conspires” after “attempts”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 727(b)(1), which directed insertion of “, or threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, any person who formerly served as a person designated in paragraph (1), or” after “assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts to kidnap or murder”, was executed by making the substitution after “assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder” to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the amendment by Pub. L. 104–132, § 723(a)(1). See below.

Pub. L. 104–132, § 723(a)(1), inserted “or conspires” after “attempts”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 723(a)(2), substituted “, attempted kidnapping, or conspiracy to kidnap” for “or attempted kidnapping” in two places.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 104–132, § 723(a)(3), substituted “, attempted murder, or conspiracy to murder” and “, 1113, and 1117” for “or attempted murder” and “and 1113”, respectively.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 104–132, § 727(b)(2), added subsec. (d).

1994—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330021(1), substituted “kidnapping” for “kidnaping” in two places.

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(2)(C), substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of not more than $5,000”.

1990—Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 101–647 substituted “the Central” for “The Central”.

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–690 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “Whoever assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title, or threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section with intent to impede, intimidate, interfere with, or retaliate against such official, judge or law enforcement officer while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).”

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–646, § 60, substituted “section 1114 of this title, or threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section” for “18 U.S.C. 1114, as amended,”, “while engaged” for “while he is engaged”, and “official duties” for “his official duties”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 99–646, § 37(a), inserted “for the kidnapping or attempted kidnapping of a person described in section 1201(a)(5) of this title”.

Change of NameReference to the Director of Central Intelligence or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Director’s capacity as the head of the intelligence community deemed to be a reference to the Director of National Intelligence. Reference to the Director of Central Intelligence or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Director’s capacity as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency deemed to be a reference to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. See section 1081(a), (b) of Pub. L. 108–458, set out as a note under section 3001 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

United States magistrate judge” substituted for “United States magistrate” in subsec. (c)(3) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Transfer of FunctionsFor transfer of the functions, personnel, assets, and obligations of the United States Secret Service, including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 381551(d)552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.


6) Obstruction of the due administration of justice and aiding and abetting, 3 counts (April 6, 9 and 12, 2014)

Obstruction Of Justice + Laws, Charges & Statute of Limitations

Views: 5183

Obstruction of justice is a crime that is different from the norm because it does not involve harm to a person or to property. It does, however, describe a huge range of crimes, but these are committed against justice administration. Statutes at both state and federal level cover these crimes, and laws have been in place against it for hundreds of years.

Obstruction of Justice Laws

Obstruction of justice is covered under chapter 73 of the U.S. Code Title 18. A number of articles are of particular relevance, with 1503 being the most common one. This dictates that those who use corrupt threats of force, or actual force against the due justice administration are guilty of such an offense. It essentially means that it is alleged that a person tried to interfere with the process of official duties, including destroying evidence.

To be convicted, prosecution must demonstrate three things:

1. There was a proceeding that could be obstructed.
2. There is a clear link between the defendant’s attempts to obstruct and the proceedings.
3. The defendant must have been aware of this link.

One of the most complex elements of obstruction of justice charges is that a defendant can always plead the Fifth Amendment. This is a constitutional right to not answer questions if the answer could demonstrate criminal liability.

Obstruction of Justice Crimes & Charges

Usually, obstruction of justice is committed by elected officials, attorneys general, prosecutors, and judges. It can be classed as nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance. However, the charge can also be brought against non-official individuals if it has been shown that they prevented justice to be served in either criminal or civil courts. This includes witness intimidation or retaliation, false testimony, falsifying evidence, interfering with court personnel, and more. The laws are in place to protect legal proceedings’ integrity, as well as to protect those taking part in the proceedings.

Obstruction of Justice Punishment

For those found guilty of obstruction of justice, their penalty will depend on the law under which they were convicted. Different states have different requirements, and federal charges can also be brought against the individual. As such, the crime can be anything from a misdemeanor to a penalty. Most of the time, punishment includes time in penitentiary and/or a fine. A maximum sentence of 20 years can be imposed.

Obstruction of Justice Sentencing Guidelines

Those who are found guilty of obstruction of justice can be sentenced up to 20 years in prison, if it is demonstrated that they knowingly engaged in obstruction. Prosecutors will have to be able to demonstrate that the accused engaged in an obstructive act, and that they were aware of the fact that this was an obstruction of the course of justice.

Obstruction of Justice Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for obstruction of justice usually starts from the date that the crime actually started. The exact statute of limitations will vary depending on the type of crime in which the obstruction took place. Usually, the statute is six years in state courts, and five years in federal courts, with the exception of crimes against children, sex offenses, certain violent crimes, and murder. In these cases, no statute of limitations exists. Additionally, the statute can be tolled if the defendant leaves the state.

Obstruction of Justice Cases

• Martha Stewart was accused and convicted of obstruction of justice because she was found to have made misleading and false statements to the SEC. She was convicted of this in 2004, as well as for lying to federal investigators. This means she didn’t just fail to assist the proceedings, she actually tried to lead federal investigators astray. (CNN)

• Richard Nixon had to resign from his presidency when he was investigated for obstruction of justice, which is known as the Watergate Scandal. Here, it was alleged that Nixon provided financial compensations to witnesses in return for them hiding the break-in at the Watergate. (Watergate)

• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged and convicted of obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing. Tsarnaev was accused of removing a number of items from the rooms of Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakov, the Boston Bombers, whose actions killed three people and injured a further 200. The backpack with items removed by Tsarnaev was eventually found on a landfill site. Another person in the case provided false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for which he was convicted.( FBI)

• I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby was a former vice-presidential advisor. In March 2007, he was convicted of obstruction of justice as he played a part in the leak to reporters that named Valerie Plame, a CIA agent. George W. Bush, who was president at the time, commuted his sentence, meaning that Scooter only paid the $250,000 fine. However, he did have to meet the terms of his probation and was recorded as a convicted felon. (NBC News)

• In 2007, Conrad Black was convicted of obstruction of justice. He removed 13 boxes of evidence, which contained financial records, from his Toronto office. This happened after a court order sealed the boxes. Black did return the boxes after a few days. CCTV images proved that Black had removed the boxes together with his assistant Joan Maida and his chauffeur John Hillier. (Heritage Institute)

Obstruction of Justice Quick Links & References

U.S. Legal – Obstruction of Justice
18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 – Obstruction of Justice 

7) Interfering with interstate commerce by extortion and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 2, 9 and 12, 2014)

18 U.S. Code § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence

prev | next

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b)As used in this section—


The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101–115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title 45.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 793Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision NotesBased on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 420a–420e–1 (June 18, 1934, ch. 569, §§ 1–6, 48 Stat. 979, 980; July 3, 1946, ch. 537, 60 Stat. 420).

Section consolidates sections 420a to 420e–1 of Title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology and arrangement necessary to effect consolidation.

Provisions designating offense as felony were omitted as unnecessary in view of definitive section 1 of this title. (See reviser’s note under section 550 of this title.)

Subsection (c) of the revised section is derived from title II of the 1946 amendment. It substitutes references to specific sections of the United States Code, 1940 ed., in place of references to numerous acts of Congress, in conformity to the style of the revision bill. Subsection (c) as rephrased will preclude any construction of implied repeal of the specified acts of Congress codified in the sections enumerated.

The words “attempts or conspires so to do” were substituted for sections 3 and 4 of the 1946 act, omitting as unnecessary the words “participates in an attempt” and the words “or acts in concert with another or with others”, in view of section 2 of this title which makes any person who participates in an unlawful enterprise or aids or assists the principal offender, or does anything towards the accomplishment of the crime, a principal himself.

Words “shall, upon conviction thereof,” were omitted as surplusage, since punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is secured.

References in TextSections 101–115 of Title 29, referred to in subsec. (c), is a reference to act Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70, popularly known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 101 of Title 29, Labor, and Tables.

Section 11 of that act, formerly classified to section 111 of Title 29, was repealed and reenacted as section 3692 of this title by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948.

Section 12 of that act, formerly classified to section 112 of Title 29, was repealed by act June 25, 1948, and is covered by rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, set out in Appendix to this title.

Section 164 of Title 45, included within the reference in subsec. (c) to sections 151–188 of Title 45, was repealed by act Oct. 10, 1940, ch. 851, § 4, 54 Stat. 1111.

Section 186 of Title 45, included within the reference in subsec. (c) to sections 151–188 of Title 45, was omitted from the Code.

Amendments1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.

Short TitleThis section is popularly known as the “Hobbs Act”.


8) Interstate travel in aid of extortion and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 5 and April 12, 2014)

18 U.S. Code § 1952 – Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to—


distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or

commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or

otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,
and thereafter performs or attempts to perform—

an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or

an act described in paragraph (2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

As used in this section (i) “unlawful activity” means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act), or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this title and (ii) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

Investigations of violations under this section involving liquor shall be conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General.

If the offense under this section involves an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (a) and also involves a pre-retail medical product (as defined in section 670), the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under subsection (a) is greater.


This section shall not apply to a savings promotion raffle conducted by an insured depository institution or an insured credit union.
(2)In this subsection—


the term “insured credit union” shall have the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752);

the term “insured depository institution” shall have the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and

the term “savings promotion raffle” means a contest in which the sole consideration required for a chance of winning designated prizes is obtained by the deposit of a specified amount of money in a savings account or other savings program, where each ticket or entry has an equal chance of being drawn, such contest being subject to regulations that may from time to time be promulgated by the appropriate prudential regulator (as defined in section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481)).
(Added Pub. L. 87–228, § 1(a), Sept. 13, 196175 Stat. 498; amended Pub. L. 89–68July 7, 196579 Stat. 212Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 701(i)(2), Oct. 27, 197084 Stat. 1282Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1365(a), Oct. 27, 1986100 Stat. 3207–35Pub. L. 101–647, title XII, § 1205(i), title XVI, § 1604, Nov. 29, 1990104 Stat. 4831, 4843; Pub. L. 103–322, title XIV, § 140007(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2033, 2147; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, § 1112(h), Nov. 25, 2002116 Stat. 2277Pub. L. 112–186, § 4(b)(1), Oct. 5, 2012126 Stat. 1429Pub. L. 113–251, § 5(1), Dec. 18, 2014128 Stat. 2890.)
References in TextSection 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(i)(1), is classified to section 802(6) of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Amendments2014—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 113–251 added subsec. (e).

2012—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 112–186 added subsec. (d).

2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted “Attorney General” for “Secretary of the Treasury”.

1994—Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(L), which directed the amendment of this section by substituting “under this title” for “not more than $10,000”, could not be executed because the phrase “not more than $10,000” did not appear in text subsequent to amendment of subsec. (a) by Pub. L. 103–322, § 140007(a). See below.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322, § 140007(a), substituted “and thereafter performs or attempts to perform—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for former concluding provisions which read as follows: “and thereafter performs or attempts to perform any of the acts specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3), shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–647, § 1604, inserted “the mail or” after “uses” and struck out “including the mail,” before “with intent” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–647, § 1205(i), inserted “(i)” after “As used in this section” and added cl. (ii).

1986—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 99–570 added cl. (3).

1970—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 91–513, § 701(i)(2)(A), inserted “or controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act)”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 91–513, § 701(i)(2)(B), struck out reference to investigations involving narcotics.

1965—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 89–68 made section applicable to travel in aid of arson.

Effective Date of 2002 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Effective Date of 1970 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 91–513 effective on first day of seventh calendar month that begins after Oct. 26, 1970, see section 704 of Pub. L. 91–513, set out as an Effective Date note under section 801 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Savings ProvisionAmendment by Pub. L. 91–513 not to affect or abate any prosecutions for any violation of law or any civil seizures or forfeitures and injunctive proceedings commenced prior to the effective date of such amendment, and all administrative proceedings pending before the former Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs on Oct. 27, 1970, were to be continued and brought to final determination in accord with laws and regulations in effect prior to Oct. 27, 1970, see section 702 of Pub. L. 91–513, set out as a Savings Provision note under section 321 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

#BundyRanchTrial – USA vs Bundy et al

Nevada standoff trial: What you need to know [(copy and pasted) go to The Oregonian for complete information from @MaxOregonian]

The Oregonian | OregonLive


Each defendant faces 16 criminal counts:

  • Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, between March 2014 and March 2016
  • Conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, between March 2014 and March 2016
  • Using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting , 3 counts
  • Assault on a federal officer and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 9 and 12, 2014)
  • Threatening a federal law enforcement officer and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 11 and 12, 2014)
  • Obstruction of the due administration of justice and aiding and abetting, 3 counts (April 6, 9 and 12, 2014)
  • Interfering with interstate commerce by extortion and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 2, 9 and 12, 2014)
  • Interstate travel in aid of extortion and aiding and abetting, 2 counts (April 5 and April 12, 2014)


  • Steven W. Myhre, Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney, who was appointed March 11 after the resignation the day before of Nevada U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden
  • Daniel R. Schiess, assistant U.S. attorney
  • Nadia J. Ahmed, assistant U.S. attorney
  • Erin M. Creegan, special assistant U.S. attorney, a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s counterterrorism section based in Washington, D.C.


U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, a native of Las Vegas, was nominated to the federal bench on Dec. 24, 2009, by President Barack Obama. On Jan. 1, 2014, she became the district’s chief judge.

She previously worked as a chief deputy district attorney for Clark County, Nevada, in the civil division, defending the county in federal civil rights and employment law cases. Before that, she worked as a county special public defender handling indigent clients who faced murder charges with potential death penalty sentences. In the 1990s, she ran her own law firm doing criminal defense and family law.

DEFENDANTS and their LAWYERS continue to


Burns Chronicles (1 of 9) – The Unredacted Informant Articles archived in opposition to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown’s Order to Gary Hunt

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”.

[REDACTED] + Comments

Full List of




Burns Chronicles No 51 – William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk)

Burns Chronicles No 51
William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 28, 2016

Jon Ritzheimer had put out a call for more people to come to the Refuge, shortly after the occupation on January 2, 2016.  Many people who supported the effort being made by Ammon Bundy and the others resent that message.

On January 3, Will Kullman contacted Maureen Peltier (SSG Moe).  Peltier was one of those who had passed the message on.  His first contact with Peltier shows that he was from Lake Stevens, Washington and that he was Founder of “Kullman Combat Organization”.  Some of the text messages indicate his desire to help:

“I wanna come down to Oregon to help.  What do I need to bring and when is the best time to come?”

Is there an armed militia that is doing security like we did at Sugar Pine and Bundy?  Just wondering if I should bring a weapon.

He then stated that he “had a team ready to go…”  And, then asked for a contact for when he got there.  However, when he arrived in Burns, he was alone.

He knew that Ritzheimer was a Marine, so he sent the message:

“I will be there to help him.  Tell him a fellow Marine is on his way to help him.  Tell him I said “Semper Fi.”

On January 6, as he entered Harney County, he relayed messages through Peltier, announcing his approaching the Refuge.  At 8:33 PM, he was driving in fog about 16 miles out from the Refuge.  Then, at 10:56 pm, he reported to Peltier that he had arrived and that he “just met up with Ryan.”  (Not sure if it was Payne or Bundy, as both were present at the time.)

“Semper fi”, short for “semper fidelis”, is the Marine Corps motto, Always faithful — that Marines will always be faithful to the Corps and other Marines.  Both Ritzheimer and Kullman were Marines, though Kullman was more than willing to turn against his fellow Marine.

January 7, the day after Kullman arrived, he texted:

“You know there’s only maximum 40 of us here…  Not as many as before.  Get the word out.  They are cutting power to the Refuge.”

Peltier questioned his going public with that sort of information and told Kullman that such information should only come out from the leadership.  Peltier was beginning to have questions about Kullman’s assertiveness and assuming the authority to speak for the Refuge.


Then, on January 8, in an apparent effort to impress Peltier, he texts:

“Actually, I was just made the team leader of the militia with Jon, so trust my intel when I give it to you.”

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)“.

The next day, January 9, Kullman is again trying to butter up Peltier, probably realizing that she has concerns about him, texts:

“At the point, with as much media that’s been here, everyone knows.  You’re the only person that can get trusted and resourceful information out to the people.  I’m sorry that I made you feel like a subordinate, but, the fact remains your ability to get the word out that we need help is impertinent (?) to the cause.  I know we don’t know each other that well, but if Payne, Cooper, the Bundys and even Ritzheimer trust my judgment, maybe you could too, one day.  Thanks for what you are doing.  Out.”

You can see that he is trying to get closer to Peltier by his praise and his claim that “Payne, Cooper, the Bundys and even Ritzheimer trust” his judgment“.  Kullman ended up leaving the Refuge on January 12 or 13.

Thus ended the communication between Kullman and Peltier, until January 26, after LaVoy Finicum was murdered, and all but two of the remaining members of the convoy had been arrested.  There was confusion as to whether the Ryan that had been shot was Bundy or Payne.  Until subsequent calls were made, and eventually it was established that it was Ryan Bundy, only Mark McConnell and Victoria Sharp knew for sure who it was.  So, Kullman crowns his lies with a final effort to endear himself to Peltier, when he sends this message:

“Just got off the phone with a person who was with the people that were arrested, and he was released.  Told me what happened to everyone including Payne and Lavoy.”

It was Ryan Bundy, and McConnell knew that.  Payne was put with McConnell, Ammon, and Booda, where they sat in the cold until the events down the road, where Ryan Bundy received a wound and LaVoy was killed.

Peltier, however, had had enough of Kullman and refused to answer any texts after the 8th.

Now, let’s venture into Kullman’s role as an informant and what information he provided to the FBI.  This information is from the FBI form 1023, “CHS Reporting Documents”.  CHS is Confidential Human Source”, or informant, or perhaps, spy.  This, “xxxx”, indicates redactions within the paragraph.  Those marked “PTM” by me are probably “Private Text Messages”, since time-stamps appear on the reports.

January 7, 2016 – PTM

7: 27 AM: xxxx The whole refuge is under control. The federal worker cabins on sight are being used for shelter and housing for the militia. Hot water, electricity, and hot chow available. Numbers are minimal and most have received very little sleep. Weapons are not required for watch, but are not frowned upon either. They are trying not to make a scene by having them.

2:26 PM: There is a large supply of free food and a lot of donations. CHS is on the inside with JON RITZHEIMER and RYAN PAYNE. CHS has been asked to be a body guard for the BUNDY’s. Right now, there is zero organization and they are in a defensive posture. There are one or two guys on guard. There is a front guard and a back gate guard. The guys also have zero experience as far as training and weapons. There are about 30-40 people and maybe 75% are combatants. Weapons are staying in vehicles. Most everyone is just carrying a pistol on them. Mostly 5.56, hand guns, and some 7.62 Ak-style rifles. There are some higher calibers, like a couple of .308’s and apparently a .300 Win Mag. There is consistent talks of taking up arms if LEO/FEDS come onto the refuge and they all seem pretty serious about it. They are going through the property and using what they can use to aid their stay.

2:27 PM: Only a few folks have armor with no QRF, patrolling or legitimate security in place. There is a total complacency for security. These guys don’t have a clue what they are doing.

January 8, 2016– PTM

12:40 PM: There is an older guy, drives a 90’s model Suburban and dressed like a cowboy. He stated that he planned to go to where LEO were and give them a piece of his mind.

1:20 PM: More gun fighters showed up. 8 or 9 of them with AR-15’s, pistols, but no kits yet observed. They are an organized group from southeast Oregon.

2:35 PM: No eyes on, but confirmed through constituents that the Oregon III% and Idaho III% have deployed to the refuge. “Reinforcements” are inbound.

2:43 PM: There is a guy LEO should look into. He is talking about how the way we deal with the problem is to ambush officials and “blow their heads off with shotguns and solve the problem no evidence.” His name is ROBERT HART and he is in his mid-50’s. He’s a lunatic. CHS noted he/she would attempt to get license plate. He drives a green two-door Suburban. He is not associated with these guys and they have made numerous complaints about him already.

January 9, 2016 PTM

11:39 AM: About 20 vehicles with 50+ men from Idaho and Oregon III% and OATH KEEPERS just showed up. Add about another 100 firearms to my original count. ANDREW BERDOTHA is here now.

2:42 PM: BERDOTHA and that huge convoy of III% left. They are apparently staying in the area, but not at the refuge. BERDOTHA admitted they had been harassing LEO’s out in town. RYAN BUNDY and his bodyguard with a two man security detail are out in BURNS, OR heading to BLM office to screw a sign to the door that says “permanently closed.”

Now, Sheriff Ward, the FBI, Mainstream Media, and many others, claimed that those at the Refuge were harassing the LEOs in Burns.  However, Kullman reports that it was Idaho III%, Oregon III%, and OathKeepers that were responsible for the harassing going on in Burns.  No wonder the FBI wanted to hide Kullman and his testimony.  Berdotha is an OathKeeper from Bend, Oregon.

3:41 PM: BERDOTHA talked about their group going to the airport to harass you guys (Agent note: “You guys” are meant to be FBI.)

10:08 PM The numbers for during the day and night as permanent personnel stay roughly the same. Maybe +/- 5 people stay out in town, but they are most out of town ranchers or civilians who are in a supportive role. The media never stay overnight. There are roughly 20 “Militia” or “security” combatants on site. However, there are about 50 people on site and all of them claim to be combatants. But actual personnel who are pulling security and have weapons is about 20. There are around 6 children ages 10 and younger with 2 infants to include AMMON BUNDY’s family who are staying on site. Key players, such as RITZ, PAYNE, the BUNDY’s and COOPER do not stay in town, they stay at the refuge every night.

11:04 PM: If you mess with the refuge (Agent note: referring to LEO), they will be right behind you to take you down.

January 10, 2016 – PTM

9:41 AM: AMMON BUNDY and a small personal security detail are heading south to Fields, OR in one vehicle. There are 5 total personnel and 6 total weapons. They are heading down on the 205 and not using any other routes.

9:48 AM: They are going to Fields, OR to attend a meeting where they will talk with the community about the refuge and what they’re doing. They are traveling in a white, four door, Ford pick-up.

Kullman has been providing tactical information, however, here, he is setting the stage, probably hoping that the FBI will set up a roadblock and take Ammon and the others down.  It appears that he is traveling with them, and would probably play hero if there was a roadblock, and arrest Ammon while still in the “white, four door, Ford pick-up“, going south on 205.

11:25 AM: At Fields, OR school house. There are about 50-60 people in attendance including children.

2:22 PM: Group heading back to refuge from Fields, OR.

4:33 PM: Denotes picture of LEQUIEU. (Picture attached to 1A).

5:18 PM: Retired Army General NELSON has arrived and he presented AMMON BUNDY with his bronze star from Iraq. NELSON is here for moral support.

5:46 PM: PAYNE has been pretty stable, mainly dealing with operations politics with the ranchers. He is always with the BUNDY’s, PATRICK, and RITZ. He rarely leaves.

10:02 PM: PAYNE will be leaving soon. He isn’t staying much longer, but plans on returning. PAYNE and RITZ are going to be outside the wire tonight on patrol armed with AR 5.56 and .308 FAL with scope. Unsure of their exact location.

January 11, 2016 – PTM – [It appears that there was two-way texting going on during this session.  Case agent is pasting CHS texting, but not his own.]

5:06 AM: CHS reported, ” I asked. He’s working on it.”

5:34 AM: There is no evidence or proof that government computers were used, but it appears that the computers on the refuge appear untouched. Only hard supplies, like paper, printers, and physical supplies were used. The only other computers here are personal ones. No one appears capable of being able to access the computers via hacking.

10:25 AM: PAYNE is in town on a mail run.

10:29 AM: PAYNE plans to leave for an extended period of time. xxxx

10:34 AM: LEQUIEU confirmed he was a felon today in a debate over gun rights with felons. As far as the other two, one does not have a weapon with him, or on him, and one has expressed he is not allowed to carry one. The other one is no longer on the refuge.

2:36 PM: Someone sent that to RITZ and PAYNE (referring to photo of sexual toy-picture attached.)

2:37 PM: Do you understand how hard it is to control my composure? I’m dying on the inside (referring to aforementioned photo).

5:53 PM: Agents and LEO followed RITZHEIMER? Because that’s what he said. If you did or have Agents hanging out near the refuge, or on any ridge, PAYNE and JASON PATRICK agreed to go full kit and weapon to approach the Agents and surround them to talk. (Agent note: On 01/19/2016, additional details were provided in a follow-up interview). RITZHEIMER believed he was followed while on his way into town on HWY 205. He was on his way to the VERIZON store when 3-4 all white law enforcement vehicles followed him.

What?  No threat, simply talk?  That’s not what we heard in the courtroom.

5:58 PM: No he was followed into town. Said it was federal VIC’s and LEO that followed him into town.

6:31 PM: You know they ripped down a fence the BLM put up right?

8:18 PM: Two more semi auto .308’s showed up today. An MIA Socom and FAL.

8:58 PM: Unsure of the timing, but the people here are trying to get a lot of money together to make a large purchase of tactical equipment. They want LBV’s, mag pouches, magazines, ammo, optics, holsters, and belts. They want to use the items to distribute to people who came with nothing. Some people are saying they are willing to contribute money to purchase weapons. It’s all talk right now. As far as acting on it, it is unclear when it will happen.

January 12, 2016 – PTM

8:59 AM: It is unclear when, but people at MWR are trying to get a lot of money together to make a large purchase of tactical equipment. They want to buy IBV’s, mag pouches, magazines, ammo, optics, holsters, and belts for people who show-up with nothing. Some people are saying they will contribute money to buy weapons, but it’s all talk right now. Unsure when they will act on it.

2:06 PM: For the past two nights, PAYNE and RITZHEIMER have been out around 11 PM -2 AM looking for federal and local law enforcement officers who may be in the area on the sides of the roads. They have been taking weapons with them and have been looking for about 2.5 hours to “show a force” to the Agents or LEO’s if they see them. They are usually in the area of 205 MSR.

2:23 PM: Located another shotgun and .300 WIN MAG.

Kullman then left the Refuge.  However, he hadn’t ended his role.  His Case Agent, shortly before the murder of Lavoy Finicum, who had some questions, contacted him.

January 22, 2016

CHS was asked to identify an individual in a photo. The individual in the attached photo is standing to the left with a black stocking cap on and a desert digital camouflage top. CHS identified the individual as Geoff Stanek who CHS believed was from northwest Oregon. CHS stated that Stanek could also be from southwest Washington. CHS stated that Stanek is a Army combat medic veteran.

CHS was also asked if any of the subjects at the MWR had fired a weapon while at the refuge. CHS stated that the subjects talked about making a rifle range on the property to shoot and practice, but was changed to building one off the refuge and shooting somewhere else. Payne was interested in finding out where the “Feds” had been posting up and set up a rifle range right next to them.

The FBI sought identification of individuals in a photograph, though no indication of the source of the photo.  Then, they queried about gun firing on the Refuge, even though the Refuge allows hunting and has no restriction on firearms (See Burns Chronicles No 26 – Firearms Not Allowed).  It was just a day later that “John Killman (See Burns Chronicles No 42 – Fabio Minoggio (John Killman)) began firearms training and led the occupiers in to a firing exercise, which the video of became a key piece of the prosecution’s evidence – until Killman testified.

January 25, 2016

CHS reported that Jon Ritzheimer left the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (MWR) last night and plans to be away for approximately a week or so. Payne is still at the MWR and CHS was not aware if Payne intended to ever leave on his own.

January 25, 21016, the day before LaVoy’s death, is the last report that is within the obtained documents.

Kullman demonstrates one of the characteristics of an informant.  He tried to ride Peltier as an entrance to the Refuge, hoping that it would be “credentials”, though Peltier made clear that she did not know Kullman.  Kullman then lied to Peltier about his role and authority at the Refuge, but he failed, in that effort, too.

When someone starts dropping names, contact those named to see if what is claimed is, in fact, true.  Your diligence, in this regard, may save you some grief.

Kullman was an “inside” informant, identified as “CHS #14”.

Prior to publishing this article, I called Kullman.  As I began to explain that I was writing an article about the role he played at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and see if he wanted to see the article and comment, he hung up the phone, in my midsentence.

NOTE (March 9, 2017): Though Will Kullman did not testify, he did appear as required. The decision to not have him testify was made by the Defense Counsel and defendants.  The US Attorney did confirm, to the defense attorneys, that Will Kullman was an informant for the FBI, and was paid for his services. This was confirmed on Tuesday, March 7, 2017.



  1. Constitutional Truthsays:

    Of all the articles you’ve written thus far regarding informants, this one has me the angriest. That a fellow veteran, a Marine (dammit, he doesn’t deserve that title anymore in my opinion), would sell out his Countrymen for a few pieces of silver, has my blood boiling!
    All I can say is this: I’ll see his “semper fi”, and raise him an Aim High!

  2. Juliesays:

    Thank you for your hard work..
    It’s invaluable!!

  3. […] « Burns Chronicles No 51 – William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk) […]


Burns Chronicles No 52 – Will Kullman (Nighthawk) #2

Burns Chronicles No 52
Will Kullman (Nighthawk) #2

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 30, 2016

I have been contacted by a number of people who were contacted by Kullman, after the “Burns Chronicles No 51 – William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk)“went out. His line to them is that I (Hunt) am a BATF agent. Heck, that accusation goes back to 1993, and in all of that time, nobody has been able to provide any substance to that accusation. That just shows how cheap talk is.

I have also been provided a copy of a text conversation from back in September, about the time the Portland Trial, Ammon Bundy, et al, began. So, we will begin with that text conversation. I have indicated Kullman’s comments with K and the other participant as S. This discussion took place before and during the trial that began on September 7, 2016.

SEP 4 AT 10:08 PM

K:  I’m going to Portland for the Bundy trials. Will you be there

SEP 21 AT 5:46 PM

S:  Dude… People are freaking out your like McConnell… is this true?

K:  Excuse me?

S:  Ya. Everyone is telling me you were buddy buddy with him and you mysteriously left last week after they showed your picture. I’m not saying it that’s not me… it paranoia all over again… someone said you are testifying for the prosecution. Blah blah blah… figured you would want to know

K:  First and foremost before the Bundys before the trials before any of this Mark and I Marine brothers just like John Ritzheimer and our bond is before everything else. Period. I have no idea what you mean by showing my picture I left on Thursday afternoon because I had trial myself here in Washington Friday morning for my son in custody. I’m not testifying for anybody and I risked a lot going to the courthouse, and because I was in Portland for a week and didn’t see my son before my trial I end up losing custody of my son so I sacrificed to be there don’t lump me in with Jason Blomgren just because he squealed like a pig.

Note that he mentions Ritzheimer, claiming that their “bond is before everything else.” This was brought up in ” Burns Chronicles No 51 – William “Will” Kullman (Night Hawk)“, when Kullman told Peltier to tell Ritzheimer, “Semper Fi!”

Now, we will jump to the end of the next discussion, which took place on Facebook. The initial discussion began on the day that LaVoy Finicum was murdered, January 26, and concluded on the next day. The conversation picks up again on December 28, 2016. It is this last portion that we will begin with. This is the day that the first Kullman article was published.

8:23 pm [December 28, 2016]

Friend:  Not sure what is going on but you are being tagged in the Patriot community as an informant against the refuge guys.  Outpost of Freedom has evidence and has written an article against you.  What the hell is going on?  I trusted you

8:37 pm

Kullman:  I’m not sure.  I was just told of it.  And haven’t finished reading the article myself

I don’t know how they would come to that conclusion, I’m one of the biggest patriots in this state and make it known because I’m proud of who I am.

8:39 pm

Friend:  I’ve been hit up by the armchair warriors stalking my page that keep pming me telling me how terrible I am that we are “friends” on fb…but I can’t find your name on my list.  Strange.  Gary Hunt called you for your input but you hung up on him.  What the hell is going on?

8:41 pm

Kullman:  Only 2 things in the article I’ve read so far are true.  Me telling Maureen I wanted to come help, and that I hung up on him cause he’s a known ATF agent.

And as far as Robert Hart, this character I turned into the Feds for wanting to kill cops, I didn’t tell the Feds that.  I told the Bundy’s, Payne, Patrick and Ritz about that guy.

8:42 pm

Friend:  Hunt is a known ATF agent?  What?  Bullshit!

8:43 pm

Kullman:  He mentions me in another one of his articles but what is written isn’t even true about me.  He says I brought night vision and a 300 win mag to the refuge but I’ve never owned any of those things.  I brought my AR and my pistol.

You can look all over the internet and find articles wherever the patriot community has come into play, Gary hunt is there

8:45 pm

Friend:  Of course he’s there.  He’s a Patriot journalist.  Why would he write crap about you if it weren’t true?

8:48 pm

Kullman:  Idk.  I’m getting all sorts of messages and stuff.  Not sure what to think about this.

8:50 pm

Friend:  I’ve known Gary since Sky was arrested and he seems as if he doesn’t like to publish anything unless he has proof of what he’s writing…I would like to see proof of his accusation if I were you.  If it’s not true, I would demand proof.

8:51 pm

Kullman:  My only worry is if I do it, he will twist my words.

8:52 pm

Friend:  That’s why you document everything in writing…your words can’t be twisted without proof that the words are being twisted if it’s in writing.

8:52 pm

Kullman:  I’m gonna try and absorb this.  Appreciate you writing me.

8:53 pm

Friend:  Why?  If these accusations are untrue, I’d be pissed and I would get on his page and ask for proof in the comment section of the article.

8:54 pm

Kullman:  Appreciate you writing me.  Don’t write to me again.

I didn’t realize that Kullman had already turned “Robert Hart” in to the feds. I can see no reason, whatsoever, that a person would turn a patriot over to the feds for what he said. That decision should be something to be decided by than more than one individual, and should be made by people that might be affected by whatever Hart said or did. If all else failed, then, their decision might be to turn Hart over to the feds. For a sole person to make such a decision could, as easily, be to an attempt to garner favor (or money) from the feds, as much as anything else.

It is also clear that Kullman wants to discredit the information contained in the article by trying to discredit the author (me), instead of discrediting the content of the article. However, the “Friend” knows me, well.

I want to provide the opportunity to someone that I am exposing as an informant to have his say.  To do so, I endeavor to give that person the opportunity to provide something that would prove that I am wrong in my deductions. If I have a phone number, I call that person to give him such an opportunity. In this instance, I called, and it went to voicemail.  Within just a few seconds, insufficient time for Kullman to have listened to the message, I received a phone call from Kullman. If you listen closely, you can hear the click after I say “events”. That is when Kullman hung up his phone.

Understand that I do record the calls that I make under these circumstances. First, to confirm that the call was made. Second, to make sure that if they make any comments, or provide information that contradicts what I have written, that I can be precise in what I write in any follow-up on the article.

Regarding Kullman’s communication with the “Friend”, we can now go back to what occurred on January 26, 2016. That was the day that LaVoy Finicum was murdered by the Oregon State Police, and in which the FBI has yet to conclude its “investigation” into the role that their agents played in those few minutes that were the last of LaVoy’s life.  The communication, on FB, begins just about 5 1/2 hours after the shooting.

1/26, 10:02 pm

Kullman:  [Friend], I was at Schuyler’s case back in December, don’t know if you remember me.  I have been at the refuge in Oregon with Jason Patrick and the Bundys (god help us all for what happened today) but I was wondering when Schuyler’s next court date was so I could be there now that I am home.

1/26, 10:05 pm

Friend:  May 2 is the trial date and we don’t know when the Motion hearings will be.

1/26, 10:05 pm

Kullman:  Ok perfect.  What’s the plan?

1/26, 10:05 pm

Friend:  For OR or the Sky’s court?

1/26, 10:07 pm

Kullman:  Both?  I know we don’t know each other that well, but I was in Oregon as a leader of the Militia down there.  As well as PSD for the Bundys.  I just want to know what else I can do here with you for Schuyler and Oregon if there is anything else we can do…I know Schuyler protected you.  He is my Brother, and Fellow Marine.  If there is anything you need as far as security, let me know.  I need details of everything.

1/26, 10:13 pm

Friend:  I cannot talk about any plans on fb but the feds do not know the powder keg they just opened.  The fuse has been lit and it could be bloody on both sides.  Thank you for the offer.  Schuyler is our boy and what the feds did to set him up is wrong on so many levels.  Now they are trying to go after my wife.  She has an attorney but the feds want to charge her for bogus crap concerning Sky.

1/26, 10:15 pm

Kullman:  Any other way we can communicate.  I know the PPN was there before when I was there, but, I have teams here in Western Washington that are ready to go.  I just want the best clarification as possible.

I am so sorry they are going after [Friend’s wife].  She is a GOOD woman.  I enjoyed our interaction at the Wandering Goose when we went there for lunch.

Not sure if you still have my contact info, but email me or call me anytime you need ANYTHING.  4253197669

1/26, 10:19 pm

Friend:  PPN was told to stand down but the folks at the refuge are begging for more manpower.  It is my understanding that people are gearing up and going down there.

1/26, 10:20 pm

Kullman:  PPN was told to stand down AT the refuge but they maintained an outer perimeter in burns for us.  As far as people going down, more people are just talking then actually acting.  I was planning on heading back down tomorrow until I heard about Lavoy, god rest his soul, but now I need to stay and try and organize as many men as I can to go and fight.  A broken arrow message has been sent to every able bodied man that can take up arms and fight to come to Oregon.  Let me know when you’re coming down so we can set up a meet.

1/26, 10:22 pm

Kullman:  Once we leave Malheur, we will move on to other refuges that are illegally controlled by our corrupt government.  We will push and push.  I know you have a group of guys that are ready to fight.  I want in.  There is a refuge on your side of the state.  We can take it.

1/26, 10:25 pm

Friend:  I want to go down to OR but the wife is court ordered not to leave the state and I’m not going to leave her alone.

1/26, 10:26 pm

Kullman:  Absolutely not, you will not leave her!  How many guys you got going?  (roughly, please don’t give me an exact number)  I have “5” guys who are gonna gear up with me.

1/26, 10:27 pm

Friend:  I don’t have any guys going down.  We are Sheepdogs, not militia.

1/26, 10:27 pm

Kullman:  I’ll assume smaller but awesome!

The problem with the west side of the state, is it not as organized here as it is where you’re at.

I’m assuming you know that.

So it’s hard to get people together.

1/26, 10:28 pm

Friend:  We have about 2400 members in our group and that is a rough figure but like I said, we aren’t militia.  We are Sheepdogs.

1/26, 10:29 pm

Kullman:  Are you friends with Steve McLaughlin?

1/26, 10:30 pm

Friend:  Not sure, why?

1/26, 10:31 pm

Kullman:  Oh, he’s the rancher from eastern Washington and the president of Liberty Watch Washington.  He’s a good man

1/26, 10:32 pm

Kullman:  I met him at the rally in Olympia last week.  He spoke of OR and Schuyler.  He’s the rancher with problems.  I’ll join you guys when you take over the refuge on the eastern side.

1/26, 10:32 pm

Friend:  Interesting.  Schuyler never mentioned him.  We aren’t taking over anything.

1/26, 10:32 pm

Kullman:  Steve McLaughlin

He spoke of Schuyler briefly in reference to our rights being taken from us, and people being punished unjustly.  Like Schuyler.  He didn’t say he knew him personally.

1/26, 11:05 pm

Friend:  Copy that.  I will contact Steve and see what he wishes folks to do.

Is he the one that is a Reardon Police Officer?  What is his fb link?

1/26, 11:08 pm

Kullman:  No, he is retired Navy I think.

1/26, 11:17 pm

Kullman:  Just got off the phone with a person who was with the people that were arrested and he was released.  Told me what happened to everyone including Payne and Lavoy.

1/26, 11:18 pm

Friend:  How was he released?

Ammon was on the phone with Carol giving her a play by play as the whole thing unfolded.  She recorded it.  Wonder if that person who was released has the same story.

Who is this person?

1/26, 11:22 pm

Kullman:  Mark McConnell.  He drove the jeep

1/26, 11:22 pm

Friend:  What did he tell you?  Something smells off about this guy.  Why was he released?

1/26, 11:25 pm

Kullman:  He said that him and Payne and the other vehicle got pulled over.  That as soon as Payne and him were pulled out of the truck, Lavoy took off.  Crashed the truck into a snow bank and then when they Leo got to the truck, he advanced on the Leo.  Apparently telling them to shoot him, and he kept advancing so they did.

1/26, 11:25 pm

Kullman:  He said that they grilled him for about two hours and couldn’t get anything on him but trespassing because he wasn’t there when they took the refuge

Apparently him and some 18 year old girl

Got off with being in the “wrong place at the wrong time”

1/26, 11:26 pm

Friend:  That is not what Ammon was telling Carol.  The video shows LaVoy being shot in the back.

Something is off…

1/26, 11:27 pm

Kullman:  Mark wasn’t there when Lavoy was shot, he said that’s what he was told.

I don’t think mark would lie, I think mark May have been told something else.

1/26, 11:27 pm

Friend:  I agree.

1/26, 11:27 pm

Kullman:  Because I don’t believe for a second Lavoy would advance on Leo

Mark is a good man.  I think he was just fed some bullshit to try and spill the beans but he didn’t

1/26, 11:28 pm

Friend:  If Mark was driving the jeep when they got pulled over, how was he not there when Lavoy was shot and why was he released?

1/26, 11:28 pm

Kullman:  Because LaVoy sped off in the other vehicle

1/26, 11:29 pm

Friend:  I got that part.  But why was he released when he was the one driving the jeep?

1/26, 11:29 pm

Kullman:  With Ammon, Shawna, and the 18 year old

Again, I think mark was just fed some shit to try and get him to spill the beans on anything but he didn’t budge.  Now he’s stranded in burns over night with no shelter.  They won’t release his jeep for 24 hours

1/26, 11:32 pm

Friend:  I still don’t understand.  How can he be getting his jeep back?  Something’s wrong here.  Me thinks it’s a set up and whoever goes down there will either be killed or set up, too.

1/26, 11:33 pm

Kullman:  I’ll be there by their side.

Kullman:  I need to sleep.  Calm my mind down.  Stay frosty.

1/26, 11:33 pm

Friend:  Watch your six….

1/26, 11:33 pm

Kullman:  Always

1/26, 11:33 pm

Friend:  Amen

Schuyler is on lock down.  They took him to solitary.

1/26, 11:35 pm

Kullman:  What the hell for?!?!

1/26, 11:35 pm

Friend:  Don’t know.  That is all that was said.

1/26, 11:36 pm

Kullman:  This is getting outrageous

We need to get him the hell out of there, but solitary!?!?  Are you breaking him out?

1/26, 11:37 pm

Friend:  They had him in solitary the first week he was there then moved him to population.  Now he is back.  No, I’m not breaking him out.

1/26, 11:37 pm

Kullman:  Wooooooow.  That’s absurd in my opinion

1/26, 11:38 pm

Friend:  Why?  I’m not going on a suicide mission to break him out.  I know the feds are scared but…

1/26, 11:48 pm

Kullman:  They should be.

1/26, 11:52 pm

Friend:  I’m not sure what to do or think at this point.

1/26, 11:53 pm

Kullman:  With more support coming from others in the state we should be able to break him out.

1/26, 11:53 pm

Friend:  It’s a bad idea all around and I know Sky won’t want it.  He wants to take this to the Supreme Court and he can’t do that on the run doing stupid shit.

You can see how often Kullman tries to bait Friend by asking him his plans or encouraging certain activities. This is well beyond what any reasonable person would answer, especially on FB and with someone that you didn’t know. But, apparently, Kullman’s desperation to increase his worth to the FBI led him to try, desperately, to get the Friend, a real friend to Schuyler Barbeau, to talk about plans for both Schuyler’s role (which the FBI knew about from intelligence in December 2015) and what might happen in Burns. However, much of his story is contrived. Let’s look at what he claims about his knowledge, acquired from Mark McConnell, at a time that he could not even have had the opportunity to talk with McConnell.

I interviewed McConnell on January 30, just four days after the shooting. He was not aware of any shots being fired at Ryan Payne, by his own observation. Later when Payne was brought down to where McConnell was, Payne did say, after he joined McConnell, Ammon Bundy, and Brian “Booda” Cavalier, that he had been shot AT, but not hit. Therefore, McConnell knew that Payne had not been shot. He also told me that he wasn’t released until 11:00 or 11:30 pm, fully an hour after Kullman claims to have spoken with McConnell.

Now, rumor had it that “Ryan” had been shot. There was speculation as to which Ryan, and at first, I had assumed Payne. However, McConnell said that when he was being transported to the rest area where they all met and the two parties were separated, one to Portland, and McConnell and Victoria Sharp back to Burns, he knew that Ryan Bundy was in an ambulance that made a short stop at the Harney District Hospital.

The next available discussion, the following day, January 27:

1/27, 12:37 pm

Kullman:  Where is your group going to stage?  We can’t get an answer from Max Fairchild and I got my phone blowing up from guys on the west side looking for answers and need to send them somewhere.

Any information on where I can send them beside the refuge let me know.

1/27, 2:02 pm

Friend:  There are some Sheepdogs down there but I’m not going.  I’m not leaving my wife.  Have them go to the town of Burns and go to one of the Motels.  There they will find one or two Patriots with intel.  Everything else I cannot put on fb

1/27, 2:04 pm

Kullman:  Email?

1/27, 2:04 pm

Friend:  wickr is xxxxxxxx.  Email is not secure

1/27, 2:07 pm

Kullman:  Mine is KullmanCombat

1/27, 2:12 pm

Friend:  I wickred you.

1/27, 2:16 pm

Kullman:  Re send transmission

1/27, 2:22 pm

Friend:  Done

1/27, 3:31 pm

Friend:  No details on fb.

1/27, 3:32 pm

Kullman:  No I meant message me on wickr

Kullman persists, trying to get Friend to go to email or Wickr. Apparently, he assumes that if he can imply a greater degree of security to the communications, Friend will open up and give him what he seeks, though it really did not even exist.

It appears that Kullman has, unwittingly, given us a picture of some of the tactics of an informant.

NOTE (March 9, 2017): Though Will Kullman did not testify, he did appear as required. The decision to not have him testify was made by the Defense Counsel and defendants.  The US Attorney did confirm, to the defense attorneys, that Will Kullman was an informant for the FBI, and was paid for his services. This was confirmed on Tuesday, March 7, 2017.


One Comment

  1. Wayne Von Bach, Wayne: Bach, Wayne: Bachmannsays:

    I don’t know that I ever met that Kullman character, and I don’t know who “friend” would be, but I picked up instantly to his reference on McConnell before the name was revealed.

    I hope you have some sort of diaries, etc. from 18 January until I left on the 24th, or even later. I am curious if there was anything being said about me, since I wanted to teach a class on Commercial Law, the use of the bonding companies, and court information about being sure not to sighn their contracts, not even Miranda Warning doc.s.


Burns Chronicles No 53 – Plea Withdrawal – A Privilege or a Right?

Burns Chronicles No 53
Plea Withdrawal – A Privilege or a Right?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 2, 2017

On 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), finding the defendants “Not Guilty” of the charges that included Payne in the original Indictment.

Payne pled guilty, in a Plea Agreement, on July 19, 2016.  In the hearing on the Plea Agreement, when asked how he pled, he stated, “In pursuing that effort [the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge], 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.

Clearly, he did not say that he was guilty.  He said that he understood himself “to have been guilty of the charges“.  So, we have to wonder why the equivocation that was apparent in his statement to the Court.  And, we will get to that.  However, let’s continue from where we are.

The Court (Queen Judge Anna Brown) gave her Order Denying Defendant Ryan Payne’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.  From that document, we can get some dates with regard to the timing of Payne’s plea agreement and other contributing factors.


Judge Brown sets out the “Standard” upon which the Court is to determine if a plea should be withdrawn.  The citations she uses are all from the 9th Circuit, as they should be.

“Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) provides that a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty prior to sentencing if he “‘can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.’” United States v. Mayweather, 634 F.3d 498, 504 (9th Cir. 2010). “The defendant has the burden of demonstrating a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a plea.” United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2005). “‘Fair and just reasons for withdrawal include inadequate Rule 11 plea colloquies, newly discovered evidence, intervening circumstances, or any other reason for withdrawing the plea that did not exist when the defendant entered his plea.’” Mayweather, 634 F.3d at 504 (quoting United States v. Ortega–Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir. 2004)). “‘While the defendant is not permitted to withdraw his plea ‘simply on a lark,’ the ‘fair and just standard’ is generous and must be applied liberally.’” Mayweather, 634 F.3d at 504 (quoting United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008)).

You will note that the standard is based upon “fair and just”, and that the burden is on the defendant.  However, the last citation makes clear that the “‘fair and just standard’ is generous and must be liberally applied.”

As she continues, she draws from other 9th Circuit decisions:

A defendant “does not have to prove that his plea is invalid in order to establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal before sentencing.” United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Mayweather, 634 F.3d at 504. When a defendant’s reason for seeking to withdraw a guilty plea is newly-discovered evidence, “the generous ‘fair and just reason’ standard does not require that the defendant 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.” United States v. Garcia, 401 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir. 2005). Even if newly-discovered evidence provides the basis for the withdrawal of a guilty plea, however, the defendant must still demonstrate the “evidence was relevant evidence in [the defendant’s] favor that 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.”

So, the Defendant “does not have to prove that his plea is invalid in order to establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal before sentencing“, and it “does not require that the defendant 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.”

Therefore, the Defendant does not have to prove that his plea was invalid, nor that any new evidence would exonerate him.  It doesn’t even have to suggest that the new evidence would prove his innocence.  It is based solely on the fact that evidence, whether physical or testimonial, was not available at the time that the plea was entered.

So, we must look at what the circumstances are so that we can use reason, instead of what appears to be a firm prejudice on the part of Judge Brown.

Judge Brown then goes on to identify five areas that warrant discussion, to determine if the “fair and just” standard applies.

  1. Intervening Circumstances in the District of Nevada 15

Payne pled Guilty on July 19, 2016.  He had been set to go to trial on September 7, 2016, along with the Group 1 defendants that were found Not Guilty at the conclusion of that trial.  During the hearing, the Prosecution stated that it “anticipated [Payne] would plead guilty in Nevada.”  Surely, if both the Prosecution and the Defendant anticipated it, it should also be anticipated by Judge Brown.  Is it not then an intervening circumstance?  After all, the anticipation was as much a part of the hearing as Payne’s guilty plea.

  1. Newly-Discovered Evidence 18

Payne conceded that on July 1, 2016 he had received the redacted CHS (informants) reports (1023 CHS Reporting Document).  However, Payne did not know who each of the informants was.  It was not until the trial that Mark McConnell was put out by the government, though not called to testify.  It was a voluntary action on the part of Terri Linnell that provided some exculpatory (supportive of innocence), when she testified.  And, it was diligence on the part of some of the defendants and defense attorneys that brought Fabio Minoggio (aka John Killman) to the stand that shed a completely new light to some of the events that the prosecution relied upon for their case that shifted those events to the responsibility of the government, not of the occupiers.  If the other informants had been identified, is it possible that Payne, having access to those other informants, might not have pled guilty?  It is probably just and fair that there is that likelihood.

Judge Brown “concludes [that] Payne’s personal involvement in all of the main events preceding and during the occupation of the MNWR consistently put him in a significantly superior position to the government in assessing what evidence existed to support the government’s charge and its theory of the conspiracy case against Payne.”

Now, consider this.  Judge Brown has determined that Payne is guilty, and he should have known that he was guilty.  However, let us look at what both the government had and what the occupiers had.

The initial FBI investigation began back in October 2015.  Since that time, they began collecting information, recordings, interviews, secured informants to infiltrate (spy on) the occupiers, and begin putting together the elements for a criminal complaint that was finally officially produced after the murder of LaVoy Finicum.  They had well over three months of clandestine activity, continuously compiled, as if pursuing a foreign enemy on American soil — perhaps even more so than they would that foreign enemy.  The occupiers did not keep records, make notes, refuse entry to the Refuge, with the exception of those who were clearly troublemakers, nor begin preparing for their defense, as they, and the jury, felt that the had broken no laws.

Now, Brown dwelt upon the CHS reports.  However, she did not mention the multitude of other “evidence”.  Not counting numerous audio and video recordings, there are 48,000 pages in Discovery.  Including audio and video, there are seven terabytes (A terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes) of data.  I don’t doubt that there are many hundreds of hours of audio and video evidence.  However, we will put aside all but the paperwork.

As a test, I read a number of the pages in the Discovery.  Now, I am not a slow reader, nor am I a speed-reader.  I am probably pretty much an average reader.  However, in reading the documents to determine how long it took an average reader to read them, I simply read them.  I did not stop to contemplate the content, which is often necessary to fully understand something, especially when much of it is legalese or government double-speak.  It took between 1 and 1 1/2 minutes to read a full page.  So, to err on the side of the government, we will use an estimated 1 minute to read a page of the Discovery.

If we were to read, uninterrupted, for an 8-hour day, we would be able to read an average of 480 pages per day.  To read all 48,000 pages would take 100 days, or nearly four months..  And, with any spare time, one might be able to get in a few videos or audios.

Just for the heck of it, let’s compound the problem.  Most of the Group 1 defendants were arrested on January 26, 2016.  During that time, they were kept as isolated as possible.  Those who were released from custody were admonished not to communicate with the militia, others, and co-defendants.  It wasn’t until October 5, 2016, just over one month before trial, that the Court issued an Order Allowing Contact, removing the communication restrictions that had been imposed on them from the time of their arrest.  Finally, they were able to “conspire” to prepare their common defense.

The government, on the other hand, was free to communicate with witnesses, FBI and US Attorneys, and anybody else they chose to communicate with.  The investigation, as far as informants, begins in October 2015 and continued into February 2016.  The Superseding Indictment was filed on March 8, 2016.  That gave those hundreds of federal employees nearly four months to conspire, to review, to share, etc., to come up with the final charges against all of the defendants.

So, we must ask ourselves just what is “fair and just”, regardless of the bias of Judge Anna Brown, since ultimately, this country does belong to We, the People.

  1. Adequacy of the Plea Colloquy 20

When the charges were read, the Court asked Payne if the statements that had been read were true.  The following colloquy transpired:

THE DEFENDANT: I would only bring up one contention, which I overlooked previously, and that would be the — the notion that all three — force, intimidation, and threats – were committed, given the — the word “and” there. And would say –

THE COURT: Would you be satisfied if “and” was replaced by “or”?


THE COURT: And does that cause any concern to the Government?

GABRIEL: No objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, may I change “and” to “or,” as your client indicates?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL] MR. FEDERICO: Yes, your Honor, please do so.

Though this might be passed over as simply semantics, it gets to the heart of one of the elements that led Payne to plea as he did.  If “and” is used, it is inclusive of all three elements, “force”, “intimidation”, and, “threats”.  So, as was stated above, Payne “understood” that he was guilty, though this concern of the specific wording, when connect by “or” rather than “and”, means it could be only one element.  Now, if that sole element is “intimidation”, and if there was no effort to force, threat, or intimidate, by Payne’s actions, the only element that could exist, absent the intent, would be intimidation.

So, did Payne intend to “intimidate”?  Or, was the “intimidation” the subjective perception by any one of the employees, either real or contrived, that he failed to go to work because he was “intimidated” by the actions of the occupier?

To do so, let us revisit what we know of what the determination of the jury was when the delivered their verdict.  All we have to determine this was provided by Juror #4 (See Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect).  He said that the jury had found that though there was that “effect”, the found that there was no “intent”.  Hence, the Not Guilty verdict.  Hence, also, the reason that Payne wanted the distinction between “and” and “or” included during the hearing — which was agreed to by the Court and the Prosecution.

Once again, just what is “fair and just”?

  1. Subsequent Not-Guilty Verdicts for Co-Defendants 23

This element is simply thrown in as a handle to rationalize Judge Brown’s effort to divert from the real purpose (obfuscation) of the denial of Payne’s Plea Withdrawal.  How could this even be a consideration when Payne Moved to Withdraw His Plea fully two weeks before the matter was handed over to the Jury for their deliberations?

Now, it is quite possible that the strength (or, should I saw weakness?) of the government’s case had begun to be exposed.  However, very much of the Discovery that had been provided was not sufficient for the government to bring forth much of the “damning” evidence that was found in the first batches of Discovery.

So, what does Judge Brown have to say with regard to the verdict that is even on point to the subject at hand?  Is it “fair and just” to rely on something that could have absolutely no effect on Payne’s decision?

  1. Prejudice to the Government 27

My first thought on this subject, “Who cares that the government is subject to prejudice?”  As discussed in “Words from the Poor Losers“, the government seems to have a personal stake in the outcome of this trial.  When the verdict was given, they were “disappointed”.  Why the heck should the members of the Department of Justice be “disappointed” over a verdict?  It would seem that their pursuit, in any case, would be the goal of justice.  Our system says that the jury decides what is just (Except in Judge Anna Brown’s courtroom).  Why is the government “disappointed” in justice NOT being denied?

Now, that is slightly off point, but it still sticks in my craw to think that a personal vendetta can be waged by the government, against peaceful protestors.

However, we must also look at what sticks in Judge Brown’s craw.  She brings us some citations from other cases.

The Court notes the Ninth Circuit has held the acquittal ofco-defendants of the same conspiracy charge is a reason that adistrict courtmayconsider in determining whether to permit adefendant to withdraw a guilty plea to that charge. (UnitedStates v.Schwartz, 785 F.2d 673, 678(9th Cir. 1986)).

Well, that makes it pretty clear — that the acquittal of the co-defendants is a reason to be considered “in determining whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea.”  But, heck, that’s not good enough for Anna Brown.  Instead of sticking with the precedence of the Ninth Circuit, she desperately clings to a means of dismissing the Ninth Circuit precedence, in favor of the 2nd and 6th Circuits.

The Second Circuit concluded that requiring a court to permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea in such circumstances “would allow defendants such as O’Hara to have it both ways” (United States v. O’Hara, 960 F.2d 11, 14-15 (2d Cir. 1992)).

But, wait, Payne moved to withdraw his plea during the trial.  By so doing, if his motion had been granted, he would have to stand trial with Group 2.  He would have no choice, and, as we have seen, the government has, in their desperation to circumvent justice, added some misdemeanor charges, in the hope of being able to get a conviction of some of the defendants in Group 2.  Not quite “both ways”, after all, is it?  This would create no prejudice on the government.  Surely, after over a year, they have their cases against Payne all worked up.  They just take what they can from the Group 1 trial, add some tidbits that are specific to Payne, and proceed.

So, what could be the cause for denial?  Could it be that the scorecard looks really bad for this very expensive “pursuit of justice” and they want to keep as many “guilty pleas” as possible on the scorecard?  So, it begins to look like the “fair and just” aspect is in favor of the prosecution, where it is intended to apply to the defendant.

Then, she briefly refers to United States v. Giorgio, 802 F.3d 845, 848-50 (6th Cir. 2015), stating only that in that case, “denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea despite acquittal of co-conspirators.”  She doesn’t even provide any insight as to why it was denied.  We have no idea if there was an equivocation on the part of that defendant, nor do we have any idea of any of the circumstances that led the 6th Circuit to rule as they did.

I believe that we can all look at what has happened over the past year, both in the courtroom and out, and see that the “fair and just” concept is absent any real merit, unless it is applied to the fairness and justness of the edict from the bench.  And, we know that it has not been applied as was honestly intended.

Burns Chronicles No 54 – To Jury, or, Not To Jury

Burns Chronicles No 54
To Jury, or, Not To Jury

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 23, 2017

Though I have posted the Preamble to the Bill of Rights a number of times, people still ask if there really is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights.  A preamble sets forth the purpose of the document, as the Preamble to the Constitution sets forth its purpose.  It is not a part of the document, rather an explanation as to why the document was created.  When Congress approved, and sent the Bill of Rights to the States, as required by Article V of the Constitution, the first paragraph explained why the Joint Resolution was passed.  It states, “declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” for the purpose of “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”  To wit:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

So, now, we must determine if, in fact, it has extended “the ground of public confidence in the Government“, in light of the current situation.  Our query must be directed to the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

We must also look to the Seventh Amendment:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollarsthe right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

So, between these two Amendments, we find that every judicial concept in the Constitution, with the exception of the House and Senate’s disciplinary procedures regarding their own members, requires a jury to make the determination of guilt or innocence.

The matter at hand is the additional charges brought against the lower level defendants in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  Since the government did not get a conviction of the leaders of said occupation, they have stooped to a new low, perhaps just being poor losers.  They have brought a Misdemeanor Information, for Trespass and other crimes, against the second group of defendants.  These charges were not a part of the Superseding Indictment.


Now, with regard to “public confidence“, we need to look no further than what Judge Anna Brown has provided for in her “Order Following January 20, 2017, Status Hearing“.  The pertinent text is as follows:


The Court concludes each of the misdemeanor counts in the Misdemeanor Information (#1628) are Class B misdemeanors and, therefore, are petty offenses on which Defendants do not have a right to a trial by jury as to those counts. Pending further order, the Court will conduct the trial on the Class B misdemeanor counts at the same time as the trial on the felony counts in the Superseding Indictment(#282), that is set to begin February 14, 2017.

The Court, nonetheless, will consider the parties arguments regarding whether the Court has the authority to provide Defendants with a jury trial on those counts and, if so, whether it should do so. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to file no later than Noon, January 25, 2017, a single, joint status report that sets out (1) the parties’ arguments as to the Court’s authority to provide Defendants with a trial by jury on Class B misdemeanor counts; (2) if so, parties’ arguments regarding whether the Court should exercise its discretion to provide Defendants with a trial by jury on the Class B misdemeanor counts; and (3) the parties’ recommendations as to trial procedure in the event that the Court determines it will conduct a bench trial as to the Class B misdemeanor counts.

From past history, all that Judge Brown is looking for is the Prosecution to come up with some words that she can include in here Order to “proclaim” that the Constitution is null and void, and that the criminal charges of trespass are not really criminal, and that those who Framed the Constitution didn’t really mean “criminal” when they said “criminal prosecutions“.

Is it at all possible that she honestly believes that the misdemeanor charges are, somehow, civil?  That strains credulity, at best.  But, if the charges are civil, then the defendants still have a right to a jury.

Since the Judge seems to think that it is not “criminal”, since they are Class B Misdemeanors, let’s see what the Prosecutor thinks.  At the end of “Misdemeanor Information” (linked above), we find:

Upon conviction of the offenses set forth in Counts 1 through 7 of this Information, defendants JASON PATRICK, DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, DARRYL WILLIAM THORN, and JAKE RYAN shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) any firearms and ammunition involved in or used in the willful commission of the offense.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924( d) as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ).

The U. S. Code is broken into “Titles”.  You will note that they want firearms to be “forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code“.  It continues on to say, “All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d)“.  Well, heck, according to the law books, Title 18 is titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures“.  So, they are going to make them forfeit any firearms, by using Criminal Statutes, but the crime that they did not commit is not criminal.  Darn, that is enough to boggle the mind.

NOTE:  Even before I got this far in writing this article, I had visions of Alice in Wonderland.  And, yes, it did include the Queen of Hearts, acting as Judge Brown, and saying “Off with their heads.”!

Now, the Information does cite the “Code of Federal Regulations” (C.F.R.) as the authority, or, well, the “law” that has been violated.  But, the C.F.R. is often only of rules promulgated by administrative agencies, and not laws.  Congress enabled rule-making, though they have no constitutional authority to delegate that authority, as the Constitution describes them as holding, “All legislative Powers“.  However, they have also created a Fourth Branch of Government, which is explained in greater detail, in “Administrative Agencies – The Fourth Branch of Government“.  Perhaps, since they are rules promulgated by administrative agencies, they really are not criminal.  However, if that were the case, we can clearly see that the government that was created by the Constitution no longer abides by the Constitution.

This warrants a final thought, from a North Carolina Supreme Court decision, given prior to the culmination of the Constitutional Convention:

“But that it was clear that no act they could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

Bayard v. Singleton [1 N.C. 42] 1787



  1. Sherry Briggs says:

    Wow very informative, I just learned alot from this article about our Constitutional rights, laws and judiciary confines of the Constitution.
    Thank you!!

  2. […] Does the constitution really mean what it says? This article is reposted from Outpost of Freedom. […]

  3. It seems to me that the prior case, not guilty, and the trespass charge arose from the same action, pray tell why this is not also Article 5- being charged for the same crime act a second time, just because the government failed to make all charges the on the first trial they should not be permitted TRY, TRY, TRY until a desired verdict is handed down. I look forward to your answer as I’m sure there are other misled fools as myself. Thank you for your thoughts and advice Art

    • ghuntghunt says:

      Those that have already been tried will not be retried. The first group, found not guilty, was the leadership. So, we have a very pissed off bunch of government curmudgeon that simply can’t stand to lose. They think that they can do no wrong.
      As a friend said, in a book he wrote, we have gone from an adversarial system in an inquisitorial system. In the inquisitorial system, they idea is to get you to confess, by any means. However, our current system likes to keep the charade going, so if you don’t plea, they want a jury controlled by them to find you guilty. That keeps their hands clean.
      Since the failed, with the really bad dues (leaders), they are desperate to prove that their efforts have not been in vain, which can be demonstrated if they can find even one person guilty.
      However, since the first round went so badly, and they can’t really go back to the Grand Jury, they contrive an “information” and bring misdemeanors charges added on to the same felony charges.
      Now, you suggest that this might be double-jeopardy. Well, that concept that was held dear by the Founders has, also, gone astray. Now, it is a sort of “catch them if you can”, so, the stack the charges. I wrote about this is “The Legal Shotgun” ( But that applied to the original Indictment, where there are numerous counts for variations of the same crime, often quite slight or by two or more provisions of the same statute.
      The first trial, however, defied the statistical odds with not guilty on all counts. So, the have found a new level by first, charging them with a misdemeanor, then wanting to guarantee a conviction by assuring that the controlled jury cannot even save them from conviction, because the judge gets to do it, still perpetrating the charade.

  4. Excellent article.
    I also noticed that taking their guns would, amongst other things, would cost them more than twenty dollars,,,

  5. […] a previous article, “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments were discussed.  Now, let’s go to the top, the […]

  6. […] the arguments were presented.  With total disregard for the Constitution, as explained in “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, she used her “discretion” to hold the trials at the same time, in front of the […]

  7. […] judge who presided over the bench trial.  This somewhat irregular practice was discussed in “Burns Chronicles No 54 – To Jury, or, Not To Jury” and decided outside of the Rules of Court.  After a few days of deliberation, she found all […]

    Burns Chronicles No 55 – Marshall Spring & Ben

    Burns Chronicles No 55
    Marshall Spring & Ben


    Gary Hunt
    Outpost of Freedom
    January 23, 2017

    Marshall Sawyer Spring served as a Marine in Iraq with one of the defendants. He received a Purple Heart, but his honor stopped there. His and Ben’s betrayal, of patriots and fellow Marines, as informants includes not only informing, but goes well beyond, as you will see.

    Spring and his partner, known only as “Ben”, live in Loveland, Colorado. Spring is a “Marshal” appointed such by Bruce Doucette, self-appointed “United States Superior Court Judge”. This would, according to the “appointment”, make Spring’s title “Marshal Marshall Spring”.  Doucette arranged to meet Spring and “Ben” in Burns, to set up a Common Law Grand Jury. Spring and Ben’s visit to Burns coincides with the two FBI form 1023 (CHS Reporting Document) reports, and it is quite apparent that the reports are tracking Doucette as much as they are the events in Burns.

    Doucette, on January 14, 2017, confronted Spring with the information I had. Of course, Spring denied that he was an informant, however, even though a subsequent meeting was scheduled, it seems that Spring has given up his phone, as it is no longer in service.

    Efforts to contact “Ben” have been futile, and even his last name is unknown. He had red hair and was around the Refuge by January 12 until, at least, January 15, 2016. He was about 5′ 7″ or 5′ 8″ and weighed about 175 pounds. He sported a Fu Manchu goatee and moustache.

    Whether Spring or Ben filed the respective reports is unknown. However, by some of the information contained within the reports, it appears that Spring is CHS #12.

    January 12, 2016

    [heavily redacted]

    Later in the day, Doucette met other individuals involved with the standoff including Pete Santillli and Joseph O’Shaughnessy aka “Captain O”. O’Shaughnessy claims to be part of a militia group from Arizona and part of the Pacific Patriot Network. O’Shaughnessy is attempting to get a helicopter to come to the area to conduct counter surveillance. O’Shaughnessy does not like how the holding of the refuge compound is being handled. He believes that a very limited number of Federal Agents could take back the refuge.

    Doucette also met with individuals that claim to be part of the press covering the standoff named Mike LNU of the TVOI News Network, Vicki Davis, Chuck Greenwood, telephone: [omitted] and Tim Davis. Mike LNU says they have a “brother” in the Sheriff’s Department and if this comes to a fire fight it will be between the cops.

    Doucette’s plan in Burns is to convene two common law grand juries in the area. A common law grand jury consists of 25 jurors and 1 Grand Jury administrator. It takes 25 jurors to indict and 12 to decide on a presented case. The starting point of forming a grand jury will be to discuss the idea with the Safety Committee [Harney County Committee of Safety] on Friday at a party that is planned to take place in town. Roger with the Grand Jury in Florida is assisting remotely with writing all of Bruce Doucette’s decisions and indictments.

    Doucette believes that if Bundy gets what he wants (return of the land to the ranchers) that in 6 months it will be taken back by the Federal Government. Accordingly, Doucette stated that, “we can’t leave here until a new Sheriff has been appointed and a new government is installed.” Doucette believes that a sheriff can be appointed because the current sheriff, his department and local government are all corrupt.


    January 13, 2016

    On the afternoon of 1/13/2016, Bruce Doucette met with Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne and Jon LNU. Jon LNU is a former marine that drives a silver F-150 with a “rogue infidel” bumper sticker. The purpose of the meeting was for Doucette and the other three individuals to see if they were all on the same page regarding the refuge stand off. At the conclusion of the meeting, Doucette and his bodyguards were invited to move onto the refuge. Doucette’s group returned to their hotel and started packing their gear.

    While he is in town, Doucette attempts to engage local residents and persuade them that what the individuals occupying the refuge are doing is just. Doucette had some success in this regard.

    The individuals occupying the refuge appear to have plenty of provisions and are in good spirits. The group has no intention of leaving the refuge until the Hammonds are released and ownership of the refuge is turned over from the Federal Government.

    The occupation leadership’s plan moving forward is to try and duplicate the occupation at another federal facility in another county. The Payne is in contact with a local Sheriff in another county that is friendly to their cause. This county would be the likely location of the next facility. Payne will be meeting with the friendly Sheriff again in the near future.

    Doucette is going to provide Payne with copies of some of the legal process he created in the past. Payne will review these documents and determine if Doucette methodology meets with his approval. (Please note: Doucette’s legal process is all fictitious).

    Yes, even though Spring appears to be a follower of Doucette, that comment was included in the report. This is suggestive of the fact that Doucette is Spring’s assigned target, and that the Refuge incident is simply a target of opportunity.

    January 15, 2016

    Reporting from [redacted] on 1/14/2016 at 1:30 PCT

    The meeting being held by the Pacific Patriot Network on Friday, 1/15/16 will be attended by Bruce Doucette, and Joe O’Shaughnessy.

    Bruce Doucette’s invitation to Grant County was allegedly made by the town’s people.

    The occupants of the refuge are considering targets in Grant County and Mahler County for their next occupations. The number of people at the refuge is approximately 10 Women and 30 men 24 hours a day

    Bruce Doucette occupies a small house called the Coyote Hollow Volunteer Building on the south side centrally located, to the west of the chow call.

    Reporting from [redacted] on 1/14/2016 at 8:15 PCT

    Some of the occupants of the refuge attended a meeting in town tonight at a private residence with members of the public. The general consensus of the public at the conclusion of the meeting was favorable of the militia groups. The refuge occupants left the meeting in a hurry because there was a report of three white SUV’s approaching the refuge.

    Occupants of the refuge are reinforcing the town with four foot land fence posts. They are also reinforcing the gate with fire trucks, fire hose and calops.

    So, we can see the detail of the goings on at the Refuge as well as some tactical information. One word, if spelled correctly in the report, is “calops”.  If anybody has an idea what “calops” means, that information would be appreciated.

    Red-haired “Ben” has evaded identification, though, hopefully, someone can help to fill in these gaps. Apparently, Ben and Spring have tried to start a business that utilizes waste from medical marijuana processing to develop a going business.

    These are probably Ben’s CHS #8 reports

    January 14, 2016 – Ben

    The CHS advised that Ryan Payne was out well into the morning of 1/14/2016 attempting to locate pole cameras on the roads near the refuge. Payne still planned to destroy the cameras, but the prior sense of urgency is not present. It was unclear of who would actually destroy the equipment, and further speculated that Payne would likely ask someone else to conduct the act to avoid any illegal activity on his part.

    Payne and Ammon Bundy (Ammon) seemed to have bonded on a spiritual level. They both claim to be had visions from a higher power to support their actions in this matter and feel their current actions are based on direction from God. The fact that Ammon is Mormon and Payne is a Jewish Kabalist seems to have no ill effect on their relationship. Payne and Ammon appear to be interchangeable in the role of leaders of the others involved in the standoff. Payne and Ammon seem to complement each other in their dealings with those involved under them. Payne espoused a religious type view of the current event and their participation as being just the thoughts in the mind of a higher power. Given the fact that Payne and Ammon feel they are acting in the will of God, they seem to not be concerned if they live or die in this matter. The CHS speculated that if Payne and Ammon were removed, the group would fold due to a lack of leadership. Jon Rizheimer is not the type of leadership material to be able to control the group in the event Payne and Ammon were removed.

    The current standoff has been planned by Amon and Payne since late November of 2015. They were not aware of the Hammond conflict but planned for the takeover and standoff for the next event that satisfied their agenda. Ammon stated that the ideal number of personnel within the refuge was 75. The group expects the number within the facility to expand to 75 over the weekend of 1/16/2016. There is general talk of taking over a second location north of Burns, Oregon near Grant County or northern Malheur County. No specific plan for a location has been announced, nor has any time frame been provided. Speculation within the refuge was that if they were to take over a second facility that would happen over the weekend.

    Ammon further told the group that he planned to hold the standoff until the Spring comes so he can have the group provide security for his transfer of the family cattle into the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) range. Ammon is afraid the BLM will take the cattle if militia security is not present.

    There does not appear to be any intention of or attempts to provide disinformation to the members within the compound or the outside world on the part of Payne or Ammon. All of the information appears to be somewhat compartmentalized for dissemination to the members within the refuge.

    The members of the group had a strong negative reaction to having been denied access to the fairground for an event that had been scheduled for 1/15/2016.

    The CHS was not aware of any overt cache of weapons, but had not seen all areas of the facility to date. The food pantry is located near the back gate in the fire bunkhouse. That location is also where the majority of the members are sleeping. Payne, Ritzheimer and others are bunking in the building furthest away from the hill. Ammon sleeps in the office.

    Meals are served military style at 7:00 am, noon and 7:00 pm. They are cooked by 5-6 women and are typical meals rather than dehydrated or field type rations. There is no shortage of food. Requests for food are routinely dropped off. Donations are being provided by those coming into the facility and from unidentified individuals from the outside. It is unclear how much actual cash is on hand but Ammon seems to control it and have no shortage.

    January 15, 2016

    The CHS was aware of meeting that took place on the evening of 1/14/2016 at a residence near the refuge. The home was located nearest to the intersection of highways 78 and 205. The meeting was attended by several local ranchers, Bruce Doucette and Jon Ritzheimer. Ryan Payne and Ammon Bundy were not present for the meeting. The local ranchers, Doucette and Ritzheimer spoke to the group. The ranchers expressed anger that the fairground had been denied for their use from their standpoint of being members of Harney County. They felt the issue at hand was being filtered by the media and the government and wanted to get the sides out to the public straight from the sources. The ranchers were encouraged by the militia to cut the locks and access the facility. The second alternative for today’s meeting was to invite all of Harney County onto the refuge for the meeting. The firehouse was being cleaned out for the meeting place on the refuge.

    Payne has expressed that he feels the local ranchers are in support of the occupation and the militia because they may have access to a “land grab” if the federal government concedes and gives the land back to the state. He (Payne) believes the ranchers are supportive of the occupation for purely personal gain.

    Ammon has requested transport back to his residence near Boise, Idaho. The plan is to depart the Burns area at approximately 12:30 pm local. There are reported to be three vehicles carrying Ammon and others, including 3% members for Ammon’s security. Ammon planned to handle family matters and potentially return to Burns on Sunday or Monday. The travel for Ammon was delayed until approximately 3:30 pm.

    At approximately 1:55 pm, the CHS advised that a group was gearing up to go and destroy what they thought was a pole camera outside of the refuge.

    That concludes what are probably Ben’s reports, since they both left the Refuge on either Friday, January 15, or Saturday, January 16, 2016. However, they were to return shortly after LaVoy Finicum was murdered on the side of Highway 395.

    Bruce Doucette, being concerned for the safety of the “grand jurors”, contacted Marshal Spring and arranged for him to go back to Oregon to provide protection for the “grand jurors”. He gave Spring $5,000.00 cash to cover the expense of that task.

    Spring decided to include Darryl Thorn among those he would “protect”. He arranged for Thorn to stay in room 203, at the Super Eight Motel in Redmond, Oregon. Spring paid the motel bill, gave Thorn gift meal cards for a restaurant, and some cash. This kept Thorn away from his home, and in a place much safer for the FBI to make an arrest.

    February 10, FBI confirmed with desk clerk that Thorn was, in fact, still staying at the Motel.

    [Note: correction made to the arrest incident, January 24, 2017.] On February 12, a number of officers entered the hallway on both sides of room 203, knocked on the door, and arrested Darryl Thorn based upon the Superseding Indictment.

    On February 12, two “suits” were sitting in the lobby, facing the hallway to the rooms.  As Thorn walked into the hallway to get some coffee at the breakfast bar, the two “suits” went to the hallway, one covering each direction to the side exits. Then, a swarm of officers, later admitting they were “Portland SWAT”, dressed in civilian clothes with body armor, approached Thorn. One of the officers, in reaching to subdue Thorn, hit his arm, throwing coffee into Thorn’s face.  Thon was then subdued, placed under arrest, and turned over to the FBI.

    That day, February 12, 2016, was a clean sweep for the FBI. Jeff Banta, David Fry, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson, Geoffery Stanek, and Darryl Thorn were all arrested and then  transported to Portland.

    In an interview with Darryl Thorn, only Spring and Ben knew exactly where Thorn was staying. Well, and the FBI.

    In an effort to contact Spring, I found that his phone had been “changed, disconnected, or no longer in service”. This is indicative of the expected reaction after Doucette confronted Spring.


    1. L.E. says:

      Calops = collapsible ladder, referenced among fire fighters

    2. Lynette Warren says:

      Do you know, for certain, that Doucette confronted Spring?

      • ghuntghunt says:

        I have Doucette’s word. However, they were supposed to have a subsequent meeting, but Spring could not be contacted. Another defendant tried to contact Spring two days after the ‘confrontation’, but the phone was as I found it. My attempt to contact was made two days after that. The defendant had been in touch until after the ‘confrontation’.
        So, everything seems to support that Spring knew he had been outed.

    3. Bill Goode says:

      Very admirable that by continuing your series on Malheur Refuge informants, you throw Anna Brown & Billy Williams’ case against you back at them.

    4. G says:

      Perhaps caltrop. A caltrop is an antipersonnel weapon made up of two or more sharp nails or spines arranged in such a manner that one of them always points upward from a stable base. (From Wikipedia)

    5. Debra Cochransays:

      Go get em’ Gary! Front every one of these traitors to the American people out!


    Burns Chronicles No 56 – Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?

    Burns Chronicles No 56
    Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?

    Gary Hunt
    Outpost of Freedom
    January 29, 2017

    Perhaps we should start with Article VI, clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Now, that is easy to follow and understand.  First, “This Constitution“, and, next, “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof“, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”

    Article V of the Constitution states that when an Amendment is ratified, it “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”  “Shall” is mandatory.  It is imposed, without recourse, and must be obeyed.  The requirement that any “Laws… which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” precludes any enactment, statute, or rule, to be in violation of the intent of the Constitution and the Laws made Pursuant to it

    In a previous article, “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments were discussed.  Now, let’s go to the top, the Constitution itself, and see what it says.  This led to the more descriptive wording in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments.  This case has to do with misdemeanor charges of trespass, tampering with vehicles or equipment and destruction of property.  This is the Article that established the Judicial Branch, Article III, § 2, clause three:

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…

    The subsequent Amendments set no limit on criminal charges and a minimum of twenty dollars in civil actions, each requiring a jury trial.  The Amendments made clear, without ambiguity, that any case tried in a court of the United States must fall within those two described areas.  There are noexceptions.

    However, this Court, appearing to be inquisitorial rather than just, has opted to circumvent those limitations imposed upon judiciary, by the very document that created the judiciary.  It has put in place, by two methods, a means of deception, whereby the Court can circumvent the Law of the Land.  Chicanery, defined as “deception or trickery, especially by the clever manipulation of language”, is certainly involved in this current circumvention and “inquisition”.

    First, chicanery is often used in the “case law method”, where higher court decisions are based upon previous decisions, not necessarily in accordance with the Constitution.  This method began being applied in 1872, shortly after the Civil War.  Harvard University set forth the “method”.  It has since become what appears to be the primary foundation for decisions, most often, without regard to the Constitution.


    We can see from two paragraphs in Judge Brown’s (pictured above) “Order Setting Bench Trial on Class B Misdemeanor Counts in Conjunction With Jury Trial of Felony Counts“.  In ruling against the Defense’s objection to the bench trial (without jury) on the newly added misdemeanor charges, she states:

    On the other hand, the Court also finds unpersuasive the out-of-district authorities on which Defendants rely. In particular, the Court finds United States v. Greenpeace, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2004), to be unpersuasive because it did not adequately account for Congress’s knowledge that no right to a jury trial attached to a petty offense or the failure of Congress expressly to grant the federal courts with discretion to nonetheless provide a trial by jury. Similarly, the remainder of Defendants’ primary authorities are of limited value because they arise from a period of time when the state of the law regarding a right to jury trial was very different from current caselaw.

    The Court finds the significant uncertainty in the law regarding whether it has discretion to provide a jury trial where no right thereto otherwise exists is itself a compelling reason why the Court should not choose to provide a trial by jury on the Class B misdemeanor counts in this case. Simply put, the Court declines to exercise discretion to take an action when it is not at all clear that the Court has such discretion in the first place.

    Breaking this down, in discussing Greenpeace, she writes that the Second District Court of Florida “did not adequately account for Congress’s knowledge that no right to jury trial attached to a petty offense“.  So, the Court did not know that Congress knows that no right to a jury trial is allowed in a “petty offense”.  Congress’ knowledge seems to have been taken, by Judge Brown, as some sort of law.  Then, she suggests that Congress failed “expressly to grant the federal courts with discretion to nonetheless provide a trial by jury.”  Is it possible that there exists another language containing the same words, though with different meanings?  This presumption that a “petty offense” is not a crime simply astounds me.

    Second, and this is where the rubber really meets the road, she says, “Defendants’ primary authorities are of limited value because they arise from a period of time when the state of the law regarding a right to jury trial was very different from current caselaw.”  What?  They arise from a different time?  We must be back under British rule.  But, then, there are the magic words, “case law”.  Not in the Constitution…  Not in the Amendments to the Constitution…  Not in laws made pursuant to the Constitution…  Rather, by judge’s decisions, and their decisions are in VIOLATION of the Constitution.  It is also suggestive that “current case law” can change, at the whim of whichever judge is making a decision.

    If it is within the purview of the Judicial Branch of government, then it may interpret the Constitution.  However, nothing provides it any authority to legislate, which is the sole prerogative of the Congress.  The Judicial Branch is attempting to pervert the Constitution, and in so doing, pervert the court.

    Next, Judge Brown moves on to whether her discretion allows her to determine if the case must be heard by a magistrate, or if she can hear the misdemeanor charges, instead of a magistrate.  Additionally she addresses whether she has the discretion to decide if the defendants have the right to a jury trial.  In so doing, she states:

    The Court finds the significant uncertainty in the law regarding whether it has discretion to provide a jury trial where no right thereto otherwise exists is itself a compelling reason why the Court should not choose to provide a trial by jury on the Class B misdemeanor counts in this case. Simply put, the Court declines to exercise discretion to take an action when it is not at all clear that the Court has such discretion in the first place.

    Nevertheless, even if the Court had such discretion in this case, the Court would decline to exercise that discretion. The Court notes Congress explicitly intended the trial of petty offenses to be tried to the court, and expressly permitted magistrate judges to conduct such trials in order to facilitate their efficient resolution without the process associated with a jury trialSee 28 U.S. C. §§ 636 (a) (3), 3401 (b). In light of the fact that there are eight parties who will present argument and evidence on the Class B misdemeanor counts, the Court concludes the most efficient method of trying the misdemeanor counts is to conduct a trial to the Court.

    What did she say?

    Judge Brown cites two statutes, 28 US Code §§ 636 (a) and 3401 (b).  Adding to her discredit, there is no 28 US Code 3401, with or without the “(b)”.  However, that problem will be resolved, shortly.

    First, however, let’s look at 28 US Code § 636(a):

    (a) Each United States magistrate judge serving under this chapter shall have within the district in which sessions are held by the court that appointed the magistrate judge, at other places where that court may function, and elsewhere as authorized by law –

    (1) all powers and duties conferred or imposed upon United States commissioners by law or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts;

    (2) the power to administer oaths and affirmations, issue orders pursuant to section 3142 of title 18 concerning release or detention of persons pending trial, and take acknowledgements, affidavits, and depositions;

    (3) the power to conduct trials under section 3401, title 18, United States Code, in conformity with and subject to the limitations of that section;

    (4) the power to enter a sentence for a petty offense; and

    (5) the power to enter a sentence for a class A misdemeanor in a case in which the parties have consented.

    Those are the powers and duties of a magistrate (judge, commissioner, etc.).  You will note that reference is made to 18 US Code § 3142 and 18 US Code §3401(b).  As discussed in the previous article, 18 US Code is titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures“.  So, once again, we have the word expressed, without equivocation, in the Constitution, “crime”.  In this instance, we see that a magistrate is limited in what he can rule upon, entering “a sentence for a petty crime“.  Of significance to this case, firearms are an element that will be presented in both felony and misdemeanor portions of the trial.  Is it possible that Judge Brown intends to apply a firearms enhancement to her verdict, which a magistrate would not be able to do?

    By sleight of hand, or typing fingers, the Order states, “28 US Code §§ 636 (a) and 3401 (b).”  However, 28 US Code § 636(a) does tell us that the “3401(b)” is actually in Title 18, and 636 does not limit 3401 solely to paragraph (b).

    Here is:

    18 U.S.C. § 3401(b)

    (b) Any person charged with a misdemeanor, other than a petty offense may elect, however, to be tried before a district judge for the district in which the offense was committed.  The magistrate judge shall carefully explain to the defendant that he has a right to trial, judgment, and sentencing by a district judge and that he may have a right to trial by jury before a district judge or magistrate judge.  The magistrate judge may not proceed to try the case unless the defendant, after such explanation, expressly consents to be tried before the magistrate judge and expressly and specifically waives trial, judgment, and sentencing by a district judge.  Any such consent and waiver shall be made in writing or orally on the record.

    Within all of § 3401, there is no authority for a magistrate to apply any enhancements.  However, District Judge Anna J. Brown sat in an appeal of a magistrate’s imposition of restitution on a “petty offense” (United States v. Stanfill El).  She ruled that the restitution could be applied, even though the amount $3,468.03 was in excess of the constitutionally minimum $20.  The Ninth Circuit upheld her ruling.  I have to wonder if she believes that she can impose criminal penalties on a “petty offense”.  In fact, we all need to wonder about whether the federal judicial system has become the tool of tyranny and inquisition.




    1. Kerry Easton says:

      Keep up the good work Gary. It shows that they are talking in circles to confuse the true Law. This country has been lost because of the corruption in all things. Not just the government but the private corporations as well. I think to many people have gone back to sleep because of the election. President Trump has his own fight in DC and may not live to change the things he promised. The civil war will still happen, it will just happen at a later date than expected. It will also destroy this once Great Experiment.

    2. Charles B Vance says:

      Interesting analysis. Shows how the “district” can conjure up any interpretation of law desired from whole cloth as needed to promote whatever agenda is desired. Currently the district is set on showing these ruffians, The Bundy Gang, that the supreme law of this New World Order will not be flouted. I commend you for peeling back the layers of judicial nonsense and gibberish.

    3. […] test of constitutionality.  Instead, it is based upon other cases.  I just completed an article (Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?) that addresses “substantive law” and the “case law method”; the latter, […]


    Burns Chronicles No 57 – Collusion or Conspiracy?

    Burns Chronicles No 57
    Collusion or Conspiracy?

    Gary Hunt
    Outpost of Freedom
    February 4, 2017

    On October 27, 2016, shortly after the very just verdict of “Not Guilty” was announced in the Ammon Bundy, et al, Group 1 trial, a meeting was held in the Mark O. Hatfield Federal District Courthouse.  The 12 jurors, Judge Anna Brown, and a court reporter, attended the meeting.  It lasted about one and a half hours.

    It is my understanding that such a meeting is not unusual.  However, circumstances surrounding this particular meeting are, to say the least, quite unusual, considering context.  That is exactly what we are going to do.

    The first irregularity occurred when the Prosecutor moved to have the trial declared “complex”, which allowed the Court to circumvent the right to a speedy trial and to break the defendants up into two groups.  The first Group (mostly leaders) was tried in September and October 2016, and the second Group to be tried beginning in February 2017.  While the delayed trial date was agreeable, as the Defendants needed the additional time to prepare their defense, one drawback is that many of the Defendants were held in custody until the verdict was reached, in the first trial.  The latter trial date made the government’s case easier, as they had smaller groups to try, and it gave time to elicit plea bargains, thereby reducing the number who would be prosecuted at trial.

    Next, during the pre-trial “paper chase”, with hundreds of motions filed, answered, and finally ruled on, there is no doubt that bias existed on the part of Judge Anna Brown.  Behind the scenes, many of us followed this legal maneuvering for months.  It seemed that even when the arguments presented by the defense were well supported, Judge Brown would still rule against the defense and in favor the Prosecution.

    During the trial, there were rather strict rules imposed on the defense, especially when they sought to call additional witnesses to testify.  Judge Brown ruled that to allow that would be “repetitive”.  However, the prosecution showed a 1-minute video of approximately twenty of the occupiers firing across a canal.  The fact that the Prosecution showed that footage four times, however, was not considered “repetitive”.

    Finally, and here we get to the meeting, Judge Brown called all of the participating jurors into the meeting, after dismissing the alternate jurors.  In that meeting, she explained that she would answer their questions, if they had any.  She also asks some questions, and explained that the answers would help the prosecution and the defense.  So, just how could it help the defense?  The Defense prevailed.  It could only help the Prosecution gain insight into the jurors’ minds in order to determine what they would need to overcome to obtain guilty verdicts in the Group 2 trial.

    Some jurors indicated that had the charges been less serious, like simple “misdemeanor trespass”, it would have been much easier to render a guilty verdict.

    Let me interrupt, for a moment, and point out that the Judge holds office under Article III (Judicial Branch of Government), and is, in essence, an impartial referee.  Her job is to “administer law in a court of justice”, “to control the proceedings”, and to make “decisions of questions of law or discretion”.  Her job is not to favor one side over the other, but rather to stand aside, interjecting only to the extent necessary to assure a fair trial.


    There is no doubt that Judge Brown, confounded by the not guilty verdict, passed the insight she obtained from the meeting with the jurors to the Prosecution.  The Prosecution, after waiting a few months, charged some of the remaining defendants with several misdemeanor charges, though all seven defendants were charged with “misdemeanor trespass”.

    Remember, the jurors said that they might have convicted if the charges were to lesser offenses.  So, the likelihood of getting a conviction, no matter how small the charges, would be a sort of redemption for the dismal failure in the first trial.  After all, the government has spent, according to some with access to such information, over one-hundred million dollars on the persecution, with nothing to show for it.  So, Judge Brown adds these new misdemeanor charges to the trial docket.

    Concerned that even though the first jury might have found them guilty on lesser charges, Judge Brown, in a rather patronizing manner, asks both sides to present arguments as to whether the misdemeanor charges should be heard by the jury or treated as a bench trial, where the Judge would rule on innocence, guilt, and punishment.  Of course, we knew what her decision would be, even before the arguments were presented.  With total disregard for the Constitution, as explained in “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, she used her “discretion” to hold the trials at the same time, in front of the jury.  When the jury goes to deliberate the felony charges, she will continue with the bench trial, and find them guilty as charged and will withhold any sentencing until after the jury verdict has been rendered.

    Now, there are three parties in a trial.  There is the Judge, a member of the Judicial Branch of government.  Then, there is the US Attorney, a member of the Executive Branch of the government, and, finally, the defendants, members of the “We the People” Branch of the government.

    Judge Brown, the supposed neutral party, has already crossed the line that is to separate the Branches of government, in our tripartite system of government.  And, that is an illegal act, defined as collusion.


    An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or an object forbidden by law.  It implies the existence of fraud of some kind, the employment of fraudulent means, or of lawful means for the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose.  A secret combination, conspiracy, or concert of actions between two or more persons for fraudulent or deceitful purposes.

    Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition

    Under this circumstance, the collusion between the two separate branches of government, to defraud the defendants of their rights, we can find a more apt descriptor for what has transpired throughout, though even more so, in these waning days of the legal battle between government and the occupiers.  Since both parties to the collusion are officials of government, the higher descriptor of conspiracy (Yes, that same charge brought against the defendants) is far more appropriate.

    [T]hough individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarterI mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.  For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

    Alexander Hamilton – Federalist Papers #78

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


    As this article was being written, the Prosecution offered four of the seven remaining defendants a plea deal that they chose not to refuse. They will be found guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, sentenced to time served, given one year of “bench probation” (meaning no reporting, etc., simply stay out of trouble), and will not lose their right to bear arms. The only stickler is that “restitution” will be determined at a later date.

    So, the government did get some of the defendants guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, perhaps assuming that the charges of “misdemeanor trespass” will flow more easily from the lips of Judge Brown, when she will surely convict the remaining defendants of the same “misdemeanor trespass” charges.



    1. […] I would like to refer the reader to an article that appeared in the “Burns Chronicles” series.  To understand what was written about some of the recent shenanigans in the Group 2 trial, currently underway, which parallel this current discussion.  Read Burns Chronicles No 57 Collusion or Conspiracy? […]

    2. […] That very aspect, the “separation of powers“, was the subject of a previous article, “Burns Chronicles No 57 Collusion or Conspiracy?” […]


    The Cause – What To Do?

    The Cause – What To Do?

    Gary Hunt
    Outpost of Freedom
    June 12, 2017

    I have been writing about the Bundy Affair since April 12, 2014 and the Burns Chronicles since February 2, 2016.  Both evolved out of a common grievance, Public Lands, and the rights that are inherent in them.  There are other commonalities, such as some of the players involved in both events and the fact that both had left behind the concept of Civil Disobedience and had entered the realm of Civil Defiance.  Those players, unlike most other patriots, had moved along “The Other (not so) Thin Line” to a point where their actions were intended to speak louder than their words.

    The first event, in Nevada, the Bundy Affair, was an evolution from an event back in 1993 when Cliven Bundy, supported by hundreds of patriots who went to his ranch to side with him, defied the federal government and first stood for his right to continue both grazing and water permits necessary to continue his ranching business.  Cliven Bundy’s right to his historical use of the public lands culminated on April 12, 2014, or so we thought, in the “Unrustling” of the cattle that had been rustled by agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

    In 2015, in Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond had been “resentenced” for a “crime”, though they had already served their time.  Their “crime” was the use of controlled burn and backfire to do what ranchers and the BLM have done for over a century.  The first is to destroy unwanted vegetation, the second, to control an existing fire in order to protect property.

    This was not the beginning of their ordeal with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).  Their ordeal began almost a decade before Cliven Bundy’s first confrontation with an out of control federal government.  The FWS had been trying to restrict the Hammond’s ranching by cutting of water supply, fencing public corridors, and requiring annual licensing for what were perpetual rights to Public Land Usage.  “The Harassment of the Hammonds” dates back to October 1986.

    For all intents, the Hammonds were tried, sentenced, served their time, and left prison as free men.  The government waited until all of this was done before filing an appeal to the Appellate Court, contending that they should have been sentenced according to the Sentencing Guidelines.  Funny, the word guidelines isn’t mandatory, simply a guide.  But, more on that in a future article.

    The resentencing of the Hammonds raised the indignation of some of those players from the Bundy Affair, and others who had, possibly a result of what they witnessed in April 2014, moved further along that “Thin Line”.  Unable to convince the Hammonds that they should not turn themselves in for the additional 4+ years they would now have to serve, the objective changed to the FWS, the aggressors against the Hammonds.

    There had been a planned demonstration in support of the Hammonds scheduled for January 2, 2016, just two days before they were to turn themselves over to the US Marshal Service to begin their second punishment for the first crime.  This demonstration, like many others, was Civil Disobedience.  However, behind the scenes, a plan of Civil Defiance had been hatched.  It was left to those who either went to Burns, Oregon, before or after the January 2 event to decide just how far along that “Thin Line” they had moved.  Unfortunately, many who claim that they are “fed up with the Feds” are not fully committed to action.  Instead, they chose to act big and criticize what was acted out by those who were more committed and chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), an FWS facility about thirty miles south of Burns, and the adversary of the Hammonds rights for three decades.

    For nearly a month, the Civil Defiance brought attention to the country, and the world, that the historical rights of Public Land usage were being trampled upon by the government.  The government, possibly absent any legal standing to deal with the occupation of the MNWR, chose to ambush a two vehicle, eight-person convoy going to a public event in John Day, Grant County, north of Burns.

    Lying to the Oregon State Police (OSP), the FBI claimed that they were making a “felony stop” (legally, to stop the completion of a felony) and/or to serve an arrest warrant.  The warrant, however, was not issued until after seven were arrested and one murdered, while in transit to the event in John Day.


    Rather ironically, in the subsequent trial of the leadership of the occupation, they were found Not Guilty.  However, in the second trial, that of mostly followers, they were found guilty of both the felony charges and the additional misdemeanor charges the government brought to assure that they could get at least a few convictions, after spending millions of taxpayer’s dollars going after those who had brought attention to those egregious misdeeds of government.

    Even after the arrests and murder, there were four others who would not “give up the ship”; Sandy and Sean Anderson, David Fry, and Jeff Banta.  These “Final Four” remained on the Refuge for another 11 days, until they chose to peacefully surrender.

    We can look to those who were indicted in Oregon, along with others who came to support the effort by remaining at the Refuge during the month long incident.  They, most assuredly, have moved long that “Thin Line”.

    Unfortunately, the government also had nine paid informants as participants between January 2 and January 26 (date of the murder of LaVoy Finicum), and six paid informants that reported from outside of the MNWR.  Those informants have crossed a line, not moved along the “Thin Line”.

    Shortly after the arrests were made, the government, with all of their paramilitary forces, decided that it was now safe to move on many of the active players in the Bundy Affair of nearly two years prior.  Cliven had flown to Oregon to see his sons, Ammon and Ryan.  He was arrested shortly after he got off the airplane — nice and safe, since they knew he didn’t have a weapon.  But, heck, I don’t think Cliven Bundy ever carried a weapon back in 2014.

    The Indictment and subsequence Superseding Indictment listed a number of those who were under Indictment in Oregon.  The government was intent on quashing the First Amendment Right to Redress of Grievance, opting to circumvent the Constitution by using statutory and administrative law, with no reference to the defendant’s constitutionally protected rights.

    So, at this point, we have three identifiable issues.  First, Cliven Bundy and his rights; Second, Dwight and Steven Hammond and their rights; and, Third, the proper use of the Public Lands.

    What people have rallied behind is the proper use of Public Land, as intended by the Founders and applied properly for over two centuries.  Both the Bundy and Hammond situations have made them the “poster children” people for the Public Lands movement.

    The trials in Portland (MNWR occupation) are over.  The trials of those indicted in Nevada have begun, though with a very shaky (for the government) start.  The first trial included six defendants and was identified as “Tier 3”.  Tier 3 was those who had been identified as having possessed firearms (pesky Second Amendment) during the Unrustling on April 12, 2014.  In a rather interesting “verdict”, only two of the defendants, Greg Burleson (a previously paid government informant) who was convicted on 8 counts of the Indictment, and Todd Engel, convicted of 2 counts.

    Rather interestingly, at one point, the jury found all of the defendants Not Guilty of the two primary charges (Counts 1 & 2), and neither Burleson nor Engel was found guilty of those counts.  However, the jury struck the Not Guilty checkmarks on the Verdict sheet.  The Court then determined that the two found guilty need not stand trial, again, however, the remaining four defendants will stand trial, again (double jeopardy?) on charges that the jury had previously found them not guilty of.  The government, apparently, hope that they can impanel a new jury that will buy the government line and find them guilty.

    Interestingly, the trial was determined to be a “Mistrial” by Judge Navarro, though the guilty verdicts are still applicable.  It appears that it was only a two-thirds  “mistrial”, since only the remaining for defendants will stand trial, again, beginning July 10, 2017.  Surprisingly, a single trial can be divided into two trials, one bringing convictions, the other to endeavor to bring more convictions.

    So, what does this have to do with “What To Do?”  Well, there are two parts to that answer.  First, which has been alluded to already is just where one is along that Thin Line.  Some are simply in the learning stage.  That is the stage that everyone has gone through — some recently, others decades ago.  Longevity is not a factor in that progression.  Some learn faster, others find themselves in circumstances that accelerate the progression.  Often, means are a factor.  If one has a meager income versus expenses, then he will ‘invest’ where best suits his mental progression along that line.  Others may have obligations that keep them from being able to participate in some aspects.  There are some that will respond to the call, when the severity of a situation achieves a sort of boiling point — the need to commit, for the sake of others, comes when that point is reached.  Still others may be at a point along the Thin Line where they are not willing to invest any more time than simply continuing to learn what they can, from the comfort of their own home.  Similarly, others may see, let’s say, a demonstration, as unproductive — they are saving their resources for an event that they anticipate will warrant them dropping everything to respond.  They perceive that Civil Disobedience is unproductive  and refuse to participate — even though those that do practice such disobedience do bring attention to the objective, increasing public knowledge of an event.  None of these should be faulted, for as one might not agree with another, it is quite likely that the other does not agree with the one.

    The aspect of participation now being put side, let’s move on to the Cause.  We will use the current situation, as described above, as the Cause.  Public Land, Cliven Bundy, and the Hammonds.  That’s it!  That is where the investment, whichever level, is deemed appropriate for the individual, with respect for the Cause.

    Suppose someone decides to extend the Cause to include other aspects.  Again, using the current circumstances, suppose some decide to include prisoner abuse in the Cause objective.  Does that mean that everyone should subscribe to this new entry into the field?  Recently, the focus was shifted from those standing or awaiting trial in Nevada to prisoner abuse.  Heck prisoner abuse has been going on for decades, if not centuries.  Is there anybody that does not realize that regardless of what it is now, it used to be bread, water, and hard labor, or worse?  Granted, many suffer such abuse, even before trial.  I wrote about Kevin Massey’s pre-conviction treatment in the Camp Lone Star series.  However, the focus has always been on the subject of the charges against Massey.

    Now, I don’t want to demean those who are concerned with prisoner abuse.  There is no doubt that many of us may be subjected to such abuse, as we progress along that Thin Line.  Expect it, but keep your focus on the more important goals.  It is more important to focus on the Public Land policies (and, we have seen some fruit come from the efforts of those who will stand, or have stood, trial).  It is important to focus on the trial — the judicial abuse — far more than it is to focus on prisoner abuse though I don’t doubt that some things have changed at the Southern Nevada Detention Center in Pahrump, because of the efforts of a few.  Unfortunately, that redirection to prisoner abuse is focused on two people, Ammon and Ryan Bundy.  What of the other defendants?  What of Cliven, Dwight, and Steven?  What of Public Land policy?  They seem to have been abandoned by those who became the most vocal in Nevada.

    Even worse were some recent events in Las Vegas.  It was on Memorial Day weekend.  Las Vegas has a rather high veteran population, as does any city with a VA hospital.  An inverted flag (yes, under the given circumstances, it offended me, too — see “Memorial Day 2017“) was flown at a busy intersection.  A veteran, possibly at least partially intoxicated, but still a veteran who served his country, as he saw fit when he did serve, chose to educatethose with the inverted flag.  However, they were not willing to listen and, perhaps, become educated in what veterans feel.  Instead, they determined that the veteran was  a coward for fighting for his country, and was trying to steal their flag — though even when he was told he could take it, he chose not to take (or steal) it.

    Unfortunately, the Bundy name was brought up during this confrontation.  So, the veteran chose to associate the Bundys with the inverted flag.  That makes it quite difficult to gain a sympathetic ear to the Cause, even though that Cause seems to have excluded the original and common purpose.  Now, it focuses on one man, and there are legitimate questions as to the veracity to some of what has been presented as the true circumstances that led to the focus on the two individuals (Ammon and Ryan Bundy).

    When was the last time that the common Cause uttered Cliven Bundy, Dwight Hammond, Steven Hammond, Pubic Land policy?  What happened to the other defendants in Nevada and those convicted in Oregon?  What happened to the focus that brought thousands together in their respective support to the Cause?  Have these all been abandoned?

    Some of those who have been staunch supporters of the elements of the Cause objected to what happened on Memorial Day weekend.  They are accused of creating division.  There are near relentless attacks on those who have steadfastly supported the original Cause, many from as early as April 2014.  Though until that weekend, had uttered no objection to those who chose to add the prisoner abuse issue to the agenda.

    Unfortunately, now we see the consequences of merging an additional purpose, to the detriment of the original Cause.  Like an old battle flag, the Cause has become tattered and worn — and, perhaps, lost in the turmoil that the new battle brought to the game.



    1. Paul Niblock says:

      Gary, while I respect those who have served and the sacrifices that have been made I fail to see the relevance of equating the flag with those. Did you serve your nation or your government? Does the flag represent the nation or the government? Did you fight to preserve your liberty, i.e. freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to be secure in your person and effects and right to a speedy trial, or did you fight for the government to be able to violate those at it’s whim? The ’cause’, as you put it, never was about the Bundy’s or the Hammonds or prisoner abuse. The ‘Cause’, for me at least, has been illegal usurpation of authorities not enumerated and just accepted through ignorance, primarily, and apathy in general. Most people couldn’t care less about things that do not directly affect them. Most people are not ranchers, land owners or veterans in this country. Patriotism is fine and good but patriotism to what, the ideals or the symbolism? Not being a veteran, perhaps I can’t understand how someone can become enraged at the sight of a flag being disrespected. I find it ironic that some would find more to be upset about by a flag flown in distress than they are by the lies told that led to there voluntary or compulsory enlistment for the ‘defense’ of it. I didn’t go to Bunkerville to defend a flag or a bunch of cows. To me, the flag represents what needs to be defended from.

      • ghuntghunt says:

        I believe that I have adequately explained that. Too many people seem to think that they were born with patriotic zeal. Anybody that ever believed in government was a fool.
        I fought UNDER the flag. If I had been killed in service I would have been buried UNDER that flag. I was raised saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (yes, even before “Under God” was added).
        I still believe in the Flag and the Constitution. What symbol would you use to represent the Constitution? I will continue to use the Flag.
        I am a nationalist, and that flag represents that nation that I respect. And, as when I was 18, I still would give my life for the flag and constitution.
        This conversation sort of reminds me of husband and wife discussing pregnancy. The man has never experienced it, and those critics have never served Under it.
        The Cause that I wrote of is clearly defined in the article. The Cause, as defined, is the focusing on the elements therein described. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be other causes that people want to get involved with, though they should not be merged, even if partially related.
        I write about a lot of different subjects. However, I set up the series identification, since there are separate issues. However. “The Bundy Affair”, “Burns Chronicles”, and “Harassment of the Hammonds” are conjoined. However, though related, the Freedom of the Press is distinctly different.
        Some have suggested that my writings are a violation of what I wrote. I say “bullshit”. Should I focus only on one subject at a time? I see my job as to inform, as much as possible. However, I only cover stories where I have access to a reliable source. Otherwise, I am like ,most of the “alt press”, regurgitating what someone else wrote, though in my own words. To me, that is not journalism.
        Now, putting what my role is aside, those who went to the Bundy Ranch in 2014 or Burns in 2016 committed to the Cause that I refer to. You were one of them. You can’t deny that. However, by their nature, they were conjoined.
        Though because of what length it would add to the article, from my experience, there can be unintended consequences when diverse subjects are brought together. During the sixties, about a year after I returned from Vietnam, I was involved in the anti-war movement. There was a sympathetic relationship between the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. Though I didn’t support the civil rights effort, they were merged. My participation in the anti-war movement made me a de facto member of the civil rights movement, at least in counting numbers. (See ). The alternative would have created division in appearance and numbers, and, it might well have been destructive of one, or both, of the movements.
        To frame it in a different perspective, choose the battle that you want to fight to a win, and fight that battle. Once that is won, you can move on to the next battle.
        I didn’t go to Burns for the Cause, I went to Burns to get access to documents and to write about their content. That doesn’t mean that I couldn’t jumbo in, if it was necessary — which I did, as you know.
        Back to the original point. Look what the real consequence of merging prisoner abuse had on the Cause. If you can’t see what happened, then I doubt that I can do any more to make it clearer. It has even created a degree of division in the Bundy family.

    2. Paul Niblock says:

      sometimes I wonder if a lot of events aren’t ‘engineered’ with exactly that intent. To divide. I hope I didn’t come across as disrespectful to veterans by the way. I think a lot less ideology and more common sense could benefit whatever this movement or cause is. People take things too personally and argue for their perceived slight rather than the larger context and by that means people lose focus. The freedoms cherished in this country include the freedom to offend, I guess is what I don’t understand when the flag issue comes up. I ‘Pledged allegiance’ as well before I even understood what allegiance was. I was indoctrinated into believing all the greatness of this country while simultaneously glossing over the negative. An open minded observance of facts as they are known today, understanding that there is still much that is kept from the general public awareness through either classification or just AWOL media, makes me question what that pledge was really for. And to whom or what it was for, the ‘Republic’ for which the flag stands has been banished, seemingly, for this current dystopian plutocracy.

      • ghuntghunt says:

        As far as the Pledge of Allegiance, say it to yourself. Listen, with you mind, to the words. Just because the government doesn’t fit that mold, I sure to appreciate the sentiment of those words.
        Understand something about veterans. The Revolutionary War was fought, initially, by those who were veterans of the French and Indian Wars. Its hard to say what would have happened if their experience wasn’t brought into play.
        Now, think of today. if you were side by side with someone with experience in combat, had been forged in that fire, you will be far better off than with some guy that just with through some training with you.
        Those veterans will be the first effective force, if the need arises. And, they will impart their experience, and perhaps save your ass until you have acquired enough to stand better on your own.

    3. Paul Niblocksays:

      Also, I forgot to add…. I respect you immensely, Gary. I do hope you aren’t offended by any of my dialogue. I don’t think there is much that can be done to prevent division when the foe has endless resources and virtual control of the narrative. Your writing has been one of a few respectable challenges to that narrative that I have shared and I am much obliged


    Burns Chronicles No 59 – Ryan Bundy Holds the Key

    Burns Chronicles No 59

    Ryan Bundy Holds the Key

    Gary Hunt
    Outpost of Freedom
    August 30, 2017

    On January 26, 2016, several people, in two private vehicles were on their way to a scheduled meeting John Day, Oregon.  While in a forested area, with extremely poor, if not non-existent, cell phone coverage, they were set upon by modern day highwaymen (highwaymen were people who stopped travelers and robbed them).  The driver and passengers of the second vehicle submitted to the demands of the heavily armed interlopers, at gunpoint, to leave the vehicle and sit on the side of the snow-covered roadway.

    The driver of the second vehicle, a white pick-up truck, following the exit of one of the passengers, sped away, seeking the assistance of a peace officer, Sheriff Glenn Palmer, of Grant County, Oregon.  However, within a couple of miles they found that the highwaymen had set up a barricade across the road, barring passage.  The highwaymen, hidden behind their vehicles, began firing shots at the white truck.  This forced the truck off the road, where some rather adept driving may have saved one of the highwaymen’s life, by swerving, at the last moment.

    The truck then came to a stop, and the driver, LaVoy Finicum, exited.  In the back seat were three people; Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp, and Ryan Bundy.  Bundy sat on the left and Cox on the right.

    Having already been shot at, there was concern for the safety of the party.  Finicum, in an effort to draw fire away from those still in the truck, began moving towards the rear and away from the truck.

    There were lots of loud noises.  Some from 40 mm projectiles of rubber bullets and tear gas (OSP recovered 13 40 mm casings), others from flash-bang type grenades.  Included, however, were two shots that came from the left-rear of the truck.  One hit the top of the truck and one broke the driver side rear window.  The round that broke the window may well have hit the side of the truck, pressuring the window to break, and deflecting into the shoulder of Ryan Bundy.  This is the more logical explanation, as the velocity of the bullet, absent any other external resistance, should have penetrated much further than the fleshy part of Bundy’s shoulder.

    Now, this gets interesting since the Oregon State Police (OSP) had to account for shots fired, though they could not account for two shots.  Shell casings were missing, and the rather perplexing task resulted in speculation regarding the bullet impact on the driver’s side of the truck.  Their conclusion was that it must have come from the shooter that fired three shots as the white truck approached the highwaymen, as shown in this OSP exhibit:

    The government tried to attribute the shot at the rear door to the three shots fired as the vehicle approached the barricade.  However, this does not quite work, as if you look at the yellow line in the third image.  You see that if it did hit the truck, it would be a glancing strike.  It would have been deflected upon impact, and the initial point of impact would be the most damaged.  Any additional damage would have been less, as the bullet was deflected away from the truck body.  As you can see, the greater impact was on the right side of the gap between the door and frame.


    We must consider the possibility that the shot came from the left rear of the truck, which was the location of the FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) members, including FBI HRT SA W. Joseph Astarita.  Its initial impact would be the greatest, then, if it dented the side of the truck sufficiently, it would possibly enter the door, itself, behind the sheet metal surface.  Upon impacting the door bracket that holds the window in place, if it exerted pressure on that frame, it could cause sufficient pressure for the window, itself, to buckle, spewing out pieces of glass when it burst, as seen in the video (linked below), rather than a break because of a direct impact by a bullet.

    That same bullet could then deflect off the door/window frame and enter Ryan Bundy’s shoulder moving upward into the fleshy part, from the rear of the shoulder, as Ryan had turned to the right, and had bent over in an effort to protect the women.

    Now, the question is, is that a bullet in Ryan’s shoulder?  Well, the medical records from Harney District Hospital, in Burns, where Ryan was taken after the highwaymen kidnapped him and the others, except LaVoy, who lay dead where he fell after being shot in the back three times.  The hospital reports indicate that there was “oozing” bleeding from Ryan’s right shoulder.  Some of the language used in various reports from the hospital includes a written notation, “… consistent with bullet fragment versus other metallic foreign bodies.”  Then, in two typed reports, we find, ” INDICATIONS: Gunshot wound to right shoulder”, and ” INDICATIONS: penetrating gunshot wound”.  So, based on the X ray and the medical reports made within hours of the shooting, there can be little doubt that the highwaymen shot Ryan Bundy.

    Now, considering where the shot probably hit, LaVoy had just exited the truck, and Ryan Bundy had just leaned over to protect the women.  It is obvious that the shooter did not hit his target; perhaps he flinched, or is just a bad shot.  However, every indication is that Astarita was trying to murder either LaVoy Finicum or Ryan Bundy, or both.

    Here is what appears to be the scenario that resulted in a bullet in Ryan Bundy’s shoulder:

    Now, some will suggest that it was a bullet that shattered the window, as seen in the video of this moment in time.  There are three versions:

    Real Time (0:56)


    Half Speed Slow Motion (1:51)

    Quarter Speed Slow Motion (3:42)

    Now, most people believe that the window that shattered was shattered when hit by a bullet.  To put their minds to rest, when a bullet strikes a safety-glass window, it leaves a hole about the size of the projectile.  Then there is a much-disrupted area of extremely shattered glass, though still bound by the plastic, usually just a few inches in diameter.  Finally, there is some cracking outside of that radius.

    Why is this so important?  Well, Maxine Bernstein, Oregon Live, made the point in her recent article, “LaVoy Finicum Shooting: Prosecutors seeking missing shell casings, metal fragment from Ryan Bundy’s shoulder“, dated August 3, 2017.  Maxine has covered the entire story, from the courtroom standpoint, from the beginning.  In this article, she seems to have a little insight into what may be the defense’s strongest argument, a lack of evidence, when she wrote:

    The case against an FBI agent charged with lying about firing two shots at Oregon standoff spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum most likely will turn on expert testimony about the validity of the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office investigation, a defense lawyer said Thursday.

    No one reported that they saw or heard agent W. Joseph Astarita fire and no direct evidence exists linking any bullet or shell casing to Astarita’s rifle, one of his lawyers said.

    Prosecutors countered that the investigation continues and revealed for the first time that not only are shell casings from Astarita’s alleged shots missing, but so are shell casings from some of the Oregon State Police shots fired at the Jan. 26, 2016, roadblock.

    Eight shots were fired. Six shell casings in roadway are all gone,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Pam Holsinger, chief of the Criminal Division in the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s Office. She didn’t elaborate. State troopers fired six of the eight shots, with the other two eventually linked to Astarita, investigators and prosecutors said.

    Astarita is charged with three counts of making a false statement (18 US Code §1001) and two counts of obstruction of justice (18 US Code §1512(b)(3)).  What he is not charged with is, though it has become apparent that he did in fact, attempt to murder LaVoy Finicum and/or Ryan Bundy.  As indicated by Maxine’s article, the prosecution is suggesting that there is no evidence — not of murder, rather, that Astarita lied.

    Astarita was first scheduled to stand trial beginning August 29. The trial was been designated :complex” (Yes, that is what they have done in both the Burns and Bunkerville trials) and rescheduled to February 27, 2018.

    The roof shot was a shot taken at an occupied vehicle, a criminal offense under state law.  The door shot, described above, was taken while LaVoy was still just outside of his door and Ryan was huddled over Victoria Sharp.  The shot was fired just between the two of them, indicating that in Astarita’s haste, he simply missed his mark.

    Back on March 5, 1770, the King’s soldiers fired on and killed five people.  They stood trial before a jury of citizens, though were found not guilty because they had a right to self-defense.  However, both the laws and the people had a right to determine what they government could do, and what it could not do.

    On January 26, 2016, a government “soldier” (armed with military grade weapon and accoutrements) attempted to kill, or at least, recklessly endangered the occupants of the white truck.  He is not charged with such a crime, even though one of the occupants sustained a gunshot wound.  Instead, he is charged with being dishonest and impeding an investigation.  That would never have happened if we were still under the King.  Instead, we have the hens (the United States Attorney and the FBI) guarding the foxhouse (the FBI), so, well, we know, now, just how this may end.

Video, live radio, podcasts, written articles and more offering top-notch ORIGINAL alternative news from reputable journalists, investigative field reporters, insightful radio broadcasts, LIVE video streams, exclusive interviews, archives and an intelligent forum. Lend Your Voice to the Growing Alternative Media Movement

%d bloggers like this: