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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

** *

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

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

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

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

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

She then cites the authority for taking Judicial Notice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

  2. Diane Ransomsays:

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

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

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

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


Burns Chronicles No 32 – Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)

Burns Chronicles No 32
Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 12, 2016

{October 6, 2015}

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me tell you about these men being targeted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/s/ Terri R. Linnell

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


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

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

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

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

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


  1. Lavoidsays:

    This is not notarized. It is fake.

  2. ghuntghuntsays:

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

  3. Dirk Williamssays:

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

    A case of real time consciousness.

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

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

    Dirk Williams

    • ghuntghuntsays:

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

      • Dirk Williamssays:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


        Dirk Williams

        She sold her sole, and she wants it back.

        Dirk Williams

        • ghuntghuntsays:

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

  4. Ski Bumsays:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. Dirk Williamssays:

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

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

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

    Keep up the good work.

    Dirk Williams

    • ghuntghuntsays:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Have a great day.

    Dirk Williams

    • ghuntghuntsays:

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

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


    • ghuntghuntsays:

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

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

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

  9. Josiahsays:

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

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

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

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

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


Burns Chronicles No 33 – Ryan Payne’s Plea Withdrawal

Burns Chronicles No 33
Ryan Payne’s Plea Withdrawal


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 13, 2016

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Now the legal basis justifying his right to withdraw:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

  2. Paul Niblocksays:

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

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


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

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


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me quote from the Declaration of Independence:

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

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

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

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


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 25, 2016

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

What is the Law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later, on {4}, she says:

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

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

Government’s Use of Informants


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

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

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

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

The Written Word

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

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

The General Charges:

On {13-14}:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, a final comment, before we proceed:

On {16}, we find a simple statement:

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

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

Count One

From {17-19}:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Second, in a federal facility;

Third, the particular Defendant acted knowingly; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourth, the Defendant acted before the crime was completed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) As used in this section:

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

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

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

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

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

The Third and Fourth give us:

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

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

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

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

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

Count Five

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


One Comment

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


Burns Chronicles No 36 – Words from the Poor Losers

Burns Chronicles No 36
Words from the Poor Losers


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2016

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


October 27, 2016

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

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

This is our system and I stand by it.

David M. Ward
Barney County Sheriff

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

Next, we hear from, well:

Governor Kate Brown

Statement regarding the Malheur Refuge Occupation trial:

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

Governor Kate Brown”

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  1. Trena Schuster says:

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

    • Victor Klinger says:

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

  2. Deborah says:

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

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

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


Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect

Burns Chronicles No 37
Intent v. Effect


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 30, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Addendum (October 30, 2016)

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

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

One Comment

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


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

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


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 4, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




  1. Lynn says:

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

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

  3. Sopater says:

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

    I hope that Mumford brings charges and justice is served.

  4. Sharon Holmes says:

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

  5. Bill Goode says:

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

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

    • Nathan B4 says:

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

  6. question says:

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

    • ghuntghunt says:

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

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

  8. Lance Williamssays:

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


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

Burns Chronicles #39
Informants – What to do About Them


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 6, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the most important questing is:

How Should the Patriot Community Deal with Informants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



  1. Torch says:

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

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

  3. Marksays:

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

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


Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner – Wolf

Burns Chronicles No 40
Allen Varner (Wolf)


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 15, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHS observed the following vehicles:

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

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

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


The next day, January 5:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHS goes on to rank the principal players:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building 18 – Warehouse

Building 11 – Warehouse/garage with lots of equipment

Building 17 or 16 -Generator building

Building 1 – Admin buildings were meetings are conducted

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8. […] Of course, I first drew that distinction back on October 15, 2016, in “Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“.  So, are there two elements, each different from the other, as in the Letter, or, only one […]

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

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

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



Burns Chronicles No 21 – The Public’s Right to Know

Burns Chronicles No 21
The Public’s Right to Know

not news

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 16, 2016


We all know that when there is an alleged violation of one’s rights, the freedom of the accused, while somewhat curtailed, is usually respected, and this is known as part of due process. Absent due process, judicial behavior often falls into arbitrary decision-making, biased juries, and the rail-roading of political undesirables, straight into prison. Lack of judicial transparency is usually a clear sign that whatever vestiges of a republican form of government may still be there is waning, and quickly; should the public’s right to know not be reinvigorated, then posterity will likely never know true freedom.

A Person accused of a crime, according to the Sixth Amendment, has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him“, and, “to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor“.

The government, of course, has the right to search with a warrant, and the subpoena power to compel witnesses. Clearly, they have a right to know.

The accused has the power of the subpoena, to compel witnesses on his behalf. He also has a right to discovery, to see what the plaintiff has, in the form of proof, and to introduce evidence on his behalf.

Historically, trials were public. Often crime scenes were photographed by news reporters/cameramen, often with victims still in place. Reporters were given all but the most critical investigative results, and all of this was to assure the public that there really was a crime in their community. Witnesses told what they saw, to investigators (public and private), other people, and the press. Those charged and arrested were able to talk to anybody and often did press interviews from jail. If they were released from custody, they could speak as freely as any other person. Thus, the public was always aware of the accused’s explanation of events.

When the matter went to trial the courtroom was open, so long as the observers behaved, and the press had every opportunity to report on all aspects of the case, including evidence and testimony. For the most part, all of the facts were laid out to the public, by one means or another, even before the trial began.

When the trial was over, regardless of the outcome, the community was fully aware of what had occurred, what the government did to bring justice, and whether the person that had been accused was vindicated of the charges, or convicted.

So, let’s look at what a trial really is. The first element is comprised of the facts of the matter. This includes evidence, recordings, writings, photographs, and the testimony of witnesses. However, that is just the beginning.

Years ago, going through some old law books, I ran across a rather interesting passage in an enactment from Utah. It struck me that it was closer to innocent until proven guilty than our current judicial process. In speaking of the trial, it said that the Indictment was on trial, not the accused (notice the difference between the usage of “accused” verses “defendant”. The accused is one who has had the finger of criminal activity pointed at him. The defendant, however, is, by implication, presumed guilty and has to prove his innocence. In the former (accused), the Indictment is on trial. The Indictment is sort of a story of a crime, and the story has to be proven to find guilt. If the story is not true (proven), then the accused is not guilty. However, in the latter, the defendant is on trial and has to prove that he is innocent. If he can’t prove his innocence, then he is guilty.

Now, back to the trial and its second element. We are not talking procedure, such as opening statements, the testimony and submission of evidence, and then the closing statement. Instead, we need to look at what is done with the facts of the case. For the most part, the facts are not arguable, themselves, though there may be some facts that seem to contradict others. However, what is occurring in those three mentioned stages of the trial (opening, trial, closing), we have nothing more than each side doing his best to present those facts, arguing as to just what they seem to prove. Their objective is to convince the jury, and the public, that those facts prove the case of their respective side of the trial.

This allowed the community to evaluate all aspects from the crime, through the administration of justice. With that in mind, the public would also know whether the government was serving the people, or had become an administrative functionary of the government, itself, endeavoring, if possible, to assure the government’s desired outcome, rather than justice. They were, though without legal authority, the final decisions as to whether justice was served, or not. As with the OJ Simpson trial, though the majority of the public disagreed with the verdict, they still accepted the outcome.

It is in those instances where the court pursues the end desired by the government, rather than the end of true justice for the community, that must be of concern to all of us.

Why it should be of concern is that we are the source of authority (We the People) of the government. It is We that are to be served by government rather than us serving the government. Should we venture too far away from that concept, we will find that the government’s control over our daily lives will always be subject to the government’s approval.

Just a few decades ago, with the exception of occasional photographs depicting elements of a crime, or an occasional audio recording, evidence in the trial was very limited.

More recently, however, we find that the government has spent hundreds, if not thousands, of man-hours, in building a monumental case. The evidence is often beyond the comprehension of most to understand its magnitude. However, the government is constantly evaluating what they have gathered, and by the time arrests might be made, they have been able to process 95%+ of the evidence.

Then comes discovery, the right retained by the accused to have access to what the government is using to prosecute them. It is often well after the arrest, based upon the one-sided evaluation of the evidence, that the accused finally gets to begin to review the mountain of data, though it often comes piecemeal, and though the government had months in advance to prepare their case, the defendant must begin a process that, also, could take months to process. Of course, before he can fully understand what the government has to support their accusations against him, the right to a speedy trial (70 days) is long-gone before he has been able to digest just what that mountain contains.

Two recent examples of the magnitude of the evidence acquired by the government might be noteworthy.

In the case of William Wolf, we find that the government, from an article about the discovery, had acquired 524 pages of written discovery and 17 DVD’s.  The lowest capacity of a standard DVD is 4.7 gigabytes.  It is safe to calculate that each DVD could hold 6 hours of video or 72 hours of audio, or all 17 DVDs could hold 102 hours of video (2 1/2 work weeks), 1224 hours of audio (over 30 work weeks), or a combination thereof.

A much more recent example is the case out of Burns, Oregon, United States of America v. Ammon Bundy, et al. As of April 20, 2016, in a “JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING DISCOVERY“, the government gives us a then current indication of the magnitude of evidence:

To date, the government has produced eleven volumes of discovery that comprise approximately 25,000 Bates [numbered] pages, 58,570 files, and over 360 gigabytes of data [over 76 DVDs]. The government continues to produce discovery in multiple formats including .pdf, text files, tiffs, load files, and natives.

Of course, there are 26 defendants in this case, but each of their respective attorneys need to go through the entire mountain, or arrange to have it commercially indexed to see which pieces affect their client.

Now, in both instances, the question arises as to whether there is any exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might prove the innocence of the accused. The government is reluctant to turn over anything that might weaken their case. After all, their purpose is to win, regardless of innocence or guilt. And, since there is no requirement that the government must turn over everything, unless the accused has reason to believe that there is something in evidence that he hasn’t been provided, he cannot generalize and ask for all that was not voluntarily given.

Surely, we have all hear of the KGB (the Russian Committee for State Security), and the Stasi (East German Ministry for State Security). They were secretive law enforcement organizations that made sure that the will of the leaders was properly applied. Their means included secret agents, informants, false accusations (perjury), and, most significantly, denying the public from knowing anything they chose not to admit to. This left the public to always believe that the government was doing a fine job, except those few dissidents who would soon find themselves on trial, perhaps for the rest of their lives.

However, the American right to a speedy and public trial precludes such practices — or does it?  Newspapers and other news sources are controlled, and can only publish that which is approved by the government. This creates what is commonly referred to as a “police state”.

It is the opposite of what the Framers gave us, and we have shed blood for, to retain that form of government. Our Liberty is a consequence of those efforts, far more than any other objects, except life and property. All are to be protected by the government that was created by the Constitution, and is therefore bound to that Founding Document that provides for an open and honest government.

As we advance in technology, such as the ease of recording audio, video, or both; the Internet, where everything you have said, under any circumstances; and the proliferation of informants and undercover agents (See Vortex – The threat that keeps us apart), we enter a realm whereby those standards of justice from the past can either be adhered to, or ignored, by those whose purpose is to administer justice on our behalf. However, if our judicial system abrogates that responsibility, choosing instead to assure that the government will almost always prevail against us, then we are nothing less than in a police state mentality that supported the KGB and the Stasi, except in name only.

As explained above, the intent of the Framers, has demonstrated by our judicial heritage back through centuries in England, is to allow the public to judge the process, for the sake of both their community and justice, then it would make sense that ALL information obtained by the prosecution be made publically available, without redaction. This would aid both the accuser and the accused, as anybody in the public realm who might have knowledge of something germane to the case, could come forward and offer what evidence they might have that would be beneficial to the ends of justice.

This would be particularly true with regard to the incidents in both Oregon earlier this year, and Nevada back in 2014, where hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures have been taken and where recorded conversations, or other testimony might shed light on the truth.

The government, however, chooses to hide behind a wall of secrecy. For instance, the Las Vegas Review Journal (LVRJ) has filed a Motion to Intervene with the Nevada Court to have the Discovery available to the public, via news media.

However, what is addressed in the LVRJ Motion doesn’t touch on the real problem.

If the government is able to suppress the information that they will use to try to convict the defendants in both Oregon and Washington, then they are approaching those tactics necessary for the KGB and Stasi to achieve their ends.

The government doesn’t want anybody but the defendants to see how the evidence was gathered. They argue that it is for the safety of the witnesses, though in both states, only the government has demonstrated a propensity for violence (See Burns Chronicles No 2 – Ambush and The Bundy Affair – #11 – “Violence Begets Non-Violence”). Perhaps it is their tactics, maybe well beyond what most Americans might deem to be acceptable. Perhaps it is the number of informants and agents that they injected into the events. But, if the government has their way, we will never know. And they will have achieved a major gain in moving into a complete police state, which is supposed to be guarded against by the foresight of the Framers when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So, it is not just the defendants that are, so far, denied information critical for them to evaluate the charges against them, It is also a denial of the right of the people to know just how the government operates and whether it is seeking justice or persecution.




  1. Scott Brown says:

    Good article. On the issue of exculpatory evidence though look at United States Attorneys Manual 9-5.000 – Issues Related To Trials And Other Court Proceedings.

    Constitutional obligation to ensure a fair trial and disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence. Government disclosure of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence is part of the constitutional guarantee to a fair trial. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). The law requires the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. Because they are Constitutional obligations, Brady and Giglio evidence must be disclosed regardless of whether the defendant makes a request for exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1995). Neither the Constitution nor this policy, however, creates a general discovery right for trial preparation or plea negotiations. U.S. v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002); Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).

    It’s our job to demand the servants follow the law and of course they use every tactic to withhold anything useful to accused.

    Keep up your good work Brother.
    Scott in North Carolina State

  2. […] another article (The Public’s Right to Know), we looked at a policy that we would normally consider being the secret police practices that we […]

  3. […] another article (The Public’s Right to Know), we looked at a policy that we would normally consider being the secret police practices that we […]

  4. […] Outpost of Freedom » Blog Archive » Burns Chronicles No 21 – The Public’s Right to Know says: May 23, 2016 at 7:13 am […]


Burns Chronicles No 22 – OathKeepers vs. Militia – Part III

Burns Chronicles No 22
OathKeepers vs. Militia – Part III

wolf sheep 04 OK

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 22, 2016

Just over two years ago, I wrote two articles, Oathkeepers vs. Militia and Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II. Those articles were associated with the events that were happening at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada. I had no intention of writing a series regarding the subject, though more recent events, in and around Burns, Oregon, have compelled me to do so.

What we are discussing is to what level members of OathKeepers cooperated with government officials, both local and federal, in Burns, Oregon. Beyond simple cooperation, did they also provide misinformation to both sides to heighten anxiety — on both sides?

To better understand this concept we need to revisit a story I did back in 1994. Michael Hill, an Ohio Unorganized Militia Chaplin, was shot to death on a roadside while returning from a patriot meeting. Hill was alone in his car and was being followed by friends. A police officer pulled Hill over and Hill complied, pulling to the side of the road. The police car pulled over behind him, and the friends pulled over behind the police car. While the friends were still present, they heard gunshots and fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, two additional officers arrived. Based upon my research, one of these officers fired additional shots into Hill’s nearly dead body.

What led to the heightened anxiety on the part of the police, and the situation that cost Hill his life was, in part, a notice put out by the BATF, in late April 1995, shortly after the Oklahoma City Bombing. The incident just described above occurred on June 28, 1995.







My Preliminary Report on the Death of Michael Hill explains the circumstances and why I came to the conclusion that the anxiety created by the BATF “Warning” was a contributing factor to the overly aggressive law enforcement action.

Within the context of the potential consequences of heightened fear, or anxiety, let’s look at just how that likely played a role in the recent events in Oregon.

Brandon Rappolla, an OathKeeper, was with Brandon Curtiss in November 2015, and, like Curtiss, indicated that he supported Harney County Sheriff David Ward, in whatever decision he made and did not support Ammon Bundy. However, in a January 9, 2016 Reuters News Article, Rappolla, even though he stated that he still didn’t support Ammon’s operation, gave him a “small roll of bills”. Since not publically supporting Ammon, this material support may have been intended to assure continued communications with Ammon.

Within a few days of the occupation of the Refuge, Joe Rice, Pacific Patriot Network and head of the Josephine County OathKeepers, reported to a Sheriff’s Deputy that Ammon’s people had “crew served weapons” (machine guns) and plenty of ammunition. That was certainly reported up the chain. This could explain why the purported original plan to raid the Refuge was abandoned by the feds.

So, by the end of the first week of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, OathKeeper members cozied up to Ammon Bundy and his people, while they publically expressed that they did not support the operation,  and simultaneously provided intelligence  to law enforcement (however incorrect) regarding the armament of those in the Refuge.  Of course, this  report to the Sheriff and his deputies surely had the effect of creating some apprehension (fear) on the part of law enforcement, including the FBI.

So, was anything done by the OathKeepers that heightened the apprehension (fear) in the minds of the occupiers? Let’s look what OathKeepers had to say  on January 5, 2016, just three days after the patriots settled in at the OK Jan 5Refuge. OathKeepers posted the following statement on their Facebook page and the OathKeepers website.

“Oath Keepers has received very credible information from an active duty source within the special operations community that at least one SOD-X unit under the command of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) has been tasked for this standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Reserve and moved to the area. Given this, we should expect that other special operations assets, such as Delta Force… And we should expect the presence of the infamous FBI HRT (which were present at both Ruby Ridge and Waco).”

So, those in the Refuge went on alert, preparing for the worst, but determined to fire back, if fired upon. Can we doubt that there was a bit of apprehension (fear), especially considering the named opposing forces?

So, now, both sides were in a state of increased anxiety. Those inside of the Refuge were willing to negotiate, and wanted someone with legal authority to respond to the “Redress of Grievances” that they had provided to all interested parties who wished a copy, including Sheriff Ward and the FBI.

On the other side, the FBI and the Sheriff took what appeared to be a passive stand, allowing those inside to travel freely, eventually encouraging a degree of complacency, which was quite apparent on January 26 when they encountered the ambush on US Highway 395, which resulted in the murder of LaVoy Finicum.

However, we have only touched the surface of things. It was apparent that Sheriff Ward, probably acting under the instruction of the FBI, tried to talk those inside the Refuge into leaving, even offering safe conduct to another county or the state line. There is no doubt that the government wanted the focus taken off the Refuge lands, and there is equally no doubt that the occupiers knew that holding the land would guarantee attention to address their concerns over federal land practices.

On January 24, 2016, Jason VanTatenhove, Todd Engle, and Stewart Rhodes called LaVoy Finicum to discuss the situation, in a recorded broadcast (mp3 – 15:21). Their discussion began with the subject Constitutional Sheriffs, but led into a discussion of Sheriff Ward’s failure to perform his job, thereby leaving that responsibility to the people, themselves. The failure being the Sheriff’s unwillingness to intercede in the federal re-arrest of Dwight and Steven Hammond.

Jason seemed to support the actions of those in the Refuge, though he suggests that it should only be tried where there is already a Constitutional Sheriff. Stewart appeared to agree, (and I paraphrase) that LaVoy must find the right county, with the right Sheriff, before he should do something like this.

Stewart then expressed concern for what might be coming to the Refuge, in terms of government force being used against the occupiers — suggesting that the women and children should be removed. He follows up by saying that he believes the government might “drop the hammer”, suggested again, that they should leave Harney County. He continues to suggest that they move, even to a private ranch in Harney County. It appears that Stewart’s objective was to get them to move off of the Refuge, which is exactly what the government wanted to happen. He also says that Idaho III% and PPN are doing an excellent job in handling the field (in Burns only), which shows the close working relationship between PPN, Idaho III%, and OathKeepers. LaVoy said very little, and it seemed that that this was just Stewart’s show.

According to the OathKeepers article, the next conversation with LaVoy, was shortly after the above radio show aired.

After that show, there was another private call (mp3 – 13:40) to LaVoy, from Jason, Todd, and Stewart. Stewart was very direct in suggesting that those in the Refuge make a “lateral move” to a strong county. This, of course, would be exactly what the government wanted — get them off of the Refuge in order to arrest them. He tells LaVoy that the government is getting ready to “move on [them]”. So, was Stewart in the loop with the feds, or was he simply trying to scare LaVoy? Now, this is the second time that the OathKeepers have told those in the Refuge that they were going to be facing the feds, eminently. Todd explains that even the day before, when he was at the Refuge, that he told them that they had to move out, that force would be coming. Todd then assured LaVoy that some “seriously armed dudes” would be there to aid them. We must wonder where those “seriously armed dudes” were, two days later when the Refuge needed all of the manpower that it could get.  Again, armed support is offered if they are willing to leave. We simply have to wonder if they would be turned over by the armed escort, directly into the waiting hands of the FBI.

Bearing in mind that a “lateral move”, as proposed by OathKeepers, would have satisfied the fed’s primary goal, was the OathKeepers’ plan to get them make the “lateral move” off of the Refuge an effort to avoid bloodshed, or to firm up their working relationship with the feds?

If OathKeepers reported back to the feds that there was going to be no “lateral move”, did that result in the fed’s alternate plan of the ambush on US 395?

So, we come to the ambush. With what has been presented, there is little doubt that the Oregon State Police (OSP), based on the FBI briefings, began their role in the ambush full of apprehension (fear). In their minds, the possibility of a machine gun in the back of LaVoy’s truck was not outside of the realm of possibility to them. When the truck finally stopped, stuck in the snow, an FBI agent fired two shots. If the OSP officers realized that they didn’t fire the shots (there were only three OSP officers in position to deal with LaVoy), did those two shots, one of which entered the roof of the truck cab, heighten their apprehension? And, if so, were they more likely to minimize risk to themselves by shooting LaVoy in the back?

Some questions that warrant answers:

  • Just how much information from the Refuge did OathKeepers pass on to the government?
  • Was OathKeepers playing on the side of the government from the beginning?
  • Who benefited most from the actions of the OathKeepers?
  • Were OathKeepers intentionally trying to get those on the Refuge to abandon that site to facilitate their arrest?
  • Were their reports to the government intended to generate apprehension?
  • Did the actions of OathKeepers contribute to the circumstances that led to LaVoy Finicum’s death?


  1. Speak2Truth says:

    Also, on the Oath Keepers website, Stewart Rhodes sent a message to the FBI, warning they would have military crawling up their *sses and down their throats if they tried to take action against the refuge occupiers. This sort of threatening language seemed designed to agitate conflict. https://web.archive.org/web/20160117192755/https://www.oathkeepers.org/critical-warning-to-u-s-military-and-federal-leo-do-not-follow-orders-to-waco-ammon-bundy-occupation-in-oregon-or-you-risk-starting-a-civil-war/

    When the Bundy family rebuffed Joseph Rice’s attempt to enter and take control of the Refuge occupation, he immediately took his armed cadre over to the FBI staging area at the nearby airport unannounced, shook hands with the FBI then engaged in some condescending and insulting “discussion” with the FBI present. This video is available on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5w99LTKEA0

    It is worth mentioning that Joseph Rice is the person the Finicum family tried to contact, from inside their vehicle, at the original FBI stop, having been promised protection by “seriously armed dudes”. But, Joseph was conveniently far away by that time. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/30_minutes_of_chaos_witness_de.html

    Joseph established the Pacific Patriots Network apparently in preparation for a lateral move of his own, as his actions could foreseeably result in the breakup (or worse) of Oath Keepers, where he is merely a chapter leader.

  2. […] that he was, in fact, an informant.  Mark professes to be a patriot, and he probably is —along the lines of OathKeepers, where the Constitution is what they are told by their superiors, and is patriotism to the […]

  3. […] arrival.  Rather quick work on his part.  The deceptive role of OathKeepers is explained in OathKeepers vs. Militia – Part III.  This explains the heightened alert status on that day.  Thus, McConnell, who had been invited […]

  4. […] the Court that he was, in fact, an informant. Mark professes to be a patriot, and he probably is —along the lines of OathKeepers, where the Constitution is what they are told by their superiors, and is patriotism to the […]

  5. […] arrival.  Rather quick work on his part.  The deceptive role of OathKeepers is explained in OathKeepers vs. Militia – Part III.  This explains the heightened alert status on that day.  Thus, McConnell, who had been invited […]


    Burns Chronicles No 23 – Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process

    Burns Chronicles No 23
    Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process

    kangaroo court2

    Gary Hunt
    Outpost of Freedom
    August 10, 2016

    So far, ten of those charged in United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al, have pled guilty, and the eleventh is soon to follow. They are, as follows:

    • Jason Blomgren (Joker J), pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
    • Brian Cavalier (Booda), pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge and a charge of possessing firearms or dangerous weapons in a federal facility.
    • Blaine Cooper, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
    • Travis Cox, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
    • Eric Flores, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
    • Wesley Kjar, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy
    • Corey Lequieu, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
    • Joseph O’Shaughnessy, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy
    • Ryan Payne, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
    • Geoffrey Stanek, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
    • Jon Ritzheimer, scheduled to plea

    So, why are they pleading? Is it because they really think that they are guilty?

    Most, if not all, of those above have been “intimidated” or “threatened“, by federal prosecutors, either directly, or through their appointed counsel, that a Terrorism Enhancement could result in a sentence of 30 years, possibly for each count.

    For a little background, over twenty years ago, I reported on a trial (see below) that I would eventually learn to be one where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines had brought into our judicial system something that was very foreign to the system of justice, as implemented by the Founders. Perhaps it would be beneficial to begin with an understanding of the judicial system that was intended, based upon many centuries of evolution in the British Common Law.

    The English Constitution, even before the Magna Carta (1215 AD), began evolving in 1080 AD, and was also the beginning of a legal evolutionary process that sometimes went backwards, but most often went forward, in an effort to provide justice rather than blind obedience to laws. It was the English Common Law that was the foundation of jurisprudence for the Founders.

    This foundation is evidenced even in current statutes, such as Florida Statutes (2015), where we find:

    2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

    We can also look to the Maryland Constitution (2008), which provides, in its Declaration of Rights:

    Art. 5. (a)
    (1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity…

    In the same Declaration of Rights, we also find:

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

    Now, the Maryland Constitution predates the United States Constitution, as it was first ratified by the People on November 11, 1776 – over a decade before the Constitution. Clearly, the understanding (original intent) of the Maryland Constitution and the United States Constitution were predicated upon those laws that then existed, and definition, or intent, of the words used, were as they were understood at the time. Absent a lawful change of definition, those definitions and intentions are still the body of the law and should be recognized as such.

    Also true of the Common Law, at that time, and remember, the intention is still the same, is that a jury determines law and fact. However, there is one more aspect that comes into play. The jury also imposed the sentence, as they were the judge of facts, those which determined the severity of the crime; the law, what was intended and the extent applicable to the case at hand; and, by combining the two, would determine the sentence to be imposed, if the accused were found to be guilty.


    For instance, if there were two assault cases, and one was minor, in that only a few bruises were the result, could it possibly be compared with, and judged, with the same severity of punishment if the victim were left bloody and unconscious on the ground?

    This would also go to intent; If one knowingly, and provably, disobeyed a law, and his intentions were for personal gain, the punishment should be more severe than if one broke the law, with no malicious intent, and was not even aware that he was breaking a law. The former should have a harsh sentence, while the latter should have a lighter sentence, if any punishment, at all.

    Even if that decision were left to the Court, the facts, and the circumstances, etc., should be paramount in determining a just sentence for any crime.

    In support of the concept, though not the application, because that responsibility has been usurped by the courts, we find, in 18 U.S.C. § 3553: Imposition of a sentence:

    (a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence. – The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider –

    (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;

    (2) the need for the sentence imposed –

    (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense…

    The United States Sentencing Commission, “an independent agency of the judicial branch of the federal government of the United States”, was created by the “Sentencing Reform Act”, part of the “Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984”.  There are seven voting members on the Commission, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and serve six-year terms. At least three of the commissioners must be federal judges, and no more than four may belong to the same political party. The United States Attorney General or his designee and the chair of the United States Parole Commission sit as ex officio, non-voting members of the Commission.

    This, then, constitutes an extra-constitutional “commission” that has taken the imposition of penalty away from the discretion of the judges (who had taken it from the jury) and made an arbitrary, though somewhat flexible, micro-management of sentencing. That flexibility, however is most often used against the accused — for the benefit of the prosecution.

    The intention of the Act was to standardize sentencing, simply a form of incorporating federal control to a micro-management level. It was expressed as “necessary to remove the judge’ discretion in sentencing”.

    So, back to twenty years ago, when I was covering, though from a distance, the Trial of the Branch Davidians. I received a copy of a letter sent by Sarah Bain, Jury Foreperson in that trial, to the Judge, Walter Smith, that presided over the trail. In the letter, she expressed concern over some of the verdicts that had been found by the jury.

    To verify the letter as having come from the Jury Foreperson, I contacted Sarah to discuss the letter. During our discussion, we also spoke of the automatic weapons the government alleged that the Davidians had. She told me that the jury found no evidence that automatic weapons were used, or even present at Mt. Carmel; we were not aware of the sentencing, just a few days before. I wrote this article, based upon that conversation.

    When I heard of the sentencing, by Judge Smith, I was appalled by the sentences handed down, though I had no idea, at the time, of what “enhanced sentencing” meant. The sentencing, as reported by the Los Angeles Times on June 18, 1994, with regard to sentencing, states:

    “Under mandatory sentencing guidelines approved by Congress, the weapons charge–carrying a weapon in the commission of a violent crime–is punishable by a maximum of 30 years in prison. At the request of prosecutors and over the objections of defense attorneys, Smith imposed the maximum sentences on grounds that automatic weapons, the most destructive kind, were involved.”

    This added ten years to the sentence of five of the defendants, though the “fact” that it was based on was not a “fact”, at all, as determined by the jury. This is a circumvention of the Constitution, and is more akin to the backward sliding of the British Common Law, over the centuries, when the king determined that he was above the law. It appears that, now, the government appears to consider itself above the law, by developing means to circumvent that which so many have fought and died for.

    However, when I began researching for this article, I found that the Branch Davidians, specifically James Castillo, had pursued this injustice to the United States Supreme Court (Castillo, et al. v. United States 530 U.S. 120 (2000)). The Court decided, not so much on sentencing, rather on the wording of the statute, that the enhancement was not within the purview of the District Court judge to decide what had not been found by the jury. The statute uses the term “use” of a firearm, where the jury found no such fact to be true. So, the case was remanded and the sentences reduced accordingly.

    This then, begins to touch on the whole aspect of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), though it does not get to the heart of the matter.

    * * *

    Now, the events in Burns, Oregon evolved out of the persecution of Dwight and Steven Hammond. They had performed a controlled burn, the fire got out of hand, and burned 126 acres of public lands before they managed to put the fire out. Then, when the government set their own fire, supposedly a controlled burn, that had gotten out of hand, and threatened the Hammond’s ranch and home, they set a backfire that spread onto public land, though it kept the fire from burning down their home and outbuildings. They were charged under a statute that was enacted with the intention of prosecuting those who set fires, with terrorism as an objective. Though that was not the case with the Hammonds, and was not brought up at trial, they will serve five years in prison, without any enhancement. The Statute was enacted to punish terrorists, not to punish ranchers who carried on practices that have been carried on for centuries, those same practices also being carried on by government agencies. This is truly a perversion of the intent of the law, but not, in the least, the application of “enhancement sentencing”.

    Instead, probably more subject to an overarching attitude in Congress that they can prevent crime by enacting laws, though with wording that allows the Justice Department to interpret those laws well beyond the intent of the Congress.

    * * *

    The accused parties in United States of America v. Ammon Bundy, et al, are charged with, among other charges, in Count 1 of the Indictment, violation of 18 U. S. Code §372, to wit:

    If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person fromaccepting 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.

    The question arises, then, of just who, what person or persons, were intimidated or threatened by those that had moved in to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Can it be a threat or intimidation if there is no person that was directly threatened or intimidated?

    They were also charged (in an effort to be vindictive), as appears to be true based upon Count 3, violation of 18 U. S. Code § 924(c)(1)(A), to wit:

    (c) (1) (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.

    However, on a Motion by David Fry’s attorney, the judge dismissed this effort as adding an inappropriate charge, since the statute addresses “violence“, though there was never any violence perpetrated by any of the defendants.

    So, it appears, being the poor losers that they are, the government has decided to seek a “Terrorism” enhancement, but we will address that more, later.

    So, what are these “terrorism enhancements”? Shane Harris, Author and journalist, has written an article for the National Journal explaining the abuse of the “enhancement” aspect of the Sentencing Guidelines. It is worth the time to read, to fully understand how “enhancement” has become a tool of government, to be used to force plea agreements and to punish those who might refuse to plea, wasting the Court’s time with a jury trial.

    However, we must move forward to understand what has happened since 1984, and the dismal attempt of the government to continue to allow the judge to sentence, though to restrain him by micro-management.

    In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled, in Blakely v. Washington 542 US 296 (2004),

    “The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s argument that the sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal constitutional right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts legally essential to his sentence.”

    The Court held that

    Because the facts supporting petitioner’s exceptional sentence were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury, the sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.”

    The following year. the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker 543 US 200 (2005), begins to give us an idea of the judicial abuse. This case made clear that unless the jury determines a fact, any enhancement, absent that jury’s determination, cannot be applied under the Guidelines. This is based upon the protection afforded by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    However, in a dissenting opinion, not on the jury aspect, the late Justice Scalia made a rather interesting observation with regard to the Sentencing Guidelines (remember, these were implemented to standardize sentencing and remove the judge’s discretionary sentencing), when he said, “In order to rescue from nullification a statutory scheme designed to eliminate discretionary sentencingit discards the provisions that eliminate discretionary sentencing.”

    Now, I don’t know how comprehensive the first USSG was, but I do know that the 2015 version is 599 pages. I have been studying it for the past few days, and I can see that it is convoluted and almost incomprehensible. But, don’t take my word for it. Here is what the Court said in a 2016 decision (Molina-Martinez v. United States No. 14-8913):

    “The Federal Sentencing Guidelines first enter the sentencing process when the United States Probation Office prepares a presentence report containing, as relevant here, an advisory Guidelines range based on the seriousness of a defendant’s offense and the extent of his criminal history. A district court may depart from the Guidelines, but it “must consult [them] and take them into account when sentencing.” Given the Guidelines’ complexity, a District Court’s use of an incorrect Guidelines range may go unnoticed.”

    So, after 22 years, it is acknowledged that this effort at micro-managing justice has failed, dismally. To top that off, since 2005, over the course of the past 11 years, Sentencing Guidelines have been heard by the Supreme Court in 105 cases. Perhaps such a tangled web that it will never be fully extricated from the dismal depths to which it belongs.

    Now, back to Oregon. It has come to light that the prosecution, in some emails to defense attorneys a few months ago, that “terrorism enhancements” might be applied to the defendants, if they should go to trial. About a month ago, this same subject (threat) came to light in some Internet discussions.

    Since none of the charges brought against the defendants either reference or are part of terrorism statutes, it is difficult to think that the jury could possibly create, on their own, such a charge. They can only judge those charges brought against the defendants.

    This, however, might warrant some edification. The Sixth Amendment, along with other protections against oppressive, arbitrary, or tyrannical, government, provides that:

    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall… be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation…”

    Now, those “accusations”, supported by an Indictment by a Grand Jury, make no mention of “terrorism”.  Only those counts still remaining (absent Count 3) are the accusation. No reasonable person could conclude that additional charges can be brought during trial, or even at sentencing. Any defense offered by the Defendants can only be based upon the original charges, and not some conspiratorial chicanery by the Prosecution.

    So, why is it that the prosecution, this extensive battery of well paid government attorneys, has endeavored to intimidate defendants into pleading (plea agreement), for fear that additional time might be added to their sentences, should they waste the government’s time by going to trial and seeking justice, from a jury?

    Is it really justice when the government uses chicanery (The use of trickery to achieve a legal purpose.), “intimidation, or threat“, to entice the defendants to reject the judicial process envisioned to protect them, in favor of avoiding the wrath of the government? Those two words, “intimidation” and “threat“, are, after all, what the Defendants are charged with being in violation of.

    Now, since Count 1 describes the action, “conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from”, we know that the government perceives this as criminal in its nature. So, is that criminality universal, or is it simple a tool of government to force compliance, also referred to as tyrannical or despotic.

    So, the government prosecutors, along with perhaps the judicial branch and the Defendants appointed counsel, have “conspire[ed] to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, [those] person[s] from” exercising their right to due process of law.

    So, it appears that the government has immunity when they conspire to use intimidation and threats, the very crime that the Defendants are charged with. Now, can we possibly consider that justice grants the government the ability to do what the Constitution does not specifically authorize them to do, while punishing people, coercing confessions (plea agreements), when nobody was harmed?

    Or, has the government decided to enact laws, rules, and even policies, that deny the justice that had been established over centuries, circumventing the Constitution, in favor of giving themselves absolute control over our actions?


    1. Critical Reader says:

      “The question arises, then, of just who, what person or persons, were intimidated or threatened by those that had moved in to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?”

      Those who had moved to the refuge attempted to hold a peaceful, prayerful protest against the treatment of the Hammonds.

      It was the professional agitators who raced to the scene, who put out the “call to action” to bring armed personnel up there to threaten law enforcement, insisting they would go so far as to “escort” the FBI from the scene (presumably by compulsion). Threats were made, publicly and online, that the FBI would have military personnel crawling down their throats and up their backsides.

      The Bundy family kicked the agitators out, hoping to avoid trouble, but that did not stop the agitators from getting busy escalating the situation, eliciting a predictable response from law enforcement personnel.

      While agitators are driving the Black Lives Matter group into threatening police, the same is being done from within the patriot movement by infiltrators, rising to leadership positions, to create an excuse to crack down. And the crack-down is happening.

      The set-up is plain to see.

      There is a peaceful, non-threatening way to push back against infringement upon our rights. It is proven to work. Allowing the agitators to take leadership is not going to end well. The Bundy family apparently understood this.

    2. ghuntghunt says:

      Some definitions provided by a reader:
      LAW DICTIONARY (1856)
      AND OF THE
      With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law
      byJohn Bouvier

      DISCRETION, practice.
      1. When it is said that something is left to the discretion of a judge, it signifies that he ought to decide according to the rules of equity, and the nature of circumstances. Louis. Code, art. 3522, No. 13; 2 Inst. 50, 298; 4 Serg. & Rawle, 265; 3 Burr. 2539.

      2. The discretion of a judge is said to be the law of tyrants; it is always unkown; it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly, and passion, to which human nature is liable. Optima lex quae minimum relinquit arbitrio judicis: optimus judex qui minimum sibi. Bac. Aph; 1 Day’s Cas.. 80, ii.; 1 Pow. Mortg. 247, a; 2 Supp. to Ves. Jr. 391; Toull. liv. 3, n. 338; 1 Lill. Ab. 447.

      TYRANNY, government. The violation of those laws which regulate the division
      and the exercises of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of
      its constitution.

      TYRANT, government. The chief magistrate of the state, whether legitimate or
      otherwise, who violates the constitution to act arbitrarily contrary to
      justice. Toull. tit. prel. n. 32.
      2. The term tyrant and usurper, are sometimes used as synonymous,
      because usurpers are almost always tyrants; usurpation is itself a
      tyrannical act, but properly speaking, the words usurper and tyrant convey
      different ideas. A king may become a tyrant, although legitimate, when he
      acts despotically; while a usurper may cease to be a tyrant by governing
      according to the dictates of justice.
      3. This term is sometimes applied to persons in authority who violate
      the laws and act arbitrarily towards others. Vide Despotism.

      Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
      Kangaroo Court. Term descriptive of a sham legal proceeding in which a person’s rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a foregone conclusion because of the bias of the court or other tribunal.

    3. […] explained in Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process, they were facing what they believed to be a possible sentence of thirty years under the threat of […]

    4. […] XXIII. Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process [8/10/16] […]

Burns Chronicles No 24 – To Plea, or, Not To Plea

Burns Chronicles No 24
To Plea, or, Not To Plea


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 16, 2016

As some of those staunch defenders of our rights, in both Burns, Oregon, and Bunkerville, Nevada, decide to make a plea agreement with the prosecutors, the Internet has both armchair quarterbacks damning them and sympathetic supporters who will stand by their decision.  However, perhaps it is necessary to look a little deeper into who those people, at both the Ranch and Refuge are, and to consider their respective objectives.

We can categorize those who participated in both events by comparing them to those who stood up against the British, 240 years ago.  In so doing, there are three general categories, so that we can consider them in a contemporary context.

The first category is, for want of a better term, the politicos.  Historically, these would be those who served on local and Provincial Committees of Safety and, those who went to Philadelphia and served in the Continental Congress.  There may be others, such as newspaper editors and others who were outspoken against the British, so that we can lump them into this category, as well.

Now, in the past two years, we have, likewise, the politicos, those whose involvement is to challenge the government concerning both rights and that which should be right.  Their objective is educational as well as political, desiring to provide understanding to other citizens as well as to attempt to get the government to stay within its limits and to remain obedient to the Constitution.

The second category is those with military inclinations.  For the most part, they had prior military and leadership experience in the French and Indian wars.  Their purpose was to use military force to protect the rights of Englishmen and defend against forces thrown against them.

In the contemporary context, it would include those with military and leadership experience who have taken the task of protecting those politicos against attempts at violent suppression of their right to seek redress of grievances and to speak freely on subjects of concern to others.

These first two categories can easily be equated to the First Amendment, for the politicos, and the Second Amendment for those with military inclinations.

The third category is those who offer support, which would include those lesser military types (enlisted men) or those who provided food, blankets, firewood, and other necessities to those in the other two categories.  They were more than simply vocal supporters.  They acted to support those who were defending their rights.

In both events, we also have members of this third category, whether it was by standing guard, cooking, doing laundry, reviewing documents, or any other necessary support activities.  They served with actions, not words.

Those men of words, those politicos, were the most feared by the British government.  John Hancock and Sam Adams, for example, were exempt from the amnesty offered early on as the Revolutionary War began.  They were also secondary targets in the British march to Lexington and Concord.

Today, we see those men of words (not the armchair sort) not even being considered for plea agreements.  They are the most feared, and the government will do all that it can to silence them.  They cannot be flight risks, as they have homes, businesses, and families that tie them to an open life.  Now that the game is on, they are committed to presenting their case, even though they know that the odds are against them when the judicial branch (court) and the executive branch (prosecutors) gang up against them; suppressing communication, disrupting them in jail, and doing their best to deny communication with those who might be able to help them.  It was only after more than five months that the Court decides that the co-defendants could communicate with each other to prepare their defense.  These patriots will not plead out, as they are on the proper battlefield, even though disadvantaged, to fight their war of words and principles, and for our Constitution.

Next, we have the militarily inclined participants.  Their job was to protect the politicos.  At the Bundy Affair, many of those who had been on the Ranch remained on the Ranch to protect the Bundy family, home and property, as their assigned duty.  They did not participate in the Unrustling of April 12, 2014.  They did not abandon their mission.  They stayed at their duty station, as they should.  Others, who had only arrived on the 12th chose to defend and protect those mostly third category people who had come to demonstrate their support for the Bundy cause.

In Burns, the protection and defense were carried on throughout the possession of the Refuge.  Unfortunately, failure to plan against an ambush resulted in some of them being caught in an indefensible situation.  This resulted in the arrest of some of the people and the death of LaVoy Finicum.

It is among this group that we see some entering into plea agreements with the government.  However, taking a plea agreement doesn’t necessarily jeopardize the politicos or other military types.  The fact that they pled is not admissible in the subsequent trials.  Only if they choose to abandon any integrity will they turn state’s evidence and testify against the others.  Those, only, will become a pariah — and no longer reasonably able to consider themselves as patriots.

But, still, we have the dilemma that is the subject of this article.  By pleading, have they given up their principles and their integrity?

George Washington won against the British by doing his utmost to be able to “fight another day”.  Though a prisoner of war may be a burden on the enemy, it is worse when that fighting man is lost to the cause that they champion.  If the prisoner of war can escape, he can rejoin the battle.

As explained in Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process, they were facing what they believed to be a possible sentence of thirty years under the threat of terrorism enhancement.  Their appointed attorneys conspired with the prosecutors and the court to intimidate them with the threat of thirty years in prison.  That would put them in their fifties, or older, and would probably preclude them from “fighting another day”.

However, by pleading out, they will be back on the streets in a few years.  At that time, they can rejoin the battle, if they so choose.

Now, they do, according to the current interpretation of the “felon in possession of a firearm” laws, give up their right to possess firearms.  However, there are two circumstances that would negate that prohibition.

First is another battle, being fought since October 2014, when Kevin “KC” Massey, acting as both a politico and in a military capacity, was charged with “felon in possession of a firearm”.  Massey was legally in possession of a firearm, under Texas Revised Statutes.  This was at odds with the federal charge brought against him at that time.  He has chosen, as a politico, to fight the battle of words.  Though he was convicted and is now in prison, he and his attorney, Phillip T. Cowen, are preparing an appeal that will challenge the federal interpretation of 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1).  If he prevails, then the statute will only apply to those involved, directly, in commerce, whereby the firearm crosses state or international boundaries.  Once out of commerce, it could be lawfully possessed.

Second is rather simple and easily understood.  If we come to open conflict with the government, because of their abrogating their lawful responsibilities under, and usurping authority never granted them by the Constitution, we will all be enforcing the right to keep, bear, and use, arms.  That prohibition then becomes moot.

Now, as to the third category, there is nothing to be said.  They are free to choose to join the legal battle, or plea so that they can return to their role much sooner — should the government prevail at trial.

Now, let’s change the perspective to a more realistic and individual one.  I might be considered among the first group, the politicos.  When I was younger, I found myself holding a firearm in protecting rights, though I never found cause to use them.  I have also been encouraged to use the sword of words, the Pen, as I have been doing since Waco.

If I found myself in the circumstances that those patriots have found themselves in, I can only speculate what course I would take.  If I chose to take a chance that the courts in this country can serve justice, and I lost — facing thirty years — well, my children are grown but then I would be 100 years old when I got out (I would probably die in prison).  Of course, in prison, I would still have access to a keyboard, so I could continue to wage the battles that I now wage, though access to events would be severely limited.  However, if I could get out after only a few years, I could remain a part of the patriot community, and quite possibly continue pretty much as I have for the past few decades.

However, if I were younger, the considerations would be different from what I would face, now.  If I had young children, would I be willing to forgo helping and watching them grow?  With thirty years, I would miss the birth of my grandchildren.  When I consider what is most important to me, it is family, then country, to which I have made my commitment.  So, unless and until I find myself in that circumstance, I can honestly say that I can only guess at what choice I would make.

Now, back to those who have chosen to plea.  I don’t wear their shoes, and I am grateful for that.  I am also grateful for them, as they did what had to be done, when it had to be done.  Not many of us can say that we, too, did what had to be done, when it needed to be done.

Nor do I wear your shoes, so I will not partake in speculation as to what you would, or should, do if you found yourself in such a situation as they have.  First, most who will read this have not taken a single step in that direction.  Second, your particular circumstances, especially with your family, are an unknown to me.  I can only say that so long as you did not turn state’s evidence, I would respect your decision, as you, not I, have to live with it.



  1. Brand Thornton says:

    Excellent article Gary and agree 100%. I always enjoy your stuff and consider you a true Patriot. I hope to continue hearing from you !

  2. harold says:

    I think abandoning your family especially with young children to support your ideology is a failure of responsibility and shows selfishness. I worked at a job I hated it was dangerous and dirty and not very pleasant. I knew I had to provide and protect my children from local danger of poor neighborhoods and feed, cloth, and provide housing for them. I also had to ensure they went to good schools and maybe a collage education or a skilled craftsman whatever. They also needed my daily attention and love. I did it because jobs were scarce reagonomic moved the entire manufacturing base of mining steel mills logging sand and gravel brick yards. The farms and cattle chicken and pig farms. Not to mention the small businesses downtown in all the small towns. Because they believed in outsourcing and large corporations over small family businesses. The whole rust belt collapsed. So I worked because my family came first. Not some fantasy to be a hero and overthrow the system. You people take to many movies as truth and risk you family future and maybe abject poverty. Why? Because your self delusional illusion of grandeur when most of you guys are failures in your life so far. The founding fathers were mostly educated and wealthy and successful in their lives. You are out smarted and your dangerous actions are dooming your children to a destroyed start in life. I get it. Things are not how you would want them to be. It is your group that needs to wake up. I truly feel for the children of these foolish men and I suspect the misfortune that has them so upset at the government is because their OWN choices in life. Not Washington DC

    • ghuntghunt says:

      Apparently, you think that America was won from the British by those “politicos” that went to Philadelphia. You seem to forget the tens of thousands that die fighting the British, and those who wasted away o prison ships. For that matter, almost all who fought left family behind to, whether delusional or for grandeur, made the sacrifice that led to the founding of this once great nation.
      That, however, was not the end of it, it was simply the beginning. When the government, created by the Constitution, fails to abide by that which made them — regardless of the Supreme Court’s legislating from the bench, has led us on the same path that Jefferson spoke to in the Declaration of Independence.
      It appears that though you have objection to the system, (i.e. Reaganomics), but that you are content, as any good subject should be, to accept the status quo. With that in ind, if I were to observe your behavior, if it were 240 years ago, I would judge you to be, at least, a fence sitter, though more likely, a Tory.

  3. harold says:

    I am no Tory. Years of hard work and investing I am not oppressed by government. I can do anything I want to do in life. I believe in the Constitution and the government it gave us. There is coruption as there is everything. Including your movement and your church. That is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You work to better things. I see libertarians and communist as the same they believe in this perfect order and perfect society. Which is a fantasy. Even thomas Paine said government is a necessary evil because of flaws in mankind. So don’t think your ideas of government is going to be any different. What I see it would be a loose idea of thousand of regional groups with local warlords ruling your area. And as the founders found in the failures of The Article of Confederation. And I see that if you disagree with the existing government you believe it is YOUR and YOUR groups determination who will decide who and what is tyranny and you overthrow them with violent insurection. For freedom. Bull what I see is tyranny but who has bigger and more guns. Mob Rule. We have constitutnal ways of addressing problems And grievances And
    Not by your interpretation of a letter sent addressed personally to King George over their particulars of the moment. As revolution is NOT in the Constitution except as treason

  4. harold says:

    I am free as the founder required and promised

    • ghuntghunt says:

      Who controls the schools that your children go, or went to? How many licenses do you have to do what free men should be able to do, of right? Where is the requisite
      Declaration of War” by the Congress? Or, have we left the lives of so many to the hands of one man? How much of your paycheck goes directly to taxation (income, sales, etc.)? And still, the country has a debt that stretches well beyond your great-grandchildren.

      “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  5. harold says:

    George washington sent th military after citizens for refusing to pay taxes. Was one of the founder unconstitutional? Why didnt the other oppose him? Alexa Dee Hamilton led the 12000 to western pa. Much more to things than you let your readers know. I think your movement starts with a hate governmen% then cherry pick Things to support your views

    • ghuntghunt says:

      That was an Excise Tax. It was not a direct tax, and it was less than 2%, but there was no currency in circulation from which to pay the taxes, so their property was taken.
      So, I asked you, “how much of your paycheck goes directly to taxation?” You choose a rather obscure and irrelevant incident, totally without comparison to what I asked you, and you accuse me of cherry picking?
      You also failed to answer other questions that I asked. Perhaps the cherries were were too high in the tree.

  6. Sherry Briggssays:

    Very good article. I read the comments above by Herald and realized that he doesn’t know the freedoms he has lost or the Freedoms that our founding fathers talked about. The patriots thought of their children too, and experienced on a daily basis the freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for being slowly taken away and they want better for their children. Remember. Cliven Bundy is one of the last ranchers standing out of 50 and the government wasn’t done with him yet with their strangle hold on his ranching. Harold is losing freedoms, but hasn’t experienced it on a higher scale unless it happens to him it doesn’t matter. Well alot of these patriots have gone through the “legal” channels to change things and their grievances went unanswered. Thank God that there are people who care about their neighbors and will take a stand. What happened to the Hammonds by our Federal Government should have never happened, if it happens to one American, it happens to us all.


Burns Chronicles No 25 – Juror Shopping & Secrecy

Burns Chronicles No 25
Juror Shopping & Secrecy

blind justice 01 rev

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 22, 2016

The government may have given the Grand Jury sufficient information to properly find “probable cause”.  It is also possible that they may have simply convinced the Grand Jury to find “probable cause” based upon explaining to them that they had given them enough information for them to indict the 26 people charged in the final (third) Grand Jury Superseding Indictment.  We will be looking at the Indictment, Case Law, the Grand Jury selection process, and the information provided to the Grand Jury.


Now, this case is being heard in the Oregon Federal District Court.  That Court is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court.  So, what better source to determine if the Indictment meets the standards set by that Ninth Circuit Court?

Case Law & the Indictment

To do so, let’s look at an Appellate Decision, held by the Ninth Circuit, in Cecil v United States 608 F.2d 1294 (1972).  The case had to do with some people charged with conspiracy, to wit:

“That beginning on or before July, 1975, and continuing thereafter until on or after October, 1975, in the District of Arizona and elsewhere, LEONARD SILAS JOHNSON, FELIX DAN CECIL, DONALD LEE SCHAFFER, IVA LEE THUNDERCLOUD, LYNN RICHARD JOHNSON, RANDY DARRELL THOMAS, WARREN ARTHUR HAGGARD, KENNY ROBERT JAMES, SILAS BLAINE JOHNSON, TONY JOHNSON, and LIONEL JOHNSON, named herein as defendants, did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree together and with each other and with various other persons both known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit offenses in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).

It was the object of said conspiracy that one or more of the co-conspirators would possess with intent to distribute and would distribute quantities of marihuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).”

Now, the Burns Indictment reads similarly:

On or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER, JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK, DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON, DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC LEE FLORES, and JAKE RYAN did knowingly and willfully conspire and agree together and with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury to prevent by force, intimidation, and threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, agencies within the United States Department of the Interior, fromdischarging the duties of their office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and other locations in Harney County, Oregon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.

Now, back to the Cecil v. United States Appellate Decision, and the requirement for specificity.  What follows are direct quotes from the Decision, and the reasoning for dismissing the Indictment (reversing the lower court’s ruling).

The appellants all raised timely challenges to the indictment proffering motions to dismiss based upon the indictment’s insufficient factual precision.  The trial judge recognized the validity of these claims, commenting that, “this sort of indictment goes far beyond the leeway afforded by the Ninth Circuit.”  However, initially indicating that the requested bill of particulars would remedy the indictment’s defects and later deciding that the Government’s “open file” discovery did remedy these problems, the court denied appellants’ motion to dismiss.

Now, in Burns, we have seen the “open file” discovery, however, the files are not really open, especially to the public.  However, the judge did not dismiss the Indictment. Don’t be discouraged.  Returning to Cecil:

We begin our analysis stating the established rule that a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment.  The very purpose of the requirement that a man be indicted by a grand jury is to limit his jeopardy to offenses charged by a group of his fellow citizens acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge.  If a bill of particulars were allowed to save an insufficient indictment, the role of the grand jury as intervenor would be circumvented.  Rather than the assurance that a body of fellow citizens had assessed the facts and determined that an individual should face prosecution, the prosecutor would be in a position to second guess what actually happened within the grand jury and fill in the gaps with what he assumed transpired.  The protection of a significant check on the power of the courts and prosecutors would thus be lost.

In Burns, motions had been submitted for a Bill of Particulars (a bill of particulars is a detailed, formal, written statement of charges or claims by a plaintiff or the prosecutor given upon the defendant’s formal request to the court for more detailed information), but those motions were denied.  However, if they had been granted, they would still not make up for the lack of specificity in the Indictment.

This inquiry must focus upon whether the indictment provides “the substantial safeguards” to criminal defendants that indictments are designed to guarantee.  Pursuant to this purpose, an indictment must furnish the defendant with a sufficient description of the charges against him to enable him to prepare his defense, to ensure that the defendant is prosecuted on the basis of facts presented to the grand jury, to enable him to plead jeopardy against a later prosecution, and to inform the court of the facts alleged so that it can determine the sufficiency of the charge.  To perform these functions, the indictment must set forth the elements of the offense charged and contain a statement of the facts and circumstances that will inform the accused of the specific offense with which he is charged.

The Prosecutors admitted that as of April 20, 2016, “the government has produced eleven volumes of discovery that comprise approximately 25,000 pages of documents, 58,570 files, and over 360 gigabytes of data.  The government continues to produce discovery in multiple formats including .pdf, text files, tiffs, etc.”  However, rest assured that within those voluminous records, there just might be some substantial proof that crimes were, or may have been, committed.  It seems, however, that the Court and the Prosecution have left it up to the Defendants, not the Grand Jury, to determine if there really was a crime committed. Returning to Cecil:

The present indictment is a rather barren document.  Aside from tracking the language of the pertinent statutes in setting out the elements of the offenses with which defendants were charged, the indictment makes only two specific allegations concerning the conspiracies.  It states that the conspiracies occurred in Arizona, Mexico, and elsewhere and offers the names of some of the alleged co-conspirators.  The indictment fails to state any other facts or circumstances pertaining to the conspiracy or any overt acts done in furtherance thereof.  More importantly, the indictment fails to place the conspiracies within any time frame.  The language “beginning on or before July, 1975, and continuing thereafter until on or after October, 1975,” is open-ended in both directions.

The Indictment in Burns is equally a barren document.  It is equally void of definitive dates, using the generality of a range, as in Cecil.

For example, when, how, and who, should be applied to the broad statement from the Burns Indictment,

to prevent by force, intimidation, and threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, agencies within the United States Department of the Interior, from discharging the duties of their office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and other locations in Harney County, Oregon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.

When, and upon whom, did they use force?  When, and upon whom, did they use intimidation?  When, and upon whom, did they use threats?

If I kill someone, they have to, at least, say who I killed.  If I rob a bank, they would have to say which bank I robbed, and what I robbed the bank of.  There is nothing in the Indictment that provides any particular situation upon which the defendants can build a defense.  It is nothing more than a thought crime, and the thoughts are solely within the minds of the Prosecutors.  And, they have implanted that thought into the minds of the Grand Jurors, without sufficient substance to meet the requirements of the Ninth Circuit Court.

So, here is what the Ninth Circuit said:

In view of these deficiencies, we find that the indictment fails to allege sufficient facts to facilitate the proper preparation of a defense and to ensure that the defendants were prosecuted on facts presented to the Grand Jury.  This indictment clearly lacked a statement of the facts and circumstances that would inform the accused of the specific offenses with which they were charged.

To allow a prosecutor or court to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jury at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection that the grand jury was designed to secure, because a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury that indicted him…  The glaring lack of factual particularity of this indictment thus runs afoul of two key functions of indictments.

Similarly, the fact that an indictment may have tracked the language of the statute will not render it valid if it fails to allege an essential element of the offense or the minimum facts required to fulfill the purposes of indictments.

The requirement that an indictment contain a few basic factual allegations accords defendants adequate notice of the charges against them and assures them that their prosecution will proceed on the basis of facts presented to the grand jury.  Such a requirement is neither burdensome nor unfair to the prosecuting authorities.

The Grand Jury Jurors

Now, a number of efforts have been made, by filing motions, for some of the Defendants to review both the Grand Jury Selection Process (Jury Wheel), and the transcript of the Grand Jury deliberation.  The transcripts would the evidence and testimony submitted to the Grand Jury, to determine if the deficiencies, as outlined in Cecil, exist.  Those motions have been denied.

It is a rather long and interesting chain of events that led to the pursuit of the Grand Jury information, and is worthy of note.  Strangely enough, it begins in a prison in Texas where Kevin “KC” Massey is currently incarcerated.  I had been keeping Kevin up to date on the Burns story, via telephone and mailing copies of my articles.  Kevin, having plenty of spare time, ran across a book of motions by the renowned F. Lee Bailey.  In so doing, he ran into challenges to the Grand Jury.  He gave me the citations, which I passed on to Roger Roots.  Roger, then in touch with Ryan Bundy, prepared a motion (481) that was filed, pro se.  And, that is how this wonderful ball began rolling, hopefully, right over the Grand Jury, the Indictment, the Prosecutor, and the judge.

Then on May 11, 2016, Teresa D. Glover, Jury Administrator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon filed a Declaration (doc 538), which doesn’t satisfy the legal requirements as set forth in Ryan Bundy’s motion (481).  So, let’s look at that “Declaration” (that also includes the “Juror Management Plan” – JMP) and see if the intent was to provide an impartial jury, as required by the Sixth Amendment.  [Note: “538-nn” is reference to the PDF page number in the 28-page Declaration document.]

Now, we need to look at the Jury Management Plan (JMP) to see what is required, and maybe a bit of confusion.

Section 1.04 Policy  (538-8)
It is the policy of the Court that all litigants in this Court, entitled to trial by jury, shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the Court convenes

Now, how do we provide “a fair cross section” unless the jury is selected from, primarily, from the division, not from the district?  Especially when you consider how diverse the two divisions are.

Then, we have:

Section 1.11  (b) Systematic Randomized Process:  (538-12)
… Such random selections of names from the source lists for inclusion in the master wheels by data computer personnel must ensure that each county within the jury division is substantially proportionally represented in the master jury wheel

Well, the way it reads, and this is where confusion might come into play, then the whole of the state, any Grand Jury, is at the mercy of those in Portland, as the population requires that each county is proportionally represented.  So, we have to question the whole concept of impartial jury, since there is, without a doubt, much partiality in Portland, and there is no chance that the other divisions would ever hold even a token chance of having any impact on any Grand or Petit Jury decision.  Especially considering that they would have to travel all the way from their remote region to the big city of Portland.

Now, if we desire to determine what the United States Codes says about where trials shall be held, we find a rather circular reference. First we find the statute, with reference to “district and division”, which refers us to the Rule that says “district”. Now, it would seem that divisions would be superfluous, if the intent was the district. So, it is probably safe, and more in line with what was just discussed, to presume that the statute is a higher level of law than a rule, therefore, division prevails.

18 U.S.C. § 3232 : US Code – Section 3232: District of offense – (Rule)
Proceedings to be in district and division in which offense committed, Rule 18.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 18:. Place of Prosecution and Trial
Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.

The Statue says “proceedings”, while the Rule says “must prosecute”. If prosecution includes the Grand Jury, which is, in essence, the beginning of the prosecution of the case, is it the District, as stated in the Rule, or is it the “district and division,” as stated in the statute?

Let’s look at the various Grand Juries that have met to deal with the charges in this case.  The first Grand Jury was convened, though the date is not given (538-3), and had this case presented to them on February 3, 2016.  The makeup of the jury as described in Jury Administrator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon filed a Declaration :GJ01

  1. On February 3, 2016, the United States presented its case for the indictment… (538-3)
  2. Twenty-one grand jurors from Grand Jury 15-01 were in attendance on February 3, 2016. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Portland Juror Management Division included six jurors from Clackamas County; nine jurors from Multnomah County; four jurors from Washington County; and one juror from Yamhill County. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Pendleton Juror Management Division included one juror from Umatilla County. 






The second Grand Jury:GJ02

  1. On February 10, 2016, the United States presented its case for the indictment… (538-4)
  2. Twenty grand jurors from Grand Jury 15-02 were in attendance on February l 0, 2016. Members of Grand Jury 15-02 in attendance from the Portland Juror Management Division included two jurors from Clackamas County; seven jurors from Multnomah County; six jurors from Washington County; one juror from Columbia County; one juror from Polk County; and one juror from Jefferson County. Members of Grand Jury 15-02 in attendance from the Pendleton Juror Management Division included two jurors from Umatilla County.






The Third Grand Jury:

  1. On March 8, 2016, the United States presented its case for the superseding indictment (538-5)GJ03
  2. Twenty-three grand jurors from Grand Jury 15-01 were in attendance on March 8, 2016. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Portland Juror Management Division included six jurors from Clackamas County; nine jurors from Multnomah County; four jurors from Washington County; one juror from Yamhill County, one juror from Polk County, and one juror from Clatsop County. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Pendleton Juror Management Division included one juror from Umatilla County.

Now, it appears that all but one of the jurors were from what might be described as the Greater Portland Area.  The counties where most of the jurors came from are on the west side of the Cascades Mountains.  These are primarily city folks, who thinks that only police and actors can have guns, living in Portland or the numerous bedroom communities.

Grand Jury Transcripts

One of the other motions sent by Massey had to do with Grand Jury deliberations, the transcripts, the testimony, and the evidence that was submitted to the Grand Jury.  Now, Grand Juries have always been guarded, since their purpose is only to determine probable cause, the possibility that a crime has been committed.  And, since they don’t convict, they are not included in the realm of a public trial.

However, what if the public has cause to believe that false evidence was presented to the Grand Jury, simply to get an Indictment — to serve the government and harass the accused?  What if the government had exculpatory evidence, evidence that would raise a question as to whether the alleged crime was actually committed, or not?

At some point, the determination of whether the ends of justice were being served by the Grand Jury, or if the Grand Jury was being used for political, unjust, or nefarious purposes, might warrant scrutiny.  Absent such a remedy, we leave to the government the ability to target individuals for political purposes, and even if a conviction was not obtained in trial, the damage to the accused is immeasurable.  It is destructive of family, work, and the mental state of those who are held in confinement, under false pretexts, and can even be destructive of one’s right to participate in his own defense against the charges.

When the information provided to the Grand Jury raises such question as to both evidentiary and motivation, justice would require that there be scrutiny in the process that resulted in the Grand Jury Indictment.

So, let’s look at what we do know.  This is not speculative, it is factual, and it raises just such concern as to the possibility of impropriety in the presentation to the three Grand Juries, stacked with partial jurors, as described above.

First, let’s look at an outright lie that was presented to the Grand Jury.  Now, it does not suggest that everything that was presented to the Grand Jury was also a lie, though absent knowing just what was presented to them (the transcripts, etc.), at least the suggestion of impropriety, and the justification for an open review of those elements, is surely in order.

This goes to the sworn statement in the “Redacted Criminal Complaint“.  The Complaint, and resulting Search Warrants, were issued after the arrests were made and LaVoy Finicum was shot dead on the side of Highway 395.  The Complaint was, undoubtedly, presented to the Grand Jury, as it was the initiating instrument for all that subsequently transpired.

Now, what is going to be presented was first discussed in “Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury“, though at the time, one piece supportive of the veracity of that article had not yet been submitted.  However, a brief background of the event in question will be discussed, here, and the evidence in support can be found in the above linked article.

Jon Ritzheimer was in Phoenix, Arizona, on the morning in question.  The government, in the Complaint, stated:

14. On December 18, 2015, a citizen (hereafter Citizen) of Harney County was shopping at the Safeway grocery store in Burns, Oregon. Citizenwas wearing a BLM shirt. Citizen was confronted by two men, one whom she identified as RITZHEIMERCitizen reported to law enforcement that she heard yelling, and when she turned around, the second individual shouted “you’re BLM, you’re BLM” at her. That person further stated to Citizen that they know what car she drives and would follow her home. He also stated he was going to burn Citizen’s house down. RITZHEIMERand the second individual left the area in a black pick-up truck with black canopy and no visible license plate. Since the incident, Citizen has observed a similar vehicle outside her residenceCitizen was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle when she later saw it. The following week, a second vehicle, described as a white truck with a pink license plate and a big rebel flag sticker on the back window, aggressively tailgated Citizen, flashing lights and driving erratically. Citizen believed the second incident was related to the first. Citizen also saw the black pick-up truck outside of her place of employment early in the morning hours of Christmas Day.

Jon had some work done on his truck and then went to Idaho, not Oregon.  From there he went to Washington, then, on December 20, 2016, arrived in Hines (adjacent to Burns), Oregon.

The FBI, the very same people that found pieces of a radio bomb and then managed to determine who the people were that built the bomb, could not figure out, with all of their taxpayer funded resources, where Jon Ritzheimer was on December 20.  So they lied and presented hearsay evidence, the identification of a “citizen”, in an attempt to secure the Indictment.

Now, what was not in the original article, though came out in a subsequent “GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RITZHEIMER’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR PRETRIAL RELEASE“, is in a footnote on page 10. It states:

Defendant presents his itinerary as an alibi for allegations that he confronted a citizen in Burns, Oregon, on December 18, 2015. At this point, it is not clear if the citizen falsely identified defendant or if the date of the incident was not accurately reported.

Now, the FBI has accessed Facebook pages, Dropbox accounts, phone records, and other records easily acquired by them, including surveillance footage.  Could they not access the Safeway security camera footage to ascertain whether it really was Ritzheimer, or not?  Now, going a bit further, isn’t their statement in the footnote, “it is not clear if the citizen falsely identified defendant or if the date of the incident was not accurately reported“, an admission that what was presented to the Grand Jury, couching this in ambiguous terms, a very questionable statement as to a fact?  So, let’s call it what it is, considering the resources and reputation of the FBI, it is a damned lie propagated to encourage the Grand Jury to Indict the Defendants.  So, this leaves us the question as to whether there were more, or perhaps, many more, lies presented to the Grand Jury to secure an Indictment.

What is our government doing?  Only access to those Grand Jury records can answer that question — and, we, the people, have every right to know just what our government is doing both for us, and to us.

Now let’s enter the realm of exculpatory evidence.  This is evidence that would raise the question as to whether there was probable cause”, or whether information suggests the contrary.

In an Oregonian article, published January 11, updated February 22, we find a very detailed account of the events preceding the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  One of those accounts, found on page 5 of the article, states:

On Dec. 30 — three days before the Jan. 2 rally — federal employees were nearing the end of their work day at the wildlife refuge when management told them to go home early.

And for their safety, their boss said, they weren’t to return to the refuge until instructed.

“That was based on the culmination of our intel,” said Fish & Wildlife spokesman Holm, “and the start of the holiday weekend.”

Holm wouldn’t elaborate on details of the “intel.”

Now, wait just a minute.  The Indictment says, in Count 1, that the Defendants,

did knowingly and willfully conspire and agree together and with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury to prevent by force, intimidation, and threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, agencies within the United States Department of the Interior, from discharging the duties of their office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and other locations in Harney County, Oregon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.

Can you rob a bank, if it is not there?  Can you murder someone, if you can’t find them?  It appears, by the information in the Oregon Live article that “management” told them to go home, and not to return until told to.

Now, is this exculpatory?  Would it raise doubt as to whether it was the Defendants that kept the government “employees… from discharging the duties“?  Shouldn’t the Grand Jury be apprised, by the government, of facts such as this?

Now, I hate to be a spoilsport, but I think that there is one more element regarding what the government told the Grand Jury, and what the facts are.  Now, some will say that it is insignificant, but if laws are to have meaning, they must be written.  When they are written, it is the very words in which they are written that is the law.  How could it be otherwise?  If laws are a rule of action, or a prohibition of action, then they should be clearly understood.

So, let’s look at the exact wording of the Statute cited in Count 1, above.

18 U.S.C. § 372 : US Code – Section 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

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

Now, the Statute has a couple of elements, not just one.  The first is by the use of force, intimidation, or threat, keeping “any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof“.  This would be an act of preventing them for taking their office, or performing their duties.  But, it requires “the use of force, intimidation, or threat“.  So, did the Grand Jury consider whether these elements were met — to the letter of the law?  It would seem that if they did, they would know which person was denied the abilities mentioned, who did it, and how they did it.  Those elements have not been met.

The second element reads, “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.”  Now, according to the Oregonian article, the “management”, who probably had authority to give employees time off, with pay, at our expense, are the only ones that could possibly be guilty of this element.

So, what would happen if the wording were from the law, rather than something that was probably presented to the Grand Jury as if it were the law?  Would the jurors have a different perspective on what really happened and whether there was probable cause to indict the Defendants?

The only way that we can know just how the government operates — something that we have every right to know — is to be able to judge their actions, especially in a situation such as the one the 26 defendants have found themselves.  That can only be accomplished if we, the public, have the legal remedy to review those actions.  And, I speak not only for the due process rights of the Defendants, I also speak for every American who understands that we are self-governed, and not subjects, subject to the whim of those who imagine themselves as having absolute power.



  1. Brand Thornton says:

    Very informative and encouraging, thanks for the article. As usual you are right on top of things !

  2. Kerry Easton says:

    I’m sure that they “MISS”represented many things in this case. I have followed this and have not seen anything that makes me feel that the Goobermant has done anything correct. Thank you for this information.

  3. I feel bad for those that are taking a plea deal, especially after reading your article. Thank you

    • ghuntghuntsays:

      If the Jury Challenge is successful (A Notice of Appeal was filed with the Clerk this morning – more about that in a future article), it might raise the question of the validity of a plea agreement to what had been determined to have been unlawfully brought. Suppose they found that the bank had not been robbed, after you pled to robbing it?
      I don’t know the answer, though I trust that we may soon find out.


      Burns Chronicles No 26 – Firearms (Not) Allowed

      Burns Chronicles No 26
      Firearms Not Allowed

      mouse trap

      Gary Hunt
      Outpost of Freedom
      August 29, 2016

      What happens when one law says that you can and the other law says that you can’t? Well, let’s enter the world of Perplexity and see what we can find.

      To begin, we have to look at Count II of the Superseding Indictment. In the Indictment, it reads like this:

      (Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities)

      (18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)

      On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants [lists names of Defendants], and aided and abetted by each other and by others known and unknown to the grand jury, did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm ordangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof, with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2.

      So, let’s put that into English, in simple terms, “On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016 [The Defendants] did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372.

      The first cited statute, 18 US Code §930(b) reads:

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

      Did those who occupied the Refuge “intend” to shoot anybody; use firearms to force people to leave their duties (18 US Code §372); or, have any other intent than to protect themselves? They had no intention of robbing the place, they had no intention of damaging the facility (instead, they improved it), and, there was no one present for them to impede. This was discussed in a previous article, “Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“. From all appearances, and absent any evidence to the contrary, their purpose in having firearms was solely one of self-defense (But more on that, later.).  Civil Disobedience, and even Civil Defiance (See Resistance Has Begun), might put one at risk, but then that person has every right to defend himself against an overzealous attack by an overarching government. Absent a lawful warrant: not even the government is justified in shooting someone except in self-defense.


      After all, we have about 41 days in which the government claims that something was done, though we are not sure what was done. But, before we get into what was, or was not, done, let’s look at the location, “in a federal facility”.

      Then, let’s look at what 18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2 says. Now, understand that US Code is structured in an outline format, such as:

      (a, b, c)       (1, 2, 3)       (A, B, C)     (i, ii, iii)

      There has to be a lower case letter before any subsequent subparagraph. As written, the “(2)” would be subordinate to the “(a)”. However, “930 (a)” has no subordinate. It is followed by “(b)”. Now, I don’t want to say that the US Attorneys are stupid, so I won’t. But, how can someone know what they are charged with when the citation doesn’t make sense?

      Now, (b), (c), (f), and (h), have no subordinates (See bottom of the article), but (d) does, in fact, it has a (2), but those are exclusions (does not apply to-).  Then, (e) is rather circular, but (e)(2) is exceptions to (e)(1).

      However, (g) has a (2), which may be what just might have been intended, if the US Attorneys knew what they were doing. It says, “(g) As used in this section… The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.” Gee, did they mean “(g)”, and just forgot to say it?

      Perhaps they wanted to, but did so rather poorly, to assure that the “or other dangerous weapon” was properly defined.

      So, now that we have had to assume (You know what that is) what the (2) might have meant, we can go on to the primary element of the charge, which reads:

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

      Well, wait just a minute. It says that “whoever knowingly possess… in a federal facility”, but exempts, “as provided in subsection (d)”. So, let’s look at the pertinent portion of subsection (d):

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

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

      Oh, I see. If I take a firearm or other dangerous weapon into a federal facility, so long as it is “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes”, then it is okay.

      So, now that we think that we understand the law, after playing legal hopscotch, we can begin to look at what might be lawful, and what might not be lawful. To do so, we have to understand that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) are probably more qualified to make that determination than some FBI geek in Portland. In fact, under the aMalheur weapons noticeuthority of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, MNWR published a brochure that is made available at the Refuge and other locations in the area. Now, here is what it says about firearms (not to mention “other dangerous weapons”, which it does not).

      I can’t say much for the grammar, but we are concerned with intent. It says nothing about any federal regulations; it simply refers to “State regulations“. So, let’s look at what “State regulations” have to say about firearms.

      To understand the Oregon statutes, we need to know the foundation. And, what better place to start than with the Preamble to that Constitution:


      We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution. —

      I do like that wording. “Liberty perpetuated” has a very nice ring to it. Now, onto the Bill of Rights, specifically, the right to bear arms:

      Article I – Bill of Rights

      Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.
      The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

      It says that the people “have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State“. No problem, as with the Second Amendment, in a question of a distinction between militia and people. The right to self-defense and defense of the State is unquestionable.

      So, now we go to the Statutes, particularly Chapter 166, but with the understanding that nothing need be granted, since the Constitution does that. Instead, we find only limitations. Though the Statutes address Concealed Carry, there is no reason to venture into that realm, as there is no mention of concealed, only possession, in the Indictment.

      Chapter 166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

      (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void

      Simplifying (2), we see clearly that “no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, restrict or prohibit the possession of firearms… Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void.” This is consistent with Section 27 of the Oregon Bill of Rights. Now, the statute does grant some specific authorities, such as in,

            166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.

      Note that what is allowed to be regulated is a loaded firearm, though Harney County has no such ordinance.

            166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both.

      This, then, would be what amounts to no more than brandishing. You may not, without penalty, point a firearm at someone, “except in self-defense“. Now, that is the very reason that those who occupied the Refuge and set up means of assuring that they could, if necessary, respond, but only in self-defense.

            166.220 Unlawful use of weapon. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:

      (a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015; or

      (b) Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge.

      (2) This section does not apply to:

      (a) Police officers or military personnel in the lawful performance of their official duties;

      (b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219;

      Here, we see exception for “Persons lawfully defending life or property“. Once again, we see lawful authority to possess the weapons, as was the intention of the people that occupied, peacefully, the Refuge.

      So, let’s recap what we have learned.

      The federal government, in 18 US Code §930, says that firearms were in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and were intended to be used in a crime, though no crime was committed, and the government is relying on their belief of the intentions of those who intended only to defend their lives. All of the acceptable under Oregon Revised Statutes, which the government deferred to in their brochure. Now, if the government didn’t mean what they said in the brochure, then it is nothing more than a trap in which to ensnare people, if the government really wants to ensnare someone. But, if that is the case, then the dishonesty of the government is far more egregious than the actions of people that occupied the Refuge (I would suggest “Three Felonies a Day“, by Harvey Silverglate).

      I know that the federal government believes that federal law trumps state law. This doesn’t account for the fact that often state law is contrary to federal law (See Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws), but states continue to pass such laws, as it is not contrary to the Constitution. So, if the federal government specifically acquiesces to state law, can they come back, later, and decide that it was okay for them to lie to people?

      To me, having covered the misdeeds of government for over two decades, I am not surprised that they have done so. It is wrong for them to assert an undue and unconstitutional authority over both the people and the states. And, as more and more people realize this, the more likely we will see a positive change.


      1. […] 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 […]

Burns Chronicles No 27 – Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction

Burns Chronicles No 27
Public Lands – Part 1
It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 2016

Thomas Jefferson had proposed an ordinance to deal with the lands won along with independence from Britain in 1784, and not belonging to any State, any lands that might be relinquished when considered to have been granted by Royal Charter.  The Continental Congress ratified the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 on July 13, 1787.  The First Congress under the newly ratified Constitution, which met from March 4, 1789, to March 4, 1791, then reaffirmed that same ordinance.  This slightly revised version reaffirmed on July 13, 1789, and is known as the Northwest Ordinance of 1789.

The Fourth Article, unchanged in the two versions, reads, in part:

Article the Fourth.  The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America…  The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.  No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; and, in no case, shall nonresident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.

Note that “primary disposal” seems to be the objective of holding the land.  That disposal would serve two very significant purposes in the creation of a nation that would grow from those first thirteen states.  First, it would raise revenue for the payment of the debt incurred because of the War of Independence, and it continued to provide revenue for the fledgling nation.

Second, it would provide land for people to populate the barren regions, first, across the Allegheny Mountains, then on to the Mississippi River, next to the Rocky Mountains, and finally to the Pacific Ocean.  With each of these principal movements, as those people moved westward, the resources of the most resource rich country in the world would develop into the greatest nation in the world.


With the ratification of the Constitution, we have two provisions that deal with land owned by the United States.  First is Article I, § 8, clause 17, which we have heard much of recently.  It read:

The Congress shall have the Power…  [t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Now, a question arises as to the “needful Buildings” portion, which will be addressed later.

Next, we have Article IV, § 3, clause 2, which reads:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Clearly, as we can see from the historical record, Congress can own land, which has been referred to as “public lands”, from records predating the Constitution, reaffirmed by the first Congress, and embodied in the Constitution, itself.

The next question is whether Congress had any prior ownership of the lands in question.  Here, we have three possibilities.  First, the lands acquired by the Treaty of Paris (1783) in which Britain gave up her claims to the lands east of the Ohio River (the Northwest Territories), and other lands ceded by Virginia (believing that she owned land to the Pacific Ocean), and other adjustments to final boundaries of the colonies.  These lands by treaty would also include lands acquired by a subsequent treaty with Britain, dealing primarily with Oregon and Washington.  Next, we have lands acquired by conquest and subsequent treaty.  This would include the Hidalgo Treaty, after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), and subsequent treaties relinquishing Mexico’s claims to lands otherwise not in conflict and establishing our southern border.  Third, we have the lands acquired by purchase.  Primarily, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.  So, by conquest, by treaty, and by purchase, the government owned vast amounts of land.

In all of these instances, the land acquired could not go to a State recognized by the Congress, as the Northwest Ordinance defined the procedure by which a territory could become a State.  Therefore, the only viable conclusion is that these lands would fall under the Article IV.  § 3, clause 2 provision of “all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.  This would apply until the land was “disposed of”, which provision is included in the Northwest Ordinance (Fourth Article).

Finally, we come to the Admission of Oregon, as a State of the Union.  Congress approved the Oregon Admission Acts on February 14, 1859.  There were some propositions in the Acts, and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon approved those propositions on June 3, 1859.  The significant article in the Acts is the fourth.  It deals with land, and reads, in part:

First, That sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said State, and where either of said sections, or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise been disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said State for the use of schools.  Second, That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a State university, to be selected by the governor of said State, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said State may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other purpose.  Third, That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of government, under the direction of the legislature thereof.  Fourth, That all salt springs within said State, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoining, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for its use, the same to be selected by the governor thereof within one year after the admission of said State, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions, and regulations as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That no salt spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may be hereafter confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be granted to said State. Fifth, That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said State which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State, for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the condition that the people of Oregon shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Sixth, And that the said State shall never tax the lands or the property of the United States in said State: Provided, however, That in case any of the lands herein granted to the State of Oregon have heretofore been confirmed to the Territory of Oregon for the purposes specified in this act, the amount so confirmed shall be deducted from the quantity specified in this act.

So, once again, we see the phrase “primary disposal”.  This “disposal”, from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the admission of Oregon in 1859, makes clear that the “public lands” were to be disposed of.  It makes no mention of acquisition of lands, except indirectly in Article I, § 8, clause 17, and it appears that there were only certain purposes for which the land could be acquired, and each is to sustain constructions serving to provide for the required obligations of the government; “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.  Though the ambiguity of what needful may have been intended to refer to, the noun, “Buildings”, is without question.  All of the itemized objects require construction, and, consequently, the provision is to allow government facilities to be established to serve the needs of the government, not of birds, tortoises, or other critters that the Bible says are put on this Earth for our use.

We also see that a portion of the “proceeds” of the sale of the public would go to the State to provide “for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvement.”  Those improvements would provide both roads and canals for water, both to help with the development of the State.  This would satisfy the intended purpose of creating growth of the State and the Nation.

Understand that each state, within its constitution, may have reserved that state certain rights with regards to land, as explained in the Oregon Admission Acts, but the federal government has no such constitutional authority.

In 1825, just 46 years after the formation of the current government, Congress, in order to have the lawful authority to charge people with the destruction of government property, enacted the “Act of 1825”.  The Act sets the requirement for extending jurisdiction created under Article I, § 8, clause 17:

An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes.  (March 3, 1825)

“That if any person or persons, within any fort, dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, armory, or magazine, the site whereof is ceded to, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or on a site of any lighthouse, or other needful building belonging to the United States, the sight whereof is ceded to them [United States], and under their jurisdiction, as aforesaid, shall, willfully…”

Now, this Act brings to light what was intended, with regard to federal jurisdiction, outside of Washington, D.C.  If that land has been disposed of, it has left the realm of “needful Rules and Regulations”, and entered into the jurisdiction of the State in which the land lies.  It is, forever, outside of federal jurisdiction — UNLESS it is brought back into federal jurisdiction in accordance with the intent of Article I, § 8, clause 17.  Now, the application of that intent is clearly laid out in the Act of 1825.  That “under their jurisdiction” refers to the State ceding to the federal government either limited or complete jurisdiction.  Simply because the government bought the land does not create “jurisdiction”, or the provision would be without meaning.

A “Chain of Title” was secured for the property upon which the buildings sit at the Refuge.  Based upon that document, an analysis of the documentationprovided resulted in determining that, in fact, certain land that had left government ownership, and were subsequently deeded back to the United States of America, though no proof of ceding was shown in the Chain of Title.




The government ownership is contained within the red lined area on the left map.  The Refuge Buildings can be seen above the words “Sodhouse Lane” on the right map

This coincided with the government production of Proof of Ownership in their “Motion for Judicial Notice“.  The results, as far as ownership by the United States of America are identical.  And, as in the Chain of Title, there is no indication that there was any ceding of land or jurisdiction, back to the United States, in either record.  This being the land where the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters are situated, and the location of the alleged crimes by the defendants.

However, that ownership carries no jurisdictional authority.  That remains with the State, unless the government has had that jurisdiction ceded to them, and away from the State, either fully or partially.  And lawfully, the federal government has no more authority than you would, if you owned the land.  If there was an alleged criminal act, you would have to file a complaint with Harney County, and it would be dealt with under state law.

Then, yesterday, September 12, Shawna Cox filed her response, in which she also sought judicial notice that Oregon never ceded the land or the jurisdiction back to the federal government.  Now, this creates a bit of a dilemma in that if the Court takes judicial notice of the ownership, absent proof to the contrary, it must also take notice of the absence of federal jurisdiction.  This will significantly change the playing field.



  1. […] For additional commentary on this issue, Bundy supporter and activist Gary Hunt has written a though… […]

  2. Speak2Truth says:

    Very nicely explained. This matter of Federal obligation to “dispose of” the land when a State is created from it has been discussed and contested greatly. Yet, the Constitution seems clear on the point that the Federal Government cannot maintain control (jurisdiction) over any lands within a State that are not ceded back to the Federal Government for the explicit purposes stated.

    If the court recognizes this argument, I would expect it may go all the way to the Supreme Court, which has been stacked with Statist ideologues. The loss of Scalia indicates to me that the argument would go in favor of the Federal Government keeping control over the land, not because of the Constitution but because of the leanings of the justices who will decide the matter.

    And that would be yet another dagger in the Constitution.

    • ghuntghunt says:

      It will first go to the Ninth Circuit, which decided a case, United States v Otley et al, 127 F2d 988 (1942),which addressed jurisdiction. Otley will be addressed in Part 2 of Public Lands.
      As far as the Supreme Court, it could take a couple of years to get there. Scalia, and probably Ginsberg, will have been replaced by then. Hopefully, the bitch will not pick those replacements.
      However, if she is elected, I do fear for my country and what may happen in the next year or two.

      • Speak2Truth says:

        Well said.

        In a sane world, it would not be possible for her to be elected by Americans. But then, it’s not Americans who are voting for her. It’s folks who don’t really identify as Americans, folks who have an affinity for the destruction of this nation.

        I have a lot to say about what I’ve seen and what I know but your blog is probably not the right venue. We’re in for some interesting times.

  3. […] a previous article, “It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, we looked at the constitutional aspect of jurisdiction.  Many will simply ignore that […]

  4. […] Shawna Cox brought the matter of Jurisdiction to the Court.  The first, explained in “Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, was filed in response to the government’s “Motion for Judicial Notice” […]


Burns Chronicles No 28 – Public Trial – Mistrial? – What stinking Mistrial?

Burns Chronicles No 28
Public Trial
Mistrial? What stinking Mistrial?


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 19, 2016

A rather interesting what, and from a lay standpoint unjust, occurrence, happened both in the paper chase (at this point, nearly 1300 docket entries) and in the courtroom. It had to do with the testimony of the government’s first witness, Harney County Sheriff David Ward. It was a Motion for Mistrial.

An interesting note on the Motion is that we obtained a copy shortly before it was “SEALED”. This led to the admonishment that is addressed below.

It all began on the 2nd day of the trial (Wednesday, September 14), during cross-examination by Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Marcus R. Mumford is questioning Sheriff Ward.  Here are excerpts from the Motion, taken from the rough-draft transcripts:

Q.  And you had conducted some investigation, into Bunkerville?

A.  I had.

Q.  And did that investigation come – that was in the process of those meetings that you had with the U.S. attorney, and the FBI?

A.  I had – I had gone on to the Internet and googled it, it’s amazing what you can find on there.

I found videos from the things that happened at Bunkerville. I – I looked at a lot of different – lot of different things that happened, throughout that incident. And the thought that have happening in my community scared the hell out of me, where I saw armed people lined up on both sides, advancing, you know, with – with one side advancing against another.

I had learned some of unstable people who had left that situation, and killed two police officers, while they were eating lunch in a restaurant.

I think that there are – there are a lot of circumstances I was attempting to avoid in my community, sir.

Then, Mumford asked that some of Ward’s testimony be stricken:

MUMFORD: Your Honor, I would move to strike that.

THE COURT: Move to strike what, sir?

MUMFORD: The nonresponsive part of the –

THE COURT: I don’t know what you identify as nonresponsive.

The answer seemed responsive to your question, so be specific.

MUMFORD: Okay. Well – I think it was a yes-or-no question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there another objection?

Mumford, failing to make any progress, is simply abandoned by Judge Brown. However, Ryan Bundy, acting pro se (representing himself), jumps in, once the Judge recognizes that he, too, has an objection.

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: Yes, my objection, your Honor, hearsay, there, it alludes to events that were not necessarily related to – to the situation.

THE COURT: The court reporter is not hearing you, Mr. Bundy, because of your microphone not being on.

Would you –


THE COURT: Let’s try again. The court reporter wasn’t hearing, would you please restate your objection?


He’s tying in persons that were not involved it (pause, conferring.)

Prejudicial, I change that to prejudicial.

About the folks supposedly killing people that were not associated with us.

THE COURT: Jurors, I’m going to ask you to disregard the witness’s references to events that occurred in Nevada that had to do with the police officers being killed, and whether they were or weren’t associated with Bunkerville.

The answer generally was responsive, in that it reflected the witness’s state of mind, but you’re not to consider that particular part of his answer in any part of your consideration of this evidence.

Now, the transcript is a “rough-draft transcript”, and we are told that there was an Order made by the Judge, referencing “Court’s Sealed Order 1141”. Then, she goes on to admonish Mumford for using quotes from the “rough-draft transcript” in his Motion.


So, this brings up two rather interesting questions. First, let’s look at the docket, and its purpose. Each entry shows the date that the Clerk entered the document submitted for filing, or other “Minute Notes”. Then, each is given a sequential number. The purpose is for the record, so that all entries are preserved, hence nothing can “disappear.”  However, since related documents can be filed many pages apart, it warrants that we go looking (on PACER, a government website that makes court information available) for docket entry #1141:


mistrial-2The image is a capture from the pdf of the docket, with the bottom of page 94 and the top of page 95.

Well, shoot. It ain’t there! How can that be an Order, when it doesn’t appear on the Docket? Was #1141 really an Order, or was something else removed so that reference could be made to a non-existent Order?

Regarding the second question this raises, the gag order set by the Judge, early on, pretty much prohibits the attorneys from providing certain information.  But, as can be seen by other “sealed” entry, there is a notation that it is sealed, it has a number, and a brief description of what the document pertains to.

Now, if this is a “Public Trial”, why is this information not available to the Public?  Is there something that the Court is trying to hide?  Even worse, if an attorney wants to object to testimony, as addressed in this article, and he cannot use the “rough-draft transcript”, how is he to address the particulars of the matter he is addressing?  He cannot demonstrate what his concern is — UNLESS he can quote from the record, rough to not, to express his concern.  It makes one wonder what would have happened if the government had quoted from the “rough-draft transcript”.

This warranted further investigation. First is a capture of the docket on February 19, 2016. Then, a capture on September 16, both of the first few entries on the docket.


February 19, 2016 – docket capture


February 19, 2016 – docket capture

Golly! Entries 16 through 22 have gone missing! Now, I can’t say that there has not been a rule adopted that allows manipulation of the docket, however, if there is, it defies the concept of a record keeping method that did exist to prove that justice had been done.  So, we are left to suppose that the Judge would not pull any shenanigans to try and deceive the Public.  We should have serious concerns over that possibility.

We can’t stop here; we have to look at what Sheriff Ward said, and was left with a degree of credibility with the Jury. Now, Ward should be well schooled in testifying, and I’m sure that the US attorneys and the FBI are well schooled in testifying. They should all know what is not allowed, however, as Mumford said in the “Motion for Mistrial”.

Once such statements are made, the damage is hard to undo: “one cannot unring a bell”; “after the thrust of the saber it is difficult to say forget the wound”; and finally, “if you throw a skunk into the jury box, you can’t instruct the jury not to smell it.”

Now, surely, the jury will give a high degree of regard for testimony from a government employee. Given what we have, that odor in the Jury Box may not go away during the course of the trial.

Now, let’s visit what was so damaging, and absolutely false, concerning what Ward said. He created fear by associating the Millers with the Bundy Affair when he said, “I had learned of some unstable people who had left that situation, and killed two police officers.” Well, surely, he spent a lot of time with the FBI and the US Attorneys. Was he stupid enough to believe Google and not confirm with the authorities that knew more than most about what happened back in April 2014?

As far as sources for such information, Ward would probably contact law enforcement in Las Vegas, as a more reliable source. Well, here is what the Las Vegas Review Journal said in their June 15, 2014 edition (page 2):

We can’t find anything linking these two guys to anybody,” said a law enforcement official with knowledge of the ongoing investigation. “If they were a part of a group, they hid it well.”

During the day just after the Millers shooting the two cops, I contacted a number of people at the Ranch to find out what role, if any, the Miller’s played (Vetting the Millers). I found that they did spend some time in the public area, but were never allowed at the ranch. They were deemed aggressive and unsuitable to participate in protecting the ranch. The were sent to Mesquite where Stewart Rhodes gave them “a couple hundred dollars” so that they could get a motel room, shower, and some new clothes, because they claimed that, they had given up jobs, their home, and were wearing the only clothes they possessed.

Now, there is no reason that Ward would not have some, if not all, or, more than likely, even more information about the Millers. So, his intention in laying that information out to the jury was not only a violation of what he should have known and been informed of by the FBI/AUSA, it was also a falsehood (aka a damned lie).

Now, we know from previous pronouncements from Judge Brown that she was not going to let the trial be delayed. And, in this instance, Queen Judge Anna Brown has determined that she can do no wrong, and her insistence on keeping her schedule supersedes the assurance of justice in the outcome of the trial.

One Comment

  1. […] XXVIII. Public Trial: Mistrial? What Stinking Mistrial? [9/19/16] […]


Burns Chronicles No 29 – Public Lands – Part 2 – The Federal Government Has No Jurisdiction

Burns Chronicles No 29
Public Lands – Part 2
The Federal Government Has No Jurisdiction


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 21, 2016

In a previous article, “It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, we looked at the constitutional aspect of jurisdiction.  Many will simply ignore that aspect, since they believe that the government is not bound by the Constitution, anymore.  So, we must wonder whether those who enacted laws, more recently, regarding jurisdiction, especially on lands that were obtained for certain purposes, were as doubtful of the intent of the Constitution.

The original buildings on the Refuge were built during the Great Depression under one of the various work programs intended to provide employment.  The land that they were built on was acquired by the government on February 18, 1935.  The remainder of the government-owned land in Section 35, as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was expanded, was acquired on November 22, 1948.

Shortly after the first parcel was acquired, on April 27, 1935, Congress enacted “AN ACT To provide for the protection of land resources against soil erosion, and for other purposes”, at 49 STAT 163.  Those “other purposes did include uses anticipated “to preserve public lands and relieve unemployment“.  That Act applied:

(a) On lands owned or controlled by the United States or any of its agencies, with the cooperation of the agency having jurisdiction thereof; and
(b) On any other lands, upon obtaining proper consent or the necessary rights or interests in such lands.

So, it was recognized that the federal government need not have jurisdiction, but more about why, later.

The benefits of the Act would be extended where local government would extend “reasonable safeguards for the enforcement of State and local laws imposing suitable permanent restrictions on the use of such lands…”

So, we see no effort to presume prior jurisdiction, to make all needful rules and regulations, as per Article IX, § 3, cl. 2, or to presume a necessity to require the State to cede the lands to the federal government, as per Article I, § 8, cl. 17, since there were no “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.

Then, on June 29, 1936, Congress went even further in abiding by the Constitution by clarifying their position on “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” (I:8:17), with “AN ACT To waive any exclusive jurisdiction over premises of resettlement or rural-rehabilitation projects…; and for other purposes”, at 49 STAT 2035.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acquisition by the United States of any real property heretofore or hereafter acquired for any resettlement project or any rural-rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes heretofore or hereafter constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the Resettlement Administration pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, or any other law, shall not be held to deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over such property, or to impair the civil rights under the local law of the tenants or inhabitants on such property ; and insofar as any such jurisdiction has been taken away from any such State or subdivision, or any such rights have been impaired, jurisdiction over any such property is hereby ceded back to such State or subdivision.

So, not only did they relinquish all “civil or criminal jurisdiction“, but they ceded back any jurisdiction that had been taken away from any State or subdivision.  Now the record had been set straight, in accordance with the Constitution.


However, to reinforce that position, we can look to a much more recent statute at 40 US Code 3112.  Title 40 is titled “Public Buildings, Property and Works”.  § 3112 is titled “Federal Jurisdiction”.  So, here is what the Statute says:

(a) Exclusive Jurisdiction Not Required.  – It is not required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in land it acquires.

Well, that is certainly well established, by now.

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

So, they can obtain jurisdiction, though if offered by the State, they still have to file a written notice of acceptance.  In the current matter, the government has not proffered any evidence of anything beyond ownership, but more on this, below.

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

And, that pretty much sums up the absence of federal jurisdiction in the current matter.  Put simply, there is no federal jurisdiction at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the alleged scene of most of the alleged crimes.

But let’s look at what the government, rather gratuitously, provided in implying their right to pursue criminal charges that if true, as alleged, would be under the jurisdiction of the State or County, not the Federal District Court in Portland.  The Government filed a “Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership of the MNWR Headquarters Area“.  This Motion was supported by another filing, the “Declaration of Charles Houghten“, providing the documentation of Ownership.

However, Shawna Cox saw through this ploy.  She did not dispute the Ownership of the land, though she filed her “Response to and Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area“.  In her Motion, she stipulated as to federal ownership and asked the Court to take Judicial Notice that the land had not been ceded to the federal government.

So, it is back in the lap of the federal government to prove that they have jurisdiction over criminal matters at the MNWR, in Harney County, Oregon.

So, let’s do a count down on the Counts:

Count 1 – Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States – 18 U.S.C. § 372

This is the single charge that may have merit, though that will be the topic of an upcoming article, and it has to do with a law enacted during the Civil War and the definition of the terms used.

Count 2 – Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities – 18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)

This was discussed in “Firearms Not Allowed“, where the government’s own brochure accedes to State law.

Count 3 – Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence – 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(l)(A) and 2)

This was Dismissed, as there was no violence on which to base the charge.

Count 4 – Theft of Government Property – 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Medenbach)

Count 5 – Theft of Government Property – 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Ritzheimer & R. Bundy)

Count 6 – Depredation of Government Property – 18 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 2

These Counts (4, 5, &6) are purely jurisdictional, as was explained in “It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“.  As demonstrated in that article, those who rubbed shoulders with the Founders realized that to have criminal jurisdiction, the land upon which the property was located and crime occurred had to have been ceded, along with jurisdiction, for it to be a federal crime.

So, at this point, with the exception of Count 1, Reason, Common Sense, and Justice dictate that the government is simply wasting tax dollars and has denied the Liberty, which they are supposed to protect, of all 26 of the Defendants.

How has this country come to the point that the federal government can run roughshod over the rights of the States, and more importantly, the rights of the People?


  1. Monty Jensen says:

    Has our Congress effectively bypassed the separation of powers of the constitution by creation of the United States District Courts with the exception of The District Court of Hawaii and the District of Columbia? Are these Article IV administrative courts part of the administrative branch under the DOJ?

    USC Title 28 Chapter 5 Section 85 Jurisdiction only lists civil jurisdiction.

    Article III courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are defined in Article III and do not include criminal and civil trials.

    The Article IV district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Nowhere in the constitution are they given authority to take jurisdiction in Oregon and Nevada.

    I suspect the Congress created these courts specifically to bypass the separation of powers. Not being under the judicial branch, they fall under the DOJ in the administrative branch. That explains why no one gets a fair trial and the constitution cannot be discussed or ruled upon.

    Further investigation will show their jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory and the insular possessions.

    All “United States District Courts” are territorial and/or “legislative courts” that may only operate as administrative rather than Constitutional or Common Law courts. Nearly all of the courts in our federal system are “United States District Courts”. In fact, the only Constitutional or common law district courts in the country United States exist in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. This is confirmed by looking at the Notes under 28 U.S.C. §88, which says for the District of Columbia:

    “It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O’Donoghue v. United States, 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals ”shall hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia”

    The Notes section under 28 U.S.C. §91for Hawaii say the following:

    “Section 9(a) of Pub. L. 86-3 provided that: ”The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States”

    All district courts other than Hawaii and the District of Columbia are, by implication administrative courts, which means that they are territorial courts which may not rule on constitutional rights. Even courts that are Art. III can only exercise that power when the judges are also Article III judges, which few judges are. There is a great deal of confusion over this issue within the legal profession and few lawyers fully understand the implications of this distinction in our experience.

    All of the territorial “United States District Courts” are listed in Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5. The notes at the beginning of this chapter indicate the following:

    28 U.S. Code § 88 – District of Columbia

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Historical and Revision Notes
    This section expressly makes the District of Columbia a judicial district of the United States.

    Section 41 of this title also makes the District of Columbia a judicial circuit of the United States.

    Section 11–305 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., provides that the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia shall possess the same powers and exercise the same jurisdiction as the district courts of the United States, and shall be deemed a court of the United States.

    It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O’Donoghue v. United States, 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals “shall hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia” (Act of June 7, 1934, 48 Stat. 926); and also changed the name of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to “district court of the United States for the District of Columbia” (Act of June 25, 1936, 49 Stat. 1921). In Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 1927, 47 S.Ct. 557, 274 U.S. 145, 71 L.Ed. 972, the Supreme Court ruled:

    “* * * The parallelism between the Supreme Court of the District [of Columbia] and the Court of Appeals of the District [of Columbia], on the one hand, and the district courts of the United States and the circuit courts of appeals, on the other, in the consideration and disposition of cases involving what among the States would be regarded as within Federal jurisdiction, is complete.” See also to the same effect Clairborne-Annapolis Ferry Company v. United States, 1932, 52 S.Ct. 440, 285 U.S. 382, 76 L.Ed. 808.
    28 U.S. Code § 91 – Hawaii

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Historical and Revision Notes
    Court of the United States; District Judges
    Pub. L. 86–3, § 9(a), Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 8, provided that:

    “The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States: Provided, however, That the terms of office of the district judges for the district of Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the effective date of this section and the President, pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two district judges for the said district who shall hold office during good behavior.”
    Section 9 of Pub. L. 86–3 provided in part that subsec. (a) of that section should be effective upon the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union.

    28 U.S. Code § 108 – Nevada

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Historical and Revision Notes
    Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 174 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 94, 36 Stat. 1118; June 24, 1930, ch. 595, 46 Stat. 806; Nov. 15, 1945, ch. 482, 59 Stat. 582).

    Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
    1990—Pub. L. 101–650 substituted “, Reno, Ely, and Lovelock” for “and Reno”.

    28 U.S. Code § 117 – Oregon

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Historical and Revision Notes
    Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 183 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 102, 36 Stat. 1122; Nov. 6, 1945, ch. 447, 59 Stat. 555).

    Provisions relating to appointment and residence of deputies by the clerk and marshal, and maintenance of offices by said officers, were omitted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.

    Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
    2000—Pub. L. 106–518 substituted “Eugene or Springfield” for “Eugene”.

    1970—Pub. L. 91–272 provided for holding court at Coquille.

    1950—Act Aug. 3, 1950, provided for holding court at Eugene.

    • ghuntghunt says:

      I’m not so sure that you are correct in your assumption that they are “territorial courts”.
      However, I don’t have time, at present, to go find the authorities.
      I’ll approve your post for consideration by others.

Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer? What Officer?

Burns Chronicles No 30
Officer?   What Officer?


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 26, 2016

In the Indictments, both in Oregon and Nevada, there is one Count that raises some serious questions.  The exact wording, to the extent of understanding the charges being made, is as follows:

For Oregon:


(Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States)

(18 u.s.c. § 372)

On or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants…

It then goes on to list the Defendants and makes some rather general accusations, WITHOUT naming “Officers” or, how they were impeded.

Next, we look to the Nevada Indictment:


Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 372)

Then, they go into a narrative, missing, of course, any named “Officers”, or any specific acts that constitute impeding.

The statute cited reads:

18 U.S.C. § 372 : US Code – Section 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

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

Now, our concern, as much as with the Indictments lacking specificity, is the Statute, itself.  So, let’s first trace the history of the Statute, and then we will look into just who an “Officer” might be.


On July 31, 1861, just four months after the start of the Civil War, Congress enacted the first statute (12 Stat 284) that addressed what eventually resolved down to 18 USC § 372:

An Act to define and punish certain Conspiracies

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States against the will or contrary to the authority of the United States; or by force, or intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States; each and every person so offending shall be guilty of a high crime, and upon conviction thereof in any district or circuit court of the United States, having jurisdiction thereof, or district or supreme court of any Territory of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not less than five hundred dollars and not more than five thousand dollars; or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, as the court shall determine, for a period not less than six months not greater than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

APPROVED, July 31, 1861.

By 1909, in 35 Stat 1092, the particulars of § 372 had been separated from other elements.  This is the first codification of the Statutes, and this section would fall under “Crimes – Chapter One. – Offenses Against the Existence of the Government”, at:

SEC. 21 . If two or more persons in any State, Territory, 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 any State, Territory, District, or 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 not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

There is no significant change when the method of codification was changed, by 62 Stat 701, with the exception of adding, “to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office“.

In 1948, with the adoption of 62 Stat 701, we see the adoption of the current form of statute identification, of “Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures”


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 not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

This is nearly identical to the existing statute, 18 US Code § 372, shown first above.

So, now let’s look at just which members of government were the subjects of the protection afforded by the statute.  In the Indictments and the statutes, reference is made only to “Officers”.  So, is any employee of government an “Officer”?  Or, is that title reserved only to a certain character of those who work for the government?

First, we need to know what the Constitution says about “officers”, though we need not consider Officers in Congress, the Judicial Branch, or the Military, as surely, none of those was present at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  Any other reference to “officers”, we find the Article II – The Executive Branch.  In Section 2, clause 2, we find:

He [President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to … appoint … Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Then, in Section 3:

He shall … Commission all the Officers of the United States.

So, though the Courts of Law and Heads of Departments may commission officers, if Congress so decrees, the President still has to “commission such officers”.

And, in Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, unlike employees, officers can only be removed by the impeachment process, as administered by the Congress.

But, from a practical standpoint, other officers became necessary.  During Prohibition, officers were designated to execute search warrants.  A challenge was made over their constitutional, as explained above.  This is what the Supreme Court said in Steele v U S 267 US 505 (1925), in broadening the previous limitation on what Officers were.  Here are a few excerpts from that decision:

The argument is that the prohibition agent is appointed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and therefore is only an employee and not a civil officer of the government in the constitutional sense, because such an officer under article 2, section 2, of the Constitution can only be appointed either by the President and the Senate, the President alone, the courts of law, or the heads of departments.

This was the challenge that Steele had set before the Court, and which the Court had to decide.  There had yet to be a case where the expansion of the constitutional limitation was put to the test.

It is quite true that the words ‘officer of the United States,’ when employed in the statutes of the United States, is to be taken usually to have the limited constitutional meaning.

So, the Court decides to take on the task.  Even though there was no commission from the President, the enactment, by the Congress, of certain laws, had to grant such status to fulfill the duties assigned:

‘The Commissioner, his assistants, agents, and inspectors, and all other officers of the United States, whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws, shall have all the power … in the enforcement of this act or any provisions thereof which is conferred by law for the enforcement of existing laws relating to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors under the law of the United States.’

So, the exception made is where a duty requires enforcement or service, to create that official (officer) capacity.  Since that time, those positions that are within this expanded scope of the definition appear to have a prefix to their title that establishes that status.

To understand this, let’s look back at how the government dealt with multiple deaths in the Oklahoma City Bombing (April 19, 1993).  What we are concerned with is how the deaths were treated — were they all considered to have been “killed” by the acts of McVeigh, or were some simply “deaths”, collateral damage”, as a result the truck bomb.  From the McVeigh Indictment:

(First Degree Murder)

The Grand Jury further charges:

On or about April 19, 1995, at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in the Western District of Oklahoma,




the defendants herein, did unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and with premeditation and malice aforethought, kill, and aid, abet and cause the killing of, the following persons while they were engaged in and on account of the performance of official duties as law enforcement officers:


COUNT: FOUR Name/Position: Mickey Bryant Maroney
Special Agent United States Secret Service

COUNT: FIVE Name/Position: Donald R. Leonard
Special Agent United States Secret Service

COUNT: SIX Alan Gerald Whicher
Assistant Special Agent in Charge United States Secret Service

COUNT: SEVEN Cynthia Lynn Campbell-Brown
Special Agent United States Secret Service

COUNT: EIGHT Kenneth Glenn McCullough
Special Agent   United States Drug Enforcement Administration

COUNT: NINE Paul Douglas Ice
Special Agent United States Customs Service

COUNT: TEN Claude Arthur Medearis
Special Agent United States Customs Service

COUNT: ELEVEN Paul G. Broxterman
Special Agent Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114, 1111 and 2(a)&(b); and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 64.2(h).

When we look at 18 US Code §§ 1114 & 1111, we find that 1114 says,

Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished – [then lists punishments]

Then, in § 1111, we find the establishment of jurisdiction:

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

So, if the crime had been committed in the “maritime or territorial jurisdiction”, it would be murder.  However, as we saw in § 1114, if the victim is an “officer or employee”, the person can be punished.  Now, this appears to apply to any employee, as well as an officer.  However, if we look at the history of the Statute, we can find what happened in 1989.  This would be as the statute existed at the time of the OKC Bombing, at 10 Stat 4831:


So, in 1989, and still in 1993, when the bombing occurred, the statute had territorial limitations.  It was not until 1996, with 110 Stat 1302, that the government extended its reach (isn’t that what both MNWR in Burns and Bundy Ranch in Nevada are all about?) to go beyond the Constitution and assume authority that is in conflict with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

However, understanding the limitation imposed by the Statute § 1114, as it existed in 1993, we find that there are only eight (8) people that McVeigh and Nichols are charged with murdering (killing).  However, the Indictment lists another 160 people that died as a result of the “truck bomb explosion”.  The eight listed are all “special agents”.  So, we can safely assume that they were “Officers” and are covered by the umbrella that is applicable in 18 US Code § 372, as well as other statutes, where the government can legally punish someone for damaging (murdering) what is presumed to be government property (Officers).

So, what of those other 160 people?  Well, they are covered in COUNT ONE:

38.  As intended by McVEIGH and NICHOLS, the truck bomb explosion resulted in death and personal injury and the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, located within the Western District of Oklahoma. The following persons were present at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, and were killed as a result of the explosion:

Charles E. Hurlburt            73

[First and last names shown, the other 158 omitted for brevity, but can be seen on the linked “McVeigh Indictment“.]

Gabreon Bruce                4 months

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332a.

So, all of those in the class of “employees” that fit the criteria of “Officers” are also identified as “Special Agents”.  And, those other 158 people are, well, to use a government term, “collateral damage” as a consequence of the explosion of a truck bomb.  Punishable only because a truck bomb was used.

However, 18 US Code § 372 has not been changed, as 18 US Code § 1114, to extend beyond the constitutional limits imposed by the Constitution, and expanded by the Supreme Court in the Steele decision.

So, this brings us to the ultimate question of whether there were any “Officers” that were kept from doing their duty, by the actions of those who occupied the MNWR headquarters.  Well, we know that a number of “Special Agents” have been employed, since the occupation, to ramble through Facebook, the Refuge and elsewhere.  So, rather than impeded, they are gainfully employed in doing their duty.  However, the prosecutors in the case have yet to being forward the name and capacity of just one “Officer” that would satisfy the statute, and with the requisite credentials to qualify under Steele, to be deemed an “Officer”.

If someone had been charged with robbing a bank, would not the bank have to be included in the Indictment?

“We charge Jon Doe with robbing a bank, in violation of such and such a statute”.  “What bank did they rob?” you ask.  “Well, we don’t know what bank they robbed,” they answer.

As demonstrated by the McVeigh Indictment, those who are injured, or impeded, must be named.  Moreover, they must be officers, not just employees.  For the prosecutors to fail to provide the requisite information is comparable to the analogy of the bank robber.  The insufficiency of the Indictment cries out for Count One to be quashed, as it is a chare without merit, and the evidence presented, to date, has done nothing to answer the crucial question of which “Officers” have been so affected by the actions of the accused?


  1. Harold says:

    They said they will be presented at the trial

  2. […] Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer? What Officer? Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off […]

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


Burns Chronicles No 11 – What are the III%?

Burns Chronicles No 11
What are the III%?

Committee of Safety MusketImage from “The Minute Men“, by John R. Galvin

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 25, 2016

First, we must understand the significance of the oft-used expression, “III%” or “3%”. It is intended to suggest the percentage of the population who fought against the British during the Revolutionary War. Now, keep in mind what you just read. They fought in the Revolutionary War, whether they were militia, or Continental Army; They Fought!

Why would I bring this up? Well, a number of comments have come to me regarding my article, “Civil Defiance or Submission?” Many have suggested that they are III%er, and their duty is strictly defensive.

In a discussion with one of them, I asked if he was III%. He boldly told me that he was. Then I asked him if he was ready to fight, to do something. He said that his job as III% was strictly defensive. I asked him what he intended to defend. He told me that he was going to defend his bug-out location, his family, and his team.

My next comment was that his first stand would also be his last stand. When they come to get him, and they will eventually find him, he will fight and die, defending, or he will end up in the gray-bar hotel, for a long time.

There is little doubt that the first of the III%ers were militia. It was months before the Continental Army was formed, but the war had begun. People fought, and people died, on both sides, so the first few thousand were none other than Militia.

So, the first eighty-some men where under arms were, perhaps, defensive. Under Captain Parker, the Lexington Militia were gathered on the Green, though they were lined up along a side road that led to Woburn, the same route John Hancock and Sam Adams had taken when they left Lexington, once alerted by the alarm riders. The road to Concord was not obstructed, in the least. It was merely the presence of armed colonists, which led to the events that have now become a part of our heritage.

As the British continued to march toward Concord, word spread rapidly to the nearby towns, villages, and counties of western Massachusetts. It is what happened next that tells the tale of what the real III%ers were. As word spread, that the people of Lexington had become involved in a gunfight with the British, they did not ask why, they grabbed their muskets and headed in that direction.

There was no internet, nor telephone, radio, or any other means of notification other than the alarm riders. They did not stop to answer questions, they simply called to arms. It was sufficient that those who would soon be recognized as “Americans” had come under fire of the British.

The Militia, including that of Lexington, had transferred their “subordination to civil authority” from the Royal Governor to their local Committees of Safety. This had occurred during the previous years, as explained in “The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence“. Those Committees then gave orders to their respective Militia to march to Concord, as that was known to be the objective of the British.

Within hours, several thousand had arrived near Concord. They had come from other towns, from other counties, and some were on their way from other states. There was no consideration of the fact that those in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, were not from Massachusetts; had not been invited to take their arms and go to Massachusetts. They responded solely to take on the common enemy, the British. They didn’t hesitate, they were not concerned for their “bug-out location, family, and team”, rather, they were concerned for their Liberty, and their fellow colonists.

Within weeks, people from all of New England, all of the middle colonies, and some of the southern colonies had amassed around Boston, laying siege to the military might that then ruled the world. They had come to fight! They made no excuse as to why they should not go to Boston, because they were the beginning of the III%.

There were some Active Patriots (See “Active Patriots v Passive Patriots“) that came to aid those who had taken a stand in favor of the idea that public lands should be public, not treated as the private property of the government and the bureaucrats. There were Passive Patriots, those who might, as time went on, become Active Patriots and join the ranks to fight the common enemy. There were some False Patriots, whose work, while claiming to be in support of those in the Refuge, was more of a hindrance, and often served to provide more benefit to the government side than the patriot side.

Most importantly, however, was the absence of those who wear the badge of III%. Sadly, many who do wear the badge do so without due respect for its meaning, and who will find any excuse to avoid becoming involved, as only defensive, as was described above.

As I reflect on those who wear that III% badge and otherwise do not intend to serve the cause, rather, only to serve themselves, their families, and their team, I am reminded of those who receive an award simply for being there, not realizing that to wear the III% badge calls for the courage, conviction, and commitment — that which the real III% of 240 years ago had.



  1. Andrea says:

    Gary – I have been reading your material since first seeing you comment a few weeks ago at Conservative Treehouse and have been most appreciative of your pieces as you filled in blanks that were and are quite difficult to fill in – namely – what was really happening on the ground with the people of Burns (and surrounding area) and the men/women at the refuge. I thank you so much for this. Each article has been thought provoking and educational from both a current and historical perspective. Again, thank you!

    May 1, 2013, I put up on my site excerpts (“defy, resist, evade, smuggle, if you wish to stay free”) from a speech given by Mike Vanderboegh a few days prior to that. In my opinion it was a touchstone for all needing clarity and encouragement to keep doing whatever it is we do to try to stop this tyrannical march by our government.

    Fast forward to – January 2, 2016 – MV – “Perfect timing for the regime. Federal provocateurs, sociopaths and idiots with a John Brown complex are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood.”

    Mike was probably one of the very first to call for those at the refuge to stand down. And there were how many other influential groups that followed suit? My own comment at another website (which I wish I had posted at MV’s) – “Can’t help but wonder if Mike plans on telling us what the right issue will be and when we are to take a stand.”

    When the “big boys” of the so-called liberty movement stood down, dot gov knew they had carte blanche to move in. Lavoy Finicum died. Good families will be bankrupted. Men/possibly women will be jailed for as long as the regime sees fit.

    I have preached till I am blue in the face that the people of this country are responsible for allowing us to get in this situation and it is only the people who can possibly put a stop to it and it certainly won’t be by pulling a damn lever once every four years!

    Someone I have often called a living member of the Devil’s Brigade wrote – “NONE of the reasons NOT to get off the boat change the fact that if I don’t, someone else will have to.” I am attaching the link because of the picture he used. Canadians. I don’t remember the war…https://twitter.com/flippinth3raya/status/431565139066617857

    Depending on anyone else for our own security is a mistake and that is fact, but as you point out, this is bigger, much bigger than we individuals and our clans.

    We have long believed that when the time came we would be able to depend on our military and the III’s to be there first and foremost. Perhaps that was all psyops. We let “the time” pass us by on this one, IMHO. And so, the question begs to be asked Gary – if the III’s are not going to get off the damn boat – who will?

    Please pardon my rant. Who am I to criticise. I am just a woman, an American citizen, most importantly – a grandmother horrified for the future of the grandchildren of this nation. All I can say is that the murder of LaVoy Finicum – this whole soon to be forgotten moment in American history, has thrown me into a spiral I am finding difficult to recover from.

  2. […] 9: Civil Defiance or Submission? Burns Chronicles No. 10: Is There a Peaceful Solution? – Redux Burns Chronicles No. 11: What are the III%? Burns Chronicles No. 12: Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury Burns Chronicles No. 13: Ambush – Part […]

  3. AZRanger says:

    I agree 100% Gary with your underlying premise. The problem is when no local organization steps up, and the surrounding population appears to be hostile to the intent!
    We made a conscious decision NOT to go to Burns, because the local Militias DID NOT step up, and the local citizenry came across as hostile to the effort!
    Since the locals were too afraid to put their own asses on the line to defend THEIR rights, none of us could see why we should risk our own asses to save theirs! Not when we have the border invasion going on in AZ!

    The Hammonds made it clear that they DID NOT have the courage to stand-up to the feds, and the only intel coming out of Burns indicated that there was very little, if any, support for those who had occupied the refuge! Therefore, other than a few individuals from AZ, everyone decided that this was an ill-conceived action, and we would not support those who were NOT willing to defend themselves! We agreed that the Militia is NOT a well-fare program! If people are not willing lift a finger to defend themselves, then we are NOT going to do it for them. The reason so many flocked to the aid of those in the Mass Colony, was that they were willing to stand up for themselves; and did ask the others to do it for them!!!

    At Bunkerville, NV, the local residents were already standing up to the jack-booted thugs of the BLM, and being assaulted for their efforts! This is why thousands of Americans came from all over the country to show up there, and help them defend what was theirs.

    I agree that there is a time and a place for offensive actions, but it cannot be done to protect those who will NOT try or participate themselves!! I will NEVER put my folks in that position!

    Sorry if that makes others angry, but I don’t give a rat’s ass!!! When the militia is sent out to do a job, then that is what we will do! What happened in Burns was utterly stupid and ridiculous! The fact that a truly fine man was killed there, was a colossal failure of leadership, both on and off site! A small group of men made a train of very bad decisions, because they did not have enough respect for the numerous others who they had worked with previously, to council with them first! They committed themselves to a doomed course of action, and then expected others to come and bail them out! Sorry but that is NOT a reasonable expectation! This was a Custer move! And had basically the same results!!

    it is time for those in the Liberty Movement to man up, and quit acting like school children! Start working with others, and not just your friends and yes men! There is Wisdom is=n the COUNCIL of Many! We must start using our heads for something other than to hold our ears apart! No more knee-jerk reactions! No more going off the deep end! No more trying to do everything ourselves, because leadership does not want to share power or the limelight! Grow the hell up; and plan something in advance for once!

    Every State should have a militia council which can then be in communication with the other State Councils! This is NOT rocket science! Lets get this done, and then there can be successes!

    • ghuntghunt says:

      I see where you are coming from, and I hope that you won’t take offense at what I have to say. I will address three points, in the order that they occurred as I read your comment.
      1. There was a lot of discussion (yes, I was involved in some of it) concerning an invitation. Obviously, the invitation could have come from the Hammonds, though, as you said, it did not. The other possibilities were the Governor (slim chance), the County (still slim), or a Committee f Safety. After all, it was Committees of Safety that called the militia to Lexington and Concord.
      The Harney County Committee of Safety was formalized on December 12, 2015. They did invite those who wished to come, to go to Burns to support the Hammonds. So, the presence of the patriots was due to that invitation.
      Now, your objection seems to come more from what nine people chose to do by going to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and making it “public”, as it should be. That was a secret, and alternate, plan that had been worked on for over a month prior to being acted out.
      You seem to think that since it is in Harney County, Oregon, that it is an Oregon problem, or perhaps only a Harney County problem. However, you fail to recognize the government’s role in thinking that they own, rather than being just trustees, of the PUBLIC lands. Tat being federal PUBLIC lands, where does that leave you out? Are you going to wait until it is your backyard (isn’t the bastard president talking about millions of Arizona acres that he wants to make into a national monument?) before you become concerned? If so, what if only a few hundred people object? Even a few thousand would be less percentage of the population of Harney County that supported the action at the Refuge. So, you method of exclusion is, at best, destructive, more likely fatal, to restoring the Constitution as the law of the land.
      Think, too, that if one man loses his rights, you, to, have lost yours. By failing to support others, we discourage hat same support, when we want it.
      To judge, by your standards, especially lacking a full understanding of the circumstance of others, you have simply abandoned the possibility of an effective action against government’s overarching authority. You have held others to your standards, and provided them an easy way out when your standards think that they should act.
      Finally, you speak of a “militia council”. What leads you to believe that the militia can act independent of a civil authority? Have you learned nothing of our history and heritage? Were you not paying attention during the days of the Arizona Committee of Safety?
      I have often stated that there are no Militia in this country, as the Militia must subordinate to civil authority. I have written providing historical and legal effect of the requirement. Until a group joins together under civil authority, I will continue to declare that none exists.

  4. Andrea says:

    If I may – a little to add to this conversation as I contend the issue is blankety-blank government theft, and murder in this particular case. My continual question is – when/what circumstance is going to be the right one?

    So, a few days ago Harry Reid makes his case for Hussein Obama to take more land in Nevada. Any guesses what area? I’ll let you read it but an excerpt that is so offensive –

    “Most Americans are familiar with what happened earlier this year in Oregon. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon was taken over. A dangerous group of militants staged an armed takeover of the refuge, they came with their canvas shirts and their camouflage pants and their guns and their all-terrain vehicles to take over the federal property. And they did. They damaged the refuge to the tune of about, maybe $20 million: defecating on some of the ruins in the facility and stopping the Native Americans from being able to do their annual fishing.
    This particular episode of domestic terrorism has roots in Nevada, I’m sorry to say. They were led by the sons of Cliven Bundy. Cliven who, as we speak, is where he should be – in jail. Two of his sons are in jail, too, having participated in the unlawful takeover. Cliven Bundy is a Nevadan who has been breaking federal laws for decades.

    ghunt if you have already posted this link my apologies – I am woefully far behind on my reading.


    • ghuntghunt says:

      I will address your question.
      Each incident brings more to our side. Often such an incident also shows us who would should not rely upon (#7). However, when, and where, is the subject of the will of One far greater than you or me. I just know that I have to expose what I can, about Burns, the Hammonds, and the Bundy Affair (I will be writing on that subject, again, soon).
      The more we understand what is being lost, the sooner the time comes when we will take it back.

  5. […] I. What Are the III%? [2/25/16] […]


Burns Chronicles No 12 – Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury

Burns Chronicles No 12
Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury

 FBI Liar

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 29, 2016

I have never met Jon Ritzheimer, though I have spoken and worked with Jon on various enterprises. I found him to be quite affable, and perhaps more importantly, a willing learner.

I had hoped to finally meet Jon when I arrived at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in the late afternoon of Sunday, January 24. Unfortunately, Jon had left for his home in Phoenix, earlier that day. However I have no doubt that Jon and I will finally shake hands, in friendship, in the near future.

So, we know when Jon left Burns, Oregon, on January 24, but that is really not the point. The real question is; When did Jon arrive in Burns, Oregon and the Refuge?

Well, the FBI has their answer as to when Jon was in Burns. It is clearly stated in the “Redacted Criminal Complaint“. (Why the Complaint is Redacted will be discussed later in the article.) The Complaint is in the form of the “Affidavit of Katherine Armstrong”, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Perhaps a bit of background and educational foundation of SA Armstrong is in order. According to the Affidavit, she has been employed by the FBI for “one-and-a-half (1 ½) years”. Surely, that is sufficient time for a novice FBI Special Agent to prepare the foundation for a case that the Court, based upon a “Government’s Motion to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates, Set Status Hearing, and Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act“, is considering waiving, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“, as protected by the Sixth Amendment.

However, that is not all that is rather curious about SA Armstrong. This quote, from her credentials, “I have also acquired knowledge and information pertaining to violations of federal law from numerous other sources, including: … informants,” as if informants are a part of the educational curriculum of the “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” agency of our government.

Now, the Affidavit was signed on January 26, however, it excluded LaVoy Finicum from those named. So, we must assume that the Complaint was prepared and filed AFTER LaVoy was murdered on the side of US Highway 395.

The Affidavit, with the exception of reference to videos and the arrest of Brian Cavalier (Budda) on January 11, both of which don’t require strong investigative skills, as the former only requires an internet connection, in the latter, access to the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database, based upon events that occurred prior and up to January 7, 2016. It would seem that the government, then, has had well over a month to prepare their case. So, why do they want to deprive the accused patriots their constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial? After all, the government has unlimited agents, lawyers, resources, and money (ours) with which to prepare their case. The have already delayed “discovery”, removing time for preparation by the defense attorneys, who have limited manpower and resources.

So, let’s look at the “public trial“. Suppose you were charged with a crime. Suppose, also, that the government wanted more time to make sure that they had all of the dirt that they could get on you. Suppose, further, that the government wanted to see if they could find evidence of a crime that they weren’t even aware of, by taking a little fishing trip to the Refuge. And, suppose that they did everything they could to prevent the defense attorneys from looking over their shoulders to see what sort of fish they might catch, maybe even planting some fish to justify the rather feeble case they already have.

Now, we do have the Criminal Complaint, but as you will soon see, it is conjecture, not fact, at least in part. Most of the remainder is gross misrepresentation. The charges against the accused patriots are not based upon the Criminal Complaint, that is only justification for arrest warrants that were, demonstrably, issued after the arrests were made (hint: there was no arrest warrant for LaVoy Finicum, so the warrants would have been made out after they knew that they could not arrest a dead man.). Quite simply, they arrested six people and murdered one person, and without having the constitutionally required warrant. Within that Criminal Complaint (Redacted), we see that they have redacted (blocked out) only the month and date of birth, leaving in the years. Well, that is the first time in the federal judicial system (Beecher, Massey, Wolf, & Barbeau, etc.) where I have seen birthdates included, as they are really not relevant to the charges.

On February 3, 2016, the Grand Jury Indictment, consisting of only 3 pages, where the Criminal Complaint at 32 pages, is “Sealed”. However, the “Sealed” Indictment is readily available, at least the three pages, so we must look further to see what is really sealed. The Pacer system shows the Docket listing. The Docket listing is a numerical log of documents entered on the case before the court. Most often, the documents are logically entered (i.e. n, n+1. n+2, n+3, etc.), however we find that many entries are out of order in this case. We also find why the Indictment was Sealed, at least in part:

Docket Indictment

Note: red text reads “(In accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 this form document containing personal data identifiers is filed under seal)”

So, you can see, well, no you really can’t see, what is supposed to be a public trial. How can it be a public trial when we don’t even know what the specific charges are? Some will say, well, yes, we know that they are charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. §372. But, that statute is a general explanation, and, interestingly, was first enacted in 1861, during the Civil War. But, an Indictment should give the specifics of a charge. For example, the Criminal Complaint explains what the players did that just might constitute “probable cause” in violation of the statute, but the specifics are conspicuously hidden from the public, those of us who have every right to know what our fellow citizens are charged with.

We must ask ourselves, first, why the FBI wants these crucial explanations of criminal activity hidden, and, secondly why the judge should allow such devious and unconstitutional practices?

We can possibly assume that the specifics that were presented to the Grand Jury, were in the same form as they were in the Criminal Complaint. And, it is safe to assume that they were probably presented by the experienced FBI Special Agent Armstrong that learned so much from “informants”. That being the case, we can look to the Criminal Complaint, particularly item number 14, which reads:

  1. On December 18, 2015, a citizen (hereafter Citizen) of Harney County was shopping at the Safeway grocery store in Burns, Oregon. Citizen was wearing a BLM shirt. Citizen was confronted by two men, one whom she identified as RITZHEIMERCitizen reported to law enforcement that she heard yelling, and when she turned around, the second individual shouted “you’re BLM, you’re BLM” at her. That person further stated to Citizen that they know what car she drives and would follow her home. He also stated he was going to burn Citizen’s house down. RITZHEIMER and the second individual left the area in a black pick-up truck with black canopy and no visible license plate. Since the incident, Citizen has observed a similar vehicle outside her residenceCitizen was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle when she later saw it. The following week, a second vehicle, described as a white truck with a pink license plate and a big rebel flag sticker on the back window, aggressively tailgated Citizen, flashing lights and driving erratically. Citizen believed the second incident was related to the first. Citizen also saw the black pick-up truck outside of her place of employment early in the morning hours of Christmas Day.

Oops, where is the accuser? Back to the Sixth Amendment, which also states, “and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Both of these elements, the cause and the witness, are obscured under some court rule that is in obvious violation of the protected rights in the Constitution. But, then, that begins to move us to the heart of just why these patriots chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge; to bring to light the fact that the government seems to be operating, in many areas, outside of the powers and authority granted by the Constitution.

Now, the FBI, with all of their resources, should have no problem accessing security films from Safeway, or to find others who were witness to the events described at that location on December 18. However, their diligence in pursuit of justice seems to fail in recognizing their responsibility to protect a person from unwarranted charges.

Let’s look at some facts. Remember, the FBI and NSA have access to all of our records. They have used credit card tracking to locate and arrest criminals, in the past. So, we will use those same sources to dispute the sworn affidavit of our very professional FBI SA Armstrong.

First, Jon was in Arizona, all day, on December 18. Knowing that he was going to go up to Washington, then on to Burns, he took some pictures that morning, with his daughters. He had also arranged to see a movie with a friend, before he left on his trip. The date/time of the movie shows clearly:

R151218 0751 Girls w Jon_7671R12 18 8-51 girls JonR12 18 12-30 Movie tickets

Now, we can look at what Jon was doing the rest of the day, December 18, including dinner at a Mexican Restaurant. The transaction date appears in the left column on his Credit Union Credit Card (top), and in the items column in the Chase Debit Card (bottom).

R 12 18 Credit Union Card_7562

R Dec Chase Debit Card

You will note that the Debit Card entry for 12/21 shows that he was at “Eddies Truck and Auto Center”, in Hines, Oregon. If you look at the items entered on 12/21, you will see that he was in Washington, then went through Sandy, then Prineville, which would be enroute to Hines from Washington. So, the Hines entry had to be no less than the afternoon on the 20th.

We needn’t stop there. After all, many judicial decisions are based upon the preponderance of evidence. So, let’s look at Jon’s trip northward. First, we have him stopping in Meridian, Idaho, to spend a little time with an old friend. Then we can see the route he traveled, and finally, the picture log that gives the date and location of the pictures he had taken.

R 12 19 Meridian IdahoR 12 19 routeR picture log

So, what we must now consider is whether this information, item #14 from the Criminal Complaint, was presented to the Grand Jury as factual information. There is no supporting statement by the “Citizen”, there is no evidence that the “Citizen reported to law enforcement…”, and there is nothing to suggest that SA Armstrong even knows of the existence of “Citizen”. Perhaps she made the whole darned story up to make Jon Ritzheimer look bad — when Jon Ritzheimer was, at least, hundreds of miles away.

While we are on the subject of the protected rights within the Bill of Rights, there is another provision of the Sixth Amendment that warrants our consideration, that the speedy and public trial be “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.” So, we have a crime allegedly committed in Eastern Oregon, a ranching, agricultural, forestry, and mining, community (if we exclude the excessive number of government employees in Harney County, that being about 46% of the non-agricultural workforce), which is in the Eastern District of Oregon, though we have a Grand Jury empanelled in the Western District of Oregon. Now, the western District is city-folk. It is industrial, commercial, and though it may have a few small farms and ranches, it is most definitely comprised of a totally different lifestyle than the Eastern District. Now, being unable to construe any reason for the inclusion of that phrase in the Amendment than that the justice system must operate where there are people of like mind, we can only wonder why the government had opted to go into the urban realm to seek an Indictment, and we must also presume that they have every intention of subjecting what happened in the rural Eastern District to the petit jury, the determination of innocence or guilt, comprised of those urbanites in the Western District.

What the Framers gave us to protect against injustice, 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.


  1. This is brilliant. You have covered every minute of Jon’s travel. All you need to do is get them back in Harney County District. You will have plenty of witnesses for Jon. All these Patriots are in jail on trumped up charges. Evidence is being withheld, they won’t acknowledge who murdered Lavoy. All the Patriots were doing was teaching the ranchers their rights.

    • Bill Ludlow says:

      I started following the exploits of Jon Ritzheimer when he organized the armed protest of a mosque in Phoenix last year. It was a copycat protest of the Draw Mohammed Day one in Texas where a couple people died. What is interesting about Ritzheimer’s anti Islam protest is how he kept claiming he was exercising his First and Second Amendment rights, yet when a bunch of neo nazis showed up to join the protest, it almost turned violent as Jon and the other self-proclaimed “patriots” screamed and cursed at the new group telling them they weren’t wanted there and no one wanted to hear what they had to say. How ironic. I certainly don’t agree with the views of the neo nazis, but apparently according to Mr. Ritzheimer they should not have the same constitutional rights as he does. That was the first sign that something was seriously wrong with the man.

      A couple of months later Jon made the news again when he threatened to arrest Senator Debbie Stabenow in Michigan because he didn’t like the way she voted. He vowed to travel across the country with an armed militia and arrest every lawmaker who didn’t vote the way he thought they should vote. Another sign something was seriously wrong with him.

      Then came the takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and Jon’s video made while sitting in the car holding his pocket constitution, nearly in tears as he tells his family he swore an oath and that’s why he wasn’t home for the holidays. He got caught up with the seditionist ranchers and their battle with the government over free grazing rights. None of this has been about “The Constitution,” it is about the lawless ranchers and their belief they are not bound by the same laws that govern all of us. The United States Congress has passed legislation that gives agencies like the BLM, USFS, etc. the right to manage public lands in the best interest of all the people and it has withstood legal challenges.

      Jon seems to be a follower who really hasn’t decided on a good cause yet, but who wants to make trouble for anyone who believes differently than he does. Sort of a rebel without a clue. He brings a lot of drama along with him (who could forget the sex toys video) but not a lot of common sense. What those seditionists did in Oregon was illegal and it disrupted the lives of a lot of good people. Jon obviously played a role in what happened. I don’t feel sorry for him one bit. Hopefully 5 – 10 years in prison will be long enough for him to reflect on his mistakes and he won’t come out guns a blazin’ looking for another fight. You have to wonder what kind of person raised such a little monster.

      • ghuntghunt says:

        So, let’s see. Jon is a bad guy because he doesn’t conform to what you expect people to act like. Perhaps some insight into Jon’s reason for the demonstration at the ICCP (Phoenix Mosque). The two that were shot dead in Garland had come from that Mosque. They were the sperm that generated those who wanted to kill those at the cartoon contest. Should we ignore the source? If we are willing to submit to political correctness, I suppose we should.
        His “threats”, absent any intention of carrying them out, are not much different than the numerous well known people who have stated they will leave the United States, if Trump is elected. Do you expect them to carry out their threats?
        Next, we come to Malheur. Patriots have done something that has garnered nation, even international, attention, and brought some interesting aspects of government to light. I will be addressing those in this continuing series. However, you seem to object because you see nothing wrong with the government. You accept their interpretation of the Constitution that was supposed to limit government, regardless of the clear wording of the document. You accept the government’s contention that you are to stupid to understand the intent of the Framers. So be it, stay lost and relinquish that which those fought for over two hundred years ago. Let their blood have been shed in vain,
        However, there are those of us that do know what was written, and what was intended.
        I do believe that we still have freedom of speech in this country, though it has been substantially curtailed, as of late. And, it appears that you support that curtailment.
        It is possible that we are wrong. I grant you that. I went to Vietnam, as a volunteer, thinking that it was the right thing to do. I was wrong then, and I may be wrong, now, but I have every right to be wrong, as do you. The difference is the degree of commitment you are willing to put forth, and what Jon was willing to put forth.
        When I was in the Army, and when I was in business, and when I continue on in life, there are followers. And, there are leaders. Then, there are those that think that they are endowed with an understanding of life that exceeds that of others. They sit, pompously, in their armchairs — judging other by their standards, however, their standards seem to never move them from their armchair.
        So.might I ask, which one are you?

      • Van says:

        You show yourself as big government fan.

  2. […] No. 10: Is There a Peaceful Solution? – Redux Burns Chronicles No. 11: What are the III%? Burns Chronicles No. 12: Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury Burns Chronicles No. 13: Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” Burns […]

  3. […] what is going to be presented was first discussed in “Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury“, though at the time, one piece supportive of the veracity of that article had not yet been […]

  4. […] what is going to be presented was first discussed in “Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury“, though at the time, one piece supportive of the veracity of that article had not yet been […]


Burns Chronicles No 13 – Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life”

Burns Chronicles No 13
Ambush – Part 2
“We Feared for Somebody’s Life”

body shots

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 14, 2016

Just over 246 years ago, on March 5, 1770, eight British Soldiers shot and killed four colonists.  They and their Captain stood trial, even though they were the property of the King.  All stood trial, even though only two were found guilty of manslaughter.  The people, in a jury trial, determined who was innocent, and who was not.  That is the judicial system we were supposed to have inherited from our British ancestors.  The Revolutionary War may have started even earlier, had not these simple rules of justice been applied — had the King decided that his forces would be judged by the King, or his appointee, rather than by the people.

An overview of the events that led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum was presented in a previous article, “Ambush“.  However, as a result of a press conference given in Bend, Oregon, on March 8, 2016, we have more detail to fill in some gaps in that previous article.  It is worthy of note that the detail is provided by Shawna Cox, one of the victims (Shawna Cox’s video synchronized with aerial footage, complete).  This article will address primarily the information given out at that press conference.

As we continue, you will note the extent of preparation for the event that was planned, probably as much as a week before the date of execution.

The Press Conference begins, after showing synchronized footage from Shawna Cox’s camera and the previously shown aerial footage.  The only words spoken in the first 3 minutes are those of LaVoy Finicum, Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp, and Ryan Bundy.  LaVoy says, at least 7 times, five of them loudly and directed at the then unidentified armed, battle-geared, agents who have taken Mark McConnell, Brian Cavalier, Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Payne, captive.  He says that he is going to go to John Day to meet the Sheriff.

As explained in “Ambush“, Mark McConnell was told that these thugs were FBI-HRT (Hostage Rescue Team – who have yet to rescue any hostage, though have killed a number of people who were neither hostages or hostage takers), while in response to LaVoy’s query, they are Oregon State Police (OSP).  So, who is in charge?  Surely, the excuse of plausible deniability is already built in to the structure, though whether FBI had any legal jurisdiction in the matter has yet to be answered.

However, the speaker states that, “The truck was stopped to arrest Finicum, Payne, Bundy, and Cox, on federal felony charges, based on criminal acts, arising from the “armed occupation” of the Malheur County [sic] National Wildlife Refuge.”

He points out that they are appropriately attired, though we have to question whether battle gear, armor, Kevlar helmets, automatic short barrel rifles, flash bangs grenades, non-lethal projectiles, and classic ambush roadblocks are now the appropriate law enforcement “attire”, and still, why the FBI had to back up the OSP?

However, the speaker then suggests, “the occupants of the truck had an agreement to elude the police in a vehicle.”  He then points out that this would be a Class III Felony.  However, how can you possibly be eluding the police when you invite the police to go with you to another law enforcement officer, the Sheriff of Grant County?

While it appears to be implied that the desire to “elude” was the only thing on the mind of the occupants of the truck, the government has skillfully omitted that fact that a shot had been fired, shortly before, resulting in the arrest of Ryan Payne.  So, let us ask ourselves, if someone had already shot at us, they have demonstrated both a desire and willingness to take our lives.  Are we wrong, then, in wanting to get to another law enforcement officer, to provide for our own safety?  If not, then what, of “Life, Liberty, and Property” is still retained by the people?

So, after about four minutes expended in an effort to secure passage to whom they considered a reliable law enforcement officer, and failing to obtain a willingness that should, under the described circumstances, been willingly acquiesced to, the occupants agreed that it was worth risk to life to, not elude, rather, to seek the protection of, law enforcement.

Now, at this point in time, only one identifiable shot had been fired at the occupants, though those of us who have been under fire recognize that the immediate world changes, drastically, once shots are fired with an obvious intent to kill those who are being shot at.

A normal response is to take cover and return fire.  The only means of assuring that he doesn’t take your life is to take his, before he takes yours.  However, as law-abiding citizens, that decision was made not to return fire, rather, to seek the protection of law enforcement.

So, the possible targets of a plot to murder (don’t laugh, just yet.), proceed at high speed for about another mile.  Forensic and the video indicate a speed of about 70 mph.  He explains that the OSP SWAT van had no trouble stopping before it reached the barricaded roadway, suggesting that LaVoy could have done the same.  However, the OSP SWAT van probably had driven the road, either the night before when the ambush was set up by clearing tree branches, or at least early in the day of the ambush.  But, we gotta make it look like LaVoy was a bad guy and had every intention of busting through, like Clyde Barrow.

But, they do admit that an OSP officer had taken three shots at LaVoy’s truck as it approached the barricade, “in an attempt to stop it.”  So, when was the last time that three bullets, probably from an AR-15, were able to stop an 8,500 lb, vehicle travelling at 50 mph?

So, anyway, the truck barreling down on the barricade, and probably seeing the spike strips in the road, caused LaVoy to swerve into the packed snow on the left side of the road.  He then swerved, just a bit more, to avoid hitting an idiot FBI-HRT officer who had jumped into the  path of LaVoy’s truck, and would have been severely injured, if not killed, absent the quick reflexes of LaVoy.  Had he not swerved, to save the life mentioned above, he may have had the momentum to pass the barricade, return to the paved roadway, and continue on to the safety he anticipated would be found in John Day, Grant County, just fifty more miles up the road.  Instead, he got high-centered in the snow, leaving the drive wheel still spinning.  More on this, shortly, but we will have to make a truck disappear to hold up the government line.

So, now, there have been four shots fired, striking the truck.  Like David Koresh, in February 1993, standing in the open doorway, saying that there were women and children inside, then being fired upon, dozens of bullets hitting the door, and one striking David in the side, how to you relinquish the expectation of survival and submit to arrest, hoping that they will not simply kill you?

Before we move on to the final actions that resulted in the murder of LaVoy Finicum, we need to address some major spin, attempting to shift responsibility on to the victim, and redeem the alleged righteousness of the murderers.  And, here is where the real magic begins.  From the aerial imagery that we have seen so many times, we know that the barricade was a classic safe for the shooters and lethal for the victim arrangement.  Had the intended target stopped at the spike-strips, or even rammed the blockading vehicles, he would have been left in a free-fire zone, where there was no crossfire between assailants, and only the victims were within the kill zone.  Yet, we are led to believe that this was simply a traffic stop, or a felony arrest stop, though arrests were not completed, according to the warrant, until the following day, January 27, and the arrests made by the FBI, not the OSP.

If we look at the exhibits that show the scene at the shooting location, first, we have one diagram that shows the location of the shooter and LaVoy’s truckwhen three shots are fired by an OSP officer located behind the vehicle in the right lane, as LaVoy approaches the barricade.  The first shot strikes the left side of the truck, the next hits the front-center and goes into the engine compartment, and the third hits the right front (hood), as described at the conference.  There is a fourth shot, a magic bullet, so to speak, that hit the roof of the truck, fired in a downward trajectory.  Without further explanation, we are left to speculate, and in so doing, I can come up with nothing less than a sniper attempting from an elevated position, to the right and rear of the truck, to kill the driver of the vehicle by penetrating the roof, as the angle and location of the bullet damage to the vehicle can leave no other conclusion.

Note, also, that this diagram shows three vehicles.  One in the center of the road, one in the right lane, and at an angle, and LaVoy’s truck in its final resting location.  The significance of this will be addressed, shortly.

Next, we have an exhibit from a larger package, documentation, comprised of 360 pages, though all we are interested in is a sketch (page 123) of the shooting location and evidence secured at the scene.  Note that, here, too, only three vehicles are shown — the same three, including LaVoy’s truck.  We will discuss the evidence found, shortly.

Then, horror of horrors, we are told that, “as you will see, Mr. Finicum almost struck an FBI HRT operator.”  Now, this begins to get interesting, so pay close attention.  We are told that:

Under Oregon law, Mr. Finicum was using his truck as a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon is defined as “any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”An Oregon officer is justified in using deadly physical force when it is “necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force.”

Any person is justified in using deadly physical force when they reasonably believe that another person is “using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.

“Deadly physical force” means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

When Mr. Finicum drove his truck at a high rate of speed toward a roadblock where law enforcement were present, the Oregon State Police trooper was reasonable in believing that Mr. Finicum planned to crash through or otherwise evade the roadblock in a manner that would injure or kill law enforcement at the roadblock. In this case, after interviewing the Oregon State Police trooper, that is, in fact, what he believed. Under these circumstances, these three shots into Mr. Finicum’s truck are justified.

So, the speaker has given his take on the perspective of the officer that was fearful that LaVoy was going “to crash through the roadblock or otherwise evade the roadblock”.  Obviously, evading the roadblock would put no sane person at risk, and when you consider the design of the roadblock, nobody, except perhaps the people in LaVoy’s truck faced any risk of injury.  The roadblock was comprised of three vehicles.  The center vehicle was in the center of the road.  The other two vehicles were diagonal, facing toward the center of the road.  To hit the center vehicle, LaVoy would have to impact one or both of the other vehicles, which would dissipate the energy of his momentum, directing it outward, as it pushed a diagonal vehicle away from the center.  If he even got past the diagonal vehicle, there would be no energy left to cause more than minimal damage to the center vehicle, hence the specific design of the roadblock/barricade.  But, trying to stop that vehicle with a few bullets, well, that reminds me of the mouse looking at the elephant, with rape on his mind.

But, what of LaVoy and those in the truck?  They were fired on at the first stop, resulting in Ryan Payne exiting the truck and getting arrested.  And, they were simply wanting to go to another law enforcement officer, the Sheriff on Grant County, to provide for their already threatened safety.

It seems that they found themselves in the situation described by the statement, above, which says that, “Any person is justified in using deadly physical force when they reasonably believe that another person is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.”  So, under the laws cited, they were justified in using deadly force, as deadly force had already been used against them, though they had made no threat, nor done any act, that would suggest that they sought that legal remedy of self-defense.

As they traveled towards John Day, they were, again, fired upon by an OSP officer that had some absurd fear that his shooting the driver of a speeding truck was less dangerous than the speeding truck, itself — ignoring the officer safety aspect of the roadblock.

In fact, the only act of LaVoy that might be considered one in which there was a risk to the life of any officer or other person is when he swerved to avoid hitting an officer who had left the safety of the barricade and jumped into the path of the 4 tons worth of metal.

SAC (Special Agent in Charge) Bretzing tells us, that the FBI HRT agent that jumped in front of LaVoy’s truck had to react in a split second.  This, he suggests, explains why he “jumped” into the path of LaVoy’s truck.  However, the configuration of the blockade, as explained above, provided safety zones in the triangles created by the center vehicle and the angled vehicles.  However, with the exception of the visual of the original aerial footage, this is the first recognition of the third government vehicle.  So, their concern for preservation of the crime scene seems to have gone out the window, since the sketches made based upon the designated crime scene investigator make no reference, in either of the diagrams mentioned above, of this third vehicle — that being the closest to the shooting, itself.  Is this because that vehicle may have some indication that would, well, dispute the story that has just been presented?

With regard to the shooting, there is one more necessary observation.  Admittedly, there were six shots fired by OSP, three striking the vehicle as it approached the roadblock, and three that struck and killed LaVoy Finicum.  There is an admission that at least a few other shots were fired by FBI agents, though the investigation into the lies and cover-up is still “under investigation”, so no information is available.

Now, we have just a few shots, nothing that would cause serious concern on the part of LaVoy, are so it would seem.  That is the part of the process of this sort of press conference.  It sets the pace, it provides no time to think, and it omits that which might just raise a question about what really happened — what might have occurred that had a lot to do with the state of mind of LaVoy Finicum, and the others in the truck with him.

The evidence sketch, motioned above, is in another report.  It mentions 20 items identified by numerals and 6 items, five of which are identified as objects relating to LaVoy, these being identified by letters.  Item “E” is a “mushroomed rifle bullet”, and I doubt that it belonged to LaVoy, but it is conspicuously lost in the listings, and was not mentioned in the press conference.

We also have the twenty items that were identified and recovered, being: 3 40 mm rubber bullets; 1 grenade; 2 grenade pins; and, 13 40 mm casings.  From those first shots fired as LaVoy left the vehicle, and for the next 3 or 4 minutes, non-lethal 40 mm bullets, tear gas, and other objects are barraging the truck and those inside.  It is almost as if the OSP and the FBI were trying to create such fear in those remaining in the truck to cause them to fight for their lives, providing justification to kill all who remained.  As those inside, yelled, “Stop”, a number of times, it did not cease until those outside realized that they were not going to be able to force a confrontation, and could not be justified in simply shooting lethal bullets through the truck doors, killing those who remained.

Some additional thoughts:

  • During the conference, we were told that the people inside of the Refuge were conducting “an armed occupation”, though we find that no such charge exists.
  • We were told that they had advised that they were law enforcement and that everyone was under arrest (first stop), though there is no indication that the cause for arrest was ever articulated.
  • During the entire period of the occupation, those inside were never advised of what “crime” they had committed, only that what they had done was “illegal”, and that came from Sheriff Ward.

So, the Oregon State Police have gracefully transferred any responsibility for the death of LaVoy Finicum to, well, who else but LaVoy Finicum.  Though they saw him reach to his left side with his hands, on three occasions, they restrained themselves and did not fire.  During that time, LaVoy had been fully visible to them.  However, when his back was to the shooters, and clearly visible to the officer with the tazer, who could easily have yelled “gun”, had LaVoy drawn one, the shooters, all of a sudden, through some mystical abilities, realized that what they couldn’t see now justified three rapid-fire shots, into the BACK of the victim.

Should there be any remaining doubt as to responsibility, they have a pending investigation going regarding the perhaps illegal, and definite lying during the investigation, by between 2 and 5 FBI agents, which will take time, and, eventually, just get lost along with so many other misdeeds by the FBI (Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.).

Perhaps the most ludicrous statement of the entire conference came from SAC Bretzing, when he said:

“Hundreds and hundreds of FBI employees have traveled to Burns with the sole purpose of bringing this situation to a peaceful solution.  Working together with our partners, we have been able to do just that.”


Have you ever wondered what the colonists might have done,
had the soldiers not stood trial in front of a jury of the people, back in Boston?



  1. soveregin bastard says:

    In your above article you wrote, “We also have the twenty items that were identified and recovered, being: 3 40 mm rubber bullets; 1 grenade; 2 grenade pins; and, 13 40 mm casings. From those first shots fired as LaVoy left the vehicle, and for the next 3 or 4 minutes, ——NON-LETHAL——- 40 mm bullets, tear gas, and other objects are barraging the truck and those inside.”

    I would make the observation that 40mm bullets, tear gas and other objects are LESS-LETHAL, compared to NON-LETHAL. I think it is a fair point and helps to not dilute the seriousness of their circumstance. ( I would add that I am not trying to say that the author is trying to dilute the seriousness of the situation in any respect.)

    I am a bit worn down with the idea that we need to work within the system to find this ever elusive justice. STOP LOOKING THERE ! The system, very cleverly, has been designed to be unbeatable through the normal course of working within the system. The similarities between the government and a casino are striking in this regard. The system is designed for the house to always win in the long run. Winning here or there only provides for the illusion that the system is working, it is not. It is the occasional bone thrown to shut the dog up.

    On one hand it does not surprise me that blatant premeditated murder by coward order followers has not upset the masses into a knee jerk reaction of substance. We have been so well indoctrinated, infiltrated, dominated, and enslaved that it is nearly impossible for the average, modern “American” to understand what the 4th branch of government presents to them on their indoctrination tubes.

    Now on the other hand, I know that logic, honor, critical thinking and cans chock full of bad assery still exist in the republic. So where in the hell is the appropriate response to such PUBLIC government evil and cowardice ? Where are all the fucking heads on pikes. The armed masses standing up in strict defiance of this criminal leviathan ? I mean, I see a whole bunch of angry, pissed off people at Trump rallies, but all that energy is directed into divide and conquer among the masses, rather than being focused at the actual problem, THE GOVERNMENT. Then again, this is all by design.

    The clock has just about ran out for successful self defense. This is not an isolated incident. This issue affects, EVERYONE. Do we continue to be slave to government or do we crack heads and burn this mother fucker down ? All in righteous self defense of course !

    • ghuntghunt says:

      “Righteous self defense”? Or, Defense of out Constitution, Nation, and way of life, by aggression?

      The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

      • sovereign bastard says:

        I would say that self defense, up to and including lethal force is very aggressive. Taking a stand on the moral and righteous rock of self defense against the initiation of violence, coercion, extortion, kidnapping, ETC.. is paramount to the individual. The constitution, nation or presumably the American way of life does not give the natural living man his rights. They are god given, born with, inherited through the creation of life. I find it important to note that it is the individual that has the right and the individual that must stand up for the right. The declaration of independence may have created the nation, but the constitution created the government. Neither granted the individual with these precious rights we all seem to be so passionate about. I like to focus the idea of our freedom on the terms of the individual not the nation. Of course the nation is created by numbers of individuals, but it sure seems to me that the majority of the nation is indoctrinated into an incorrect narrative of their rights. I will note that the constitution is a humdinger of a document, but it has allowed the state we live in today. (of course the government is also composed of individuals as well.) Ultimately it is the individuals that make up this republic that have allowed the tyrannical state we live in today, myself included.

        Thank you for providing a link to the plan for restoration of constitutional government. I was unaware of it and I can sense I will enjoy reading it soon !

        Here are a couple of thoughts if I may be so bold. Lets take the Montana state constitution for example. I am under the impression that any law created that is in conflict with the federal constitution is null and void. Not just the one particular offending part of the legislation but the entire document as a whole. With this idea in mind, it seems clear to me that this would make the Montana state constitution dead on arrival, still born if you will. For example. article II, section 12 states…….. “Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”

        Now I present the federal constitution regarding the right to bear arms. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        To keep means to own or be in possession of. To bear means to keep on your person. All of it shall not be infringed. The Montana constitution clearly infringes on the right to bear those arms, or in the words of the Montana constitution, calls into question the right to bear the arms concealed. This means it is null and void, and the entire document with it null and void.

        The logical fallacies of the Montana state constitution are blatant and in many ways comical. Article II, section 2 of the Montana state constitution state that, “Self-government. The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state. They may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary.”

        Then, when we jump to article II, section 30, it states that, ” Treason and descent of estates. Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on his confession in open court; no person shall be attainted of treason or felony by the legislature; no conviction shall cause the loss of property to the relatives or heirs of the convicted. The estates of suicides shall descend or vest as in cases of natural death.”

        One might argue that, to abolish the government, a right the people seem to have would violate article II, section 30 of the very same constitution. I understand that varying degrees of the actions that can be taken to abolish the government, but I have no doubt that no matter the avenue taken, the government would consider all of it treason. Again, it’s comical in a very deadly way.

        Another thought, the Montana state constitution strays far from the rights it is supposed to defend and blatantly calls at least one of them a privilege. Here is the offending section. Article II, section 19, “Habeas corpus. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended.” I say we ask a certain tri corner hat wearing fisher if his contempt of court violated that little privilege ? Of course a privilege is not a right, yet this State constitution is filled with major issues. Life and death issues. My point is clear, a judge gets to accuse, try, and sentence an individual for A. not committing any crime and B. all in violation of the writ of Habeas Corpus. Maybe that is why it was written as a privilege not a right ?

        Article II, section 35 states, ” Servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans. The people declare that Montana servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans may be given special considerations determined by the legislature.” This is an abomination. I thought we were all supposed to be equal under the law ? Nobody is giving me and my family special considerations.

        I think that I have demonstrated just a few points that should be discussed in the larger community of individuals. What exactly are we wanting ? What do we want to fight for ? There might be some issues here and there with what we are fighting for, but maybe we can all agree that we all want our individual rights, liberty and property ? Without the individual the nation does not exist.

        I want to say that I consider myself an Allie and friend of liberty and private property. It can be easy to argue among ourselves over what the right document, idea, Etc.. is to rally around or the right course to follow to achieve that goal. ( as evidenced very clearly in the latest patriot debacle.) Talking about these important documents is always a good reason for a conversation and following courses to achieve our rightful liberty, sovereignty and private property is always a good idea as well.

        Thank you to Mr. Hunt for allowing me a place to express some thoughts on the critical topic of liberty !

        • ghuntghunt says:

          So much to respond to, though I will endeavor to keep the separate items separate, for clarification.
          Self-defense is either a unique situation, as defense against an unlawful or illegal intrusion, or a last stand, with regard to the perspective of what is happening to this country, today. Self-defense my save your life and property. It will not save your country.
          I do hope you like reading, as I have already, in other articles addressed some of your concerns. Why should Montana have a Constitution? Your presumption is that we only need the federal Constitution, or, if we have two constitutions, do I get to pick and choose which one I prefer. Think back historically. The colonies, now states, had gained independence from and imperialistic government. They were concern, when creating the federal government under the Constitution, of granting too much power to a national government. Eleven of the colonies had already created their own constitutions (two retained revised charters). Were they to subordinate what they had already determined to be their own choice of form of government to the federal Constitution? Absolutely not. They federal Constitution grants certain (only) powers and authorities to the federal government (Art. I, §§ 8 & 9), and set some restrictions on states (Art. I, § 10). Subsequently the Bill of Rights established even more limitations on the federal government. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and Arts. 9 & 10:
          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.
          9th Amendment
          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
          10th Amendment
          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
          If you want to read further on the subject, try:
          “Which Constitution am I Protected By?” which addresses the issue of the Second Amendment http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=768
          Or, for a much more intensive understanding, try “Habeas Corpus – Guardian of Liberty” (You can skip the historical information on Habeas Corpus and jump to th beginning of the Court decisions and other aspects that discuss the relationship between the people, their state, and the federal government – Baron v. Baltimore): http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm
          Regarding “treason” and “abolishing” in Montana, though I haven’t studied the subject, might best be understood that there are means of abolishing that might be less than warfare. However, if it was a resort to warfare, it would be the victor that would determine if treason were applicable. We can find the some apparent disparity between the Declaration and the Constitution. How does “But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security” comport with the Treason provision of the Constitution? At what point does the more extreme remedy replace the less extreme? Perhaps that is best answered by repeating Jefferson’s words, “But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism”.
          So, just where are we, today? We are trying to abide by a Constitution that the government refuses to abide by. Why are we bound, when the government is not? Do circumstances warrant a consideration of the former (abolish) as the only solution t the problem? Or, are we compelled, by some unseen force, to abide by the latter, and to our ultimate destruction as a nation?
          So, let’s return to Habeas Corpus, specifically. What is a privilege verses a right? A right cannot be suspended, where a privilege can be suspended. and, what qualifies for suspension is clearly laid out in Art. I, § 9, clause 2, “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” However, as I have learned, it has been suspended, for all intents and purposes. See “Habeas Corpus Removed from the Constitution” http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/HC06.htm
          With regard to servicemen having special privileges, that was done away with when the Order of Cincinnatus was done away with, after the Revolutionary War. However, government has created by legislation, not with an amendment, something referred to as civil Rights. The only right in the Constitution that puts a burden on others is the right to a trial by jury. The others stand alone, however, jury trials do work (when properly applied) to justice reciprocally.
          Civil Rights, however, are granted by government. And, there is no civil right that can be given to one without taking from (or forcing upon) another. There is no constitutional provision that would give the government the power to grant such rights.
          However, if you do read through Habeas Corpus – Guardian of Liberty, you will see what began happening in 1936 and was compound with the admitted creation of the Fourth Branch of Government in 1946.
          Now, it is easy to point on problems. I do so, quite often. However, being old school, I point out the problem and tender a solution. The desire is to resolve problems, which cannot be done without solutions proposed.
          As far as a forum to discuss such matters, it appears that you have found one, though it is quite small, and limited in its reach. If you can find a better forum, I would be pleased to participate.

  2. jakeandcrew says:

    Regarding the mushroomed bullet – on page 45/360 of the released reports, Officer #2, who reportedly shot LaVoy once, notes that after the shooting, “…I also noticed when they were providing first aid, that a bullet had mushroomwd as we were lifting — not me — as they were lifting his shirt up kind of fell out onto the snow, and I remember thinking it looked like a 5.56 round. It perfectly mushroomed, and it was on the snow underneath Mr. Finicum, and it was pointed out to other guys there.”

  3. sovereign bastard says:

    Thank you for your generous response ! Much to look over and dive into. I readily admit that I am an anarchist in nature, but this does not have much in the way of remedy. (the problem/solution factor you mentioned earlier.) When it comes to remedy, I can support constitutional restoration as a consolation to our current state. I will read the articles that you linked and will make my responses to those specific threads.
    Instead of a steady list of problems, abuses, Etc.. I have found an easy way to explain the root issue. When it comes to the long list of abuses, these are merely symptoms of a larger, malignant disease. When people and groups give themselves rights that the rest of us do not have, that makes us slave and them master. Pure and simple. I will say that the politicians have a fair amount of responsibility with all of our problems, but it is not obama, bush or clinton pulling you over, pointing guns at you, kciking down your doors, threatening or extorting you under threat of force, color of law, all immoral and evil, NO, it’s the order follower. It’s the police in conjunction with the district attorneys and judges that are the root of our problems. They have “rights” that the rest of us seem not to.
    I say, let congress and the president prance and make edicts on high all day. None of it means jack if the ORDER FOLLOWERS, did not do their evil bidding interjecting themselves with immunity into our daily, individual lives. The disease is the mentality that we do not own ourselves, and that some have rights the rest of us do not. This is clearly pushed through and swallowed through the school system, the television, the entire political system. You all must submit to the authority of the government, for its authority is sovereign and you all are tenants on the kings land. (fun side note, for all those folks who claim their property is actually theirs and private, look at the deed to your property. your name is under tenant, the state is owner. Same as your vehicle. There is no allodial status when you do not have the rights to begin with under these documents that seem more like legal, constructive fraud then defense of liberty. )

    I would like to add a link to a couple of videos that help illustrate my points of order followers, and self ownership.

    The Philosophy of Liberty


    Order Followers


    Before we can act, we must understand what the actual problem is.

  4. sovereign bastard says:

    So, with all that out of the way, back to the substance of your article. The “lawful” case that the state has against Lavoy is imaginary. This is a simple case of pre-mediated murder, with a planned ambush. If the state wanted to take Lavoy in, they could have peacefully taken him in when he was speaking with the state on numerous occasions. Like your article points out, he was on his way again to talk with the state, could have arrested him there for the crime of………………(sound of crickets.)

    The level of malice, corruption and evil levied against those patriotic few that day is obvious and clear cut. Where are all the honest judges, law enforcement, and district attorneys ? You know, the good apples in the batch ? Simple, they don’t exist.

    Having reviewed the updated video of the inside of the truck Lavoy was driving is a hard pill to swallow. The prayers of the innocent, non violent few as the state continued to attack. If this was not a Lexington Greene, i don’t know what the fuck is. The reason it was not, of course, is that this was the boogey man. These people were the bad people, the so called terrorist. (another fun side note, the origination of the word terrorist was used to describe the government against the people, not bands of people our individuals. Isn’t that funny how that flipped a 180 ? Just like most wrong truths we all seem to believe.)

    “Terrorism” comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reign of Terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terrere (e, terreo) meaning “to frighten”.The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BCE that the Jacobins cited as a precedent when imposing the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[6][7] After the Jacobins lost power, the word “terrorist” became a term of abuse.”

    It’s clear to me that the terrorist are the government, and the victims were minding their business on their way to have a peaceful chat. I guess the media is not helping advance our cause…EH ?

  5. cathy says:

    Did you notice that (on the audio recording) when slowed down You can hear 2 SHOTS fired at the point where Lavoy Just exists the truck,while he is standing between the truck cab & Passenger door?After those shots were fired (which I think accounts for the 1 bullet mark on the roof) the other a miss, then Lavoy sprints/charges forward his reaction to get out of the way of those shots. After that as he is yelling and pointing towards the truck (in raw footage video) referring possibly that they were trying to kill him, “you just going to shoot me”. Could one of those shot have hit him in the shoulder?

    • ghuntghunt says:

      There are many possibilities, though we don’t have anything sufficient to challenge what the government says.
      However. as I believe I have demonstrated, the government can twist (spin) what they want. If we look at other possibilities that are ot in conflict with the presented facts, then we can see that it probably didn’t happen JUST as the government says that it happened.

  6. […] Chronicles No. 11: What are the III%? Burns Chronicles No. 12: Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury Burns Chronicles No. 13: Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” Burns Chronicles No. 14: Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg? Burns Chronicles No. 15: So, […]

  7. […] XIII. Ambush, Part II – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” [3/14/16] […]

  8. […] XIII. Ambush, Part II – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” [3/14/16] […]

  9. […] Burns Chronicles No 13 – Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” […]


Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?

Burns Chronicles No 14
Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?

rooster and eggGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 20, 2016

Sorry about the play on words, however, in looking for a title for this article, it seemed appropriate to choose the rooster instead of the chicken, as the rooster has a specific role in the relationship.  The egg, however, is a birth, a creation of something new — that will continue to grow, eventually replacing both the rooster and the chicken, in the scheme of things.

Perhaps a few words from the Father of the Constitution might be appropriate:

[The government] can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.  This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together.  It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.  If it be asked, what is to restrain the [Government] from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the [Government], as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

James Madison, Federalist No. 57

Now, the original, and then only, charge against those in Oregon that participated in the opening of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to the public, was 18 US Code § 372.  This law was first enacted during the Civil War.  It was the 1st Session of the 37th Congress Lincoln had already called for 75,000 and suspended habeas corpus {page 1 of pdf}, before the law was enacted.

The law was first introduced on July 17, 1861 {2}, just over three months after the war had begun), and:

“provides that if five or more persons within any State or Territory shall conspire together to overthrow, Or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States; or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay, the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States, against the will, or contrary to the authority of the United States, or by force, or intimidation, or threat, to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office of trust, or place of confidence, under the United States, each and every person so offending shall be guilty of a high crime.”

The act was supported by Mr. Trumbull {7} when he provides a couple of examples in which this law, being far short of Treason, is to punish those who have committed specific acts against officers of the government.  In one example, he speaks of a case in Missouri where “a number of persons, by threats of violence and intimidation, prevented a postmaster from performing the duties of his office.”  He provides another, more general, example, of “route agents” were deterred from performing their duties.

In both instances, there was a “victim”, either the “postmaster” or a “route agent”, and there were specific acts that kept them from their duties.

Not that the original act (above) required the participation of “five or more persons”.  The current version only requires “two or more persons”.  There are other subtitle changes, and the current Statute reads:

18 U.S.C. § 372 : US Code – Section 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.

So, now, we know that the law had its roots in the beginning of what became the most devastating war in our history, and that it was directed at specific acts upon specific people.

Now that we have a better understanding of what was presumed to be “pursuant” to the Constitution, let’s look at the application of that law in the current matter.

The Defendants are accused of violating 18 USC § 372.  There are no specific victims, nor are there any specific acts on the part of the accused.  We have to look closely to see if any acts, by any one, that by “intimidation, or threat” caused any specific person, or kept them from “discharging any duties”, or, “to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed.”  And, finally, “to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties.”

Before we do look for specifics, either of person, or of acts, think back to what James Madison said when he suggested that if the Government could make laws that act upon us, but not them, that we would “be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty”.

I have reviewed a number of articles, videos, audios, and any other sources, including interviews, and can find no direct, or even indirect, statements, acts, actions, or any manner of suggestion, that those who chose to occupy public lands at the Malheur Refuge did that would have discouraged anyone from performing their duties.  The only possibility, and this requires a rather creative misrepresentation, is that they did claim that if attacked, they would defend themselves.  However, no specific act or person is named in those uttered words.

Now, let’s look at the Government, that should be bound by the same laws that we are bound by, or so sayeth James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.

In a January 11, 2016 article at http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/bundy_militialeader_plotted_o.html (the link is now dead, but was live this morning, before I called and asked the author for more information about the interview that lead to the story, but, fear not.  I did capture that article, since it is so significant.)  This article was also referred to in the “discovery provided to the Defendants in the Oregon case, as referenced on page 3 of Jon Ritzheimer’s “Reply to Government’s Response in Opposition to Pretrial Release.”

The article tells us that the management at the Refuge, three days before the occupiers moved on to the public lands, ordered the “officers”, and other employees, to not “return to the refuge until instructed.”

On Dec. 30 — three days before the Jan. 2 rally — federal employees were nearing the end of their work day at the wildlife refuge when management told them to go home early.

And for their safety, their boss said, they weren’t to return to the refuge until instructed.

“That was based on the culmination of our intel,” said Fish & Wildlife spokesman Holm, “and the start of the holiday weekend.”

Holm wouldn’t elaborate on details of the “intel.”

So, who intimidated or threatened the unspecified officers, or others, to not perform their duties?  And, would you expect any employee to risk his job by disobeying such an order?

Now, “intel” is a general, or in this case, ambiguous, word.  More than likely, a bunch of government paid coffee drinkers wanting to act a role of implied importance contrived it.  However, what we must consider is that, does someone thinking that something might happened, with no tangible proof of threats or intimidation, warrant bringing felony charges against those who made no such threats, disrupting their lives and placing them in jail, pending an opportunity to vindicate themselves?

But, let’s not stop here.  We can only surmise a conspiracy, though we do have an indication of just who the conspirators may be — the Refuge “management.”  So, perhaps since there appears to be a conspiracy, we should look to see if that conspiratorial group is actually more expansive than rather vague “management”.

Lo and behold (Look and See), we find that there is another conspirator.  And, it appears that he has made himself an antagonist on these whole matter by the position that he has taken from the beginning.  He has no justification to enforce federal laws, though he asserted himself, without bringing state or county violations, as the king of the hill, telling those at the Refuge that they are in violation of, well, some laws, though I can’t find where he had any valid assertion of such violation.

Well, that doesn’t make him a conspirator, but, well, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, did say, “We ask that people stay away from the Refuge for their own safety“, in a number of published reports.  This occurred within the first week of the occupation.  We also have Ward suggesting just who the individual might be that, well, just might bring reality to the allegations, when he warned, “it only takes one unstable person to show up” to threaten bloodshed.

So, he has joined in in casting his opinion that there is a threat, based on no actions of those inside, rather making those inside criminals, simply because he believes it to be so.

So, we have both federal employees and a County Sheriff making non-criminal acts out to be criminal, with no substance to support the charge of violation of 18 USC §372.  Further, we have a Sheriff that creates an antagonist, this nefarious “unstable person”, though he doesn’t even suggest which side of the fence this person might be on.

So, are we willing to “tolerate any thing but liberty“, or is it time to realize that the Despotic government has two sets of laws; one to punish us and the other to protect them.





  1. […] « Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg? […]

  2. […] the Grand Jury Burns Chronicles No. 13: Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” Burns Chronicles No. 14: Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg? Burns Chronicles No. 15: So, what is the […]

  3. […] Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg? […]

  4. […] and, there was no one present for them to impede. This was discussed in a previous article, “Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“. From all appearances, and absent any evidence to the contrary, their purpose in having […]


Burns Chronicles No 15 – So, what is the Law?

Burns Chronicles No 15
So, what is the Law?

Goofy scratching head

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 21, 2016

It is appropriate to start off with some Constitutional wisdom from the Father of the Constitution, before we proceed.

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself.  It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.  Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

James Madison, Federalist No 62

In the previous article, “Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“, we were focused on the original charge, violation of 18 US Code § 432, which was the charge in the original Indictment, dated February 3, 2016.  Though the government did the intimidation, the defendants are charged with that crime, there is nothing to demonstrate that the defendants intimidated or threatened anybody.

Just over a month later (I guess it took the United States Attorneys that long to try and find something a little more, well, tenable, to charge the defendants with), a Superseding Indictment was filed on March 8, 2016.  It is with Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment that we will be discussing, here, along with both logical and historical perspectives.

Before we proceed, you may want to refresh your memory, from another earlier article, in which it was apparent to Representative Greg Walden, in his Speech on the Floor of the House of Representatives (Published January 8, 2016 – 24 minutes), that if Congress makes a law, pursuant to the Constitution, it doesn’t mean that the Administrative Agencies are going to abide by that law, or, perhaps, interpret it contrary to its intent.

So, let’s look at Count 2, as it appears in the Indictment:

(Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities)
(18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)

On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER, RYAN PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, JASON PATRICK, DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON, DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, WESLEY KJAR, COREY LEQUIEU, JASON CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC LEE FLORES, and aided and abetted by each other and by others known and unknown to the grand jury, did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof, with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2. [Emphasis mine]

Now, you can see that there is a presumption of guilt by asserting that the firearms were used “with the intent that the firearm… be used in the commission of a crime.”  Not, also, that even absent a crime, the pertinent part of the Statute, 18 US Code § 930 (b), reads:

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

However, to get a proper perspective, assuming that the Grand Jury were given the entire statute and did not have to make a presumption of guilt, let’s look at a bit more of the statute:

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

(b) [above, (c) not applicable]

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

(1) & (2) [not applicable] or

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

Given “(a)”, simply possessing the weapon in the “Federal facility”, without a presumption of guilt or commission of a crime, we are directed to the exception in (d).  This provides that (a) shall not apply, if the carrying of a weapon is “in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

So, the United States Attorney did not want the Grand Jury to know that if the purpose was lawful, that there would be no probable cause, or indictable offense.  We might note that the last time this statute had any changes was on January 7, 2008.

Now, the Congress, you know the branch of government that holds “All Legislative Powers” in the Constitution (Art.  I, § 1), in reaffirming their limitations with regard to the Second Amendment, enacted a provision in 16 US Code § 1a-7b, on May 22, 2009, protecting the people’s right to keep and bear arms.  They had done so (as explained in the Statute) because:

(a) (6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009 –

(A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and

(B) the new regulations –

(i) are under review by the administration; and

(ii) may be altered.

(7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.

And, then by adding:

(b) Protecting the right of individuals to bear arms in units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if –

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

Now, Oregon, and specifically, Harney County, provide for open carry.  Unless state law had a specific exclusion, say a courthouse or church, then the possession of a firearm in a “Federal facility” would be legal, as per 16 US Code § 1.

Before we go to the next Count, it might be worth noting what the Framers, and their immediate successors understood about the limitation of federal jurisdiction.  There will be a subsequent article on “Public Lands”, however, at this time, we must broach that subject, with regard to the specific subject under discussion, authority on public lands, which is undisputed by the government.

Article I, section 8, clause 17, grants Congress the power “to exercise exclusive legislation” over lands ceded to the United States by the state in which the land lies. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition – Cede. To yield up; to assign; to grant; to surrender; to withdraw. Generally used to designate the transfer of territory from one government to another.]

An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes.  (March 3, 1825)

“That if any person or persons, within any fort, dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, armory, or magazine, the site whereof is ceded to, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or on a site of any lighthouse, or other needful building belonging to the United States, the site whereof is ceded to them [United States], and under their jurisdiction, as aforesaid, shall, willfully…”

Now, this law was enacted just 35 years after the first Congress sat under the Constitution.  What did they know that we do not know?  For them to punish you for crimes against property of the United States, the property had to be on land ceded to the United States, and jurisdiction also ceded to the United States.  That means the state had to relinquish both the land and the jurisdiction over the property.  Can there be any doubt that the Congress, in 1825, understood the limitations of their authority under the Constitution?

So, is one subject to 18 US Code § 930(b), or is there some protection afforded by 930 (a)?  And, is either of these consistent with 16 US Code § 1?  Well, yes, 930 (a) would not be inconsistent with 16 US Code § 1.

But, is there any federal jurisdiction, at all, if the early legislators in this country realized that absent the ceding from Oregon, the public lands are not really under federal jurisdiction, absent the ceding by the state, so, it all comes under local laws, as per the ultimate limitation imposed by 16 US Code § 1.

If Laws are Rules of Action, then we must know what they are.  When the United States Attorney appears to not know what the laws are, then, at least, the Grand Jury should be apprised of all of the possibilities, as the Grand Jury represents the people not the government.

One Comment

  1. […] Gary Hunt’s Articles: Burns Chronicles No. 1: Introduction Burns Chronicles No. 2: Ambush Burns Chronicles No. 3: Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Burns Chronicles No. 4: Stand Up; Stand Down Burns Chronicles No. 5: The Burns Community Burns Chronicles No. 6: Is There a Peaceful Solution? Burns Chronicles No. 7: What is Brandon Curtiss? Burns Chronicles No. 8: Active Patriots v. Passive Patriots Burns Chronicles No. 9: Civil Defiance or Submission? Burns Chronicles No. 10: Is There a Peaceful Solution? – Redux Burns Chronicles No. 11: What are the III%? Burns Chronicles No. 12: Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury Burns Chronicles No. 13: Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life” Burns Chronicles No. 14: Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg? Burns Chronicles No. 15: So, what is the Law? […]


Burns Chronicles No 16 – Ambush – Part 3 – As Told and Retold by Government Witnesses

Burns Chronicles No 16
Ambush – Part 3
As Told and Retold by Government Witnesses


Adam12-SwatGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 27, 2016

On February 18, 2016, the Tri-County Major Incident Team released a report prepared, primarily, by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office.  The publically available version consists of 360 pages, though the page numbering indicates that the entire report consists of at least 714 pages.  The officers involved are identified by assigned numbers, to protect their identity.  There are heavy redactions of experience of officers and substantial portions of their interviews.  References shown thus, {nn}, indicate PDF page numbers from the above linked document.

This article will point out discrepancies, disparities, and other portions that raise a question as to the objectivity of the published version of the report.  The document explains that when they do the interviews, they can use the names of the other officers or personnel, though those names will be replaced by numbers in the documentation.  So, when they speak of “Office #1”, we have no idea who he is, but the numbers remain constant for the various players, throughout.  There will be a distinction between “Officer #4” “DCSO 4”, the latter being on the investigation team, the former being an officer involved from Oregon State Police (OSP).  Italics will be used for direct quotes from the report.

The Cast – All Oregon State Police Officers and present at shooting scene:

Officer #1      Fired two rapid fire rounds into LaVoy’s back, first shooter; also fired three rounds at truck as it approached the roadblock

Officer #2      Fired one round into LaVoy’s back, was second shooter

Officer #3      Officer with taser, approaches LaVoy from tree line

Officer #4      Drove Gray truck

Officer #5      Non-lethal (40mm) single round

Officer #6      Driver of Root Beer Truck (Lead Vehicle)

Officer #7      Non-lethal (40mm) multi-launcher – 6 rounds

Officer #8      Second OSP in Root Beer Truck

Note: Interviews will be presented in the order that they appear in the Report.

Note that all vehicles, OSP and FBI, were unmarked. Dress was “civies” in Burns, change to tactical gear on deployment to US 395. Deployment was staggered to avoid scrutiny by militia. Radio communication was different between FBI and OSP, requiring mixed partnering in vehicles to share communications. There was apprehension that the militia in Burns would respond, if open communication were used.

Officer #2

The first report {3} is from DCSO #4, who visited the scene on January 27 (day after the shooting) at 0330 hours.  He found only one (1) .233 cartridge.  Later, on the 29th, he observed OSP Crime Lab personnel remove a shard of metal from the driver’s side mirror.  That is all he had to say.

Next, we have “DCSO 20” with a Narrative {6-8} of his investigation of Officer #2, one of the OSP shooters.  From the Narrative, we find that the FBI was in charge of the operation, with command being FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team).  That OSP was assigned to assist the FBI in the operation.  With regard to Officer #2, “A request for blood and urine from Officer #2 was made upon completion of the collection of property and we were informed that Officer #2 had been advised by counsel/representation not to provide a blood/urine sample.”

So, we have an officer that had shot LaVoy Finicum.  When asked to provide blood/urine samples, he refused based upon the advice of his “counsel”.  Now, that refusal could keep you from getting a job, get you fired from a job, lose your driver’s license, and be cause for denial of certain government services.  However, when you work for the agency that protects judges, you can expect the judges to protect those who protect them.  That is pretty darned serious, and there would be no reason to refuse, if there were no reason to refuse.

Next, we have two DCSO officers interviewing Officer #2, in a transcribed interview {9-53}, on January 31.  In all interviews, training, length of service, qualifications, and other information that might help to identify an officer, have been redacted.  The following is from that interview:

It is clear that they had background on the “occupiers” {14}.  The three primary vehicles (not counting the roadblock where the shooting occurred) were described.  “There was the root beer colored pickup truck, which is a large Dodge pickup truck, there was my gray truck, which is the same model and design as the root beer truck, and a [green] van.  Those three vehicles constituted the initial arrest team for the traffic stop.”

In describing Ryan Payne’s exit from LaVoy’s truck, we have the following {20}:

So eventually there is conversations between those HRT members and Payne, and he acts like — Payne acts like — he’s kind half out the truck.  He acts like he’s going to go back in.  He starts to kind of go back in, and OFFICER  NO. 5 fires a 40 millimeter less lethal sponge tip round which hits him in the arm, and then gives him more commands, starts to give commands: “You need to come out now.  Put your hands up,” you know, et cetera, which he did.

Officer #2 then talks about what happened after LaVoy had told them that he was going to see the Sheriff {23}.

So we, in pursuit of that vehicle, followed it until it started getting close to the roadblock and we backed off slightly, anticipating there might be an issue there.

As we came around the corner and saw the roadblock, I observed the white truck swerve to the left.  It didn’t appear to be slowing down at all.  I had time slow down and stop, and, in fact, the white truck appeared to accelerate rapidly away from us, and then maintain that speed throughout until it got to the roadblock.

Then, he explains his arrival at the shooting scene.  He pulls up a ways back from LaVoy’s truck.  He sees Officer #1 over by the roadblock trucks.  Officer #3 (the “non-lethal” officer) to the left and about 10 or 15 feet away from LaVoy {24-25}.

As I stepped up and was moving, I saw Mr. Finicum turn his back towards me and OFFICER  NO. 1, and then I saw his right arm again dig deeply in towards what I would term as maybe a shoulder holster or something As I stepped up and was moving, I saw Mr. Finicum turn his back towards me and OFFICER  NO. 1, and then I saw his right arm again dig deeply in towards what I would term as maybe a shoulder holster or something in that vicinity, and he seemed to struggle for just a second.

* * *

And just as soon as I pulled my rifle up and put the cross hair on Mr. Finicum, OFFICER  NO. 1 fired, and I distinctly heard him fire, and I knew it was him firing, for whatever, reason.

And as soon as he fired and my scope just came up and was right in the middle of the back of Mr. Finicum, and I squeezed off a single round.

So, this guy shoots LaVoy in the back, because Officer #1 shot LaVoy.  But, maybe the story isn’t clear enough, so they take a break {30}.  Now, let’s see what subtly changes in the story {31-32}, so that it is no longer, because Officer #1 shot, rather, he was going to shoot, anyway.  Can’t leave your buddy out to dry, alone.

I’d like to go back to the point where I’m getting out of my truck.  After Mr. Finicum exited the vehicle, and I had seen him stick his hand in his coat once as he was coming out of the vehicle, and as I was exiting my vehicle and moving to a position to cover Mr. Finicum and could see OFFICER  NO. 3, you know, 10, 15 feet to his left, and then OFFICER  NO. 1 to my right, I recognized that OFFICER  NO. 3 was in a very dangerous position, and he was exposed to the white truck as well as Mr. Finicum, and as I pulled my rifle up to cover Mr. Finicum, while this is going on, I’m seeing him turn and stick his hand into his coat again, as I previously stated to what I believed, to grab a pistol, and at that point I believe that if I didn’t engage Mr. Finicum, that OFFICER  NO. 3 was in a very close proximity and probably would have been shot, and that’s what was going through my mind, is that OFFICER  NO. 3 was in a very bad spot.

And I didn’t want to wait – all these things cross your mind.  I didn’t want to wait for him to bring out a firearm, because I knew that by the time that I was able to recognize that and deal with it, that he could have very likely have shot OFFICER  NO. 3.

So as I was bringing my rifle up, I had a scope on the rifle, which is a one by six power, and I had it on one power, so I had a wide field of view, and as I brought the scope up and put the cross hairs on Mr. Finicum’s back, while I’m seeing him struggle with something in his coat, I had made a decision at that point that I’m going to fire my rifle, and had gone through the process of taking it off safe and started — and had my finger going to the trigger and was starting to squeeze it when OFFICER NO. 1 had fired, and so I was already in the process of firing my rifle at that point, and was just a second behind OFFICER NO. 1 on that, or whatever it was.  I don’t know.

Later, he, again, clarifies why he shot {33}, when he says, “But I had made that determination and was in — going — had my finger on the trigger and was starting to squeeze the trigger when he [Officer #1] fired.”

Officer #1

So, let’s move on to Officer #1.  Again, we have a transcribed interview {65-112}, conducted on January 31.  Officer #1 was already at the roadblock.  As they receive word, via radio, that LaVoy’s truck had “run’, they begin preparing for its arrival {85}.

I remember to the right OFFICER NO 3 falling in the snow, and I could see clearly OFFICER  NO. 3 is making an aggressive move to try to get off of the roadway through the snow, and what I presumed would be to a safe area where there was some trees.

So, even though there is no immediate danger, we have Officer #3 “falling in the snow.”

As the truck approaches, we get Officer #1‘s description of the event:

As it rounded the corner, and I believe that there was no other option, it was going to run into the roadblock.  I fired multiple rounds from an AR-15 rifle that is assigned to me, and I was aiming towards the — what would be the driver area, and at the motor.

* * *

So I’m now on the left, and I watched the truck plow through that snow and push snow like you would push water if you ran a car into a lake, and I saw an officer in front of the truck, and I believed that the officer was ran over by the truck, and I felt that he was likely under that truck.

As the truck comes to a stop, I immediately move — I would say move quickly towards the truck, covering the truck, anticipating based off of those actions, such an aggressive action, I anticipated likely being shot at through those windows of that vehicle, and that’s based off of all the intelligence reports and the fact that they are armed and now they are committed to the point of running over an officer.

He has fired three shots, one hitting the left side of the truck, one into the engine compartment, and one into the right front of the hood.  Those in the truck have been fired on, for the second time — and, they haven’t even drawn a weapon.  Darn I wonder how that feels.  But, I would much rather wonder than find out, as it begins to appear that the OSP has blood on its mind — or, they honestly believe that a 0.223 can stop a truck, or, if they killed the driver, the truck would stop, instead of careening wildly around, possibly killing agents and those who remained alive inside of the truck..

He also believes that LaVoy had run over a fellow officer.  On the contrary, by the aerial footage, LaVoy swerved to the left to avoid hitting the officer, possibly saving the life of a fellow officer of the two that killed LaVoy.

Then, we have Officer #1‘s account of LaVoy exiting the truck {88}:

I see the driver exiting the truck, and I am now perceiving that as the greatest threat at that point.

* * *

I’m out in the open.  The footing isn’t great.  I’m walking on, you know, loose snow, but immediately as I’m in view of the driver, I am focused solely on the driver, and I’m covering him with my rifle.

Now, Officer #1 provides and excuse, or incentive, by referring to the comments made by LaVoy {89}, however, those comments have no indication of a threat, nor is there any indication that LaVoy intended to draw a weapon.

I remember the driver saying, “Just shoot me.  You are going to have to shoot me.”  There could have been other words intermixed there, but that’s what I recall.  He’s yelling in an angry-get-my-point-across loud voice, “Just shoot me.”  You are going to have to shoot me,” and he’s yelling at us.

Officer #1 continues:

He had been reaching.  He spins — reaching, I mean kind of reaching in his waist band/shirt area.  He spins, and this is all happening pretty fast.  He kind of spins away from me.  I remember viewing his back as I’m covering him.  I remember a distinct kind of a sweeping motion with one arm, and the other arm diving into what believe, based off of prior videos and intelligence, would be what.  I would call a shoulder rig, shoulder harnesses, and it was consistent with grabbing a firearm, which I knew could be drawn and fired with, you know, extremely fast, and the person that was exposed was OFFICER NO. 3, as he had turned slightly away from me and he was more facing OFFICER NO. 3, and had he drawn, OFFICER NO. 3 was in his path.

And I think at that point his attention was away from me as he now kind of was moving, what I perceived as back away from me, and his attention was back directed towards OFFICER  NO. 3.

I could see OFFICER  NO. 3 advancing, and I just knew that based off of what I was seeing, and the totality of all of the circumstances there, that I needed to take action to stop him from being a threat to OFFICER  NO. 3, and at that point I fired two rounds, what I thought was striking him in the center of his back, and the driver falls to his knees.

So, now, even though Officer #3, as we see in the aerial footage, doesn’t seem concerned, and continues to approach LaVoy, with taser poised to inflict the “non-lethal”.  Officer #1 is, clearly, setting the stage for his subsequent actions.  So, he stops LaVoy from being a “threat, by shooting him in the back, twice.

Now, based upon Officer #2‘s initial statement, he fired because Officer #1 fired.  So, we have Officer #3, who seemed to be nothing more than cautious.  We have Officer #2, extremely agitated, creating apprehension that is not shown by Officer #3.  And, we have Officer #1, who fires because Officer #2 has fired at the back of LaVoy Finicum.  Or, as my father used to say, “If you want an excuse, any excuse is good enough.”  And, if we can throw in a fear for the life of another trained officer, that doesn’t seem in fear of his life, well, we real have a justification, without justification — but that is always good enough for the police state employees.

So, we still have three people in LaVoy’s truck.  They were shot at during the first stop.  They were shot at as the approached the roadblock.  They were shot at the same time that LaVoy was being murdered.  And, now, Officer #1 tells us {91}:

So I, from there I transitioned background to the main element of officers that were behind the two vehicles in a wedge, and there was-discussion amongst officers that there is still clearly movement in the vehicle.  There is still occupants in the vehicle.

They are being now, diversions had started going off over the vehicle, multiple diversions to try to distract the people that were in the vehicle, and try to get them to comply with the verbal commands that I was hearing being yelled.

The “diversions” were “nine bangers”, explained later.  Unknown to the occupants, who have just seen their friend murdered, they were not firing lethal rounds.  The passengers, however, as is apparent in the Shawna Cox footage, are in fear for their lives — way so more than any of the battle-geared officers.  They are staying as low as they can possibly get, hoping to survive.  But, the officers outside seem to think that any normal person would respond to the verbal commands, while listen ting to the fusillade being directed at them, windows breaking, and CS gas being sent into the front seat area.  Who could possibly “comply”, under those circumstances?  But, here we have a demonstration of the arrogance of law enforcement, the disdain for the “them” in the “them or us” mentality, and the expectation of absolute and immediate obedience to their commands.

In their efforts to force compliance, Officer #1 tells us {92}:

There was discussion that more officers were coming down to that immediate scene, and that OFFICER  NO. 7 was going to be showing up any moment with a multi launcher, and I knew the multi-launcher would have orange tips, meaning that they would contain OCCS chemical agents in them, and that they were going to deploy those rounds into the truck, as minutes had lapsed and the occupants in the truck were not complying with the commands.  They were not exiting the truck within a reasonable amount of time whatsoever.  There was no reason they couldn’t have exited the truck and complied with the commands.

Gas was deployed into the truck.  There was still a period of time where they were not coming out There was discussion that we are not hearing coughing, and then it goes into the occupants ultimately exiting the truck and following commands.

Now, we need a break — perhaps we need to clarify some things {94}.  So, let’s revisit the shooting of the moving truck {101-102}.  But, let’s start with a leading question so that Officer #1 gets it right, this time.

Q.  And when you saw the white truck round the corner, I’m pretty sure you mentioned this, you saw it approaching your location. What was your perception of whether it was or was not yielding to the roadblock?

A.  It was clear to me, the speed the truck was traveling was I would say between 60 and 70 miles per hour, was traveling at a speed which I knew from my training and experience, it was — had no intention to stop. There was no visibility of the front end dropping like brakes were being applied. There was just no variation of speed, other than maintaining that high speed directly at us.

And when it became apparent to me based off my training and experience as a crash, you know, technician, and overall time as a police officer, I knew there was it had crossed the threshold of being able to stop prior to, and there was no indication that the driver was going to make any evasive maneuver or try to avoid hitting any of us, and with the locations of the officers, once I was put in the spot of trying to defend the officers and prevent that truck from running through that roadblock, that’s when I felt that the use of force was my only option to try to prevent them from running into us.

Now, let’s make sure that we can justify shooting someone because he had hit the FBI agent that had jumped in front of him {103}.  If he killed, or even injured, that agent, it would definitely establish a better framework for justification for murdering LaVoy.

I was in a position to see one FBI agent or officer.  I knew — I did know it was an FBI officer, because I knew OFFICER  NO. 3 had moved up into — or moving towards the timber as he fell and was struggling to kind of get that way, and I — so, yeah, I knew that that agent was in the path of that truck, and in the process of the truck plowing full speed around the FBI vehicles, it looked to me like he was hit by the truck, and I believed he was under it, and as I approached, I was looking for the agent to see what -I could do to cover him and provide any aid and identify where he was.

But, we need to revisit shooting LaVoy — have got to make it a stronger case {104-105}.

Q.  So with your experience, would you say that Finicum was complying with the commands?

A.  No. So let me elaborate on that.

Finicum was moving away from the vehicle.  Finicum was approaching me and looking at me.  Finicum had more than ample opportunity to turn around and comply with the commands.  Finicum actively reached in an area that I believed and had information that he was carrying a firearm.  He did this more than once, and the second time as he’s now avoiding back away from me, he is still not showing any signs of complying with our presence or our commands.

He reaches clearly like he is reaching into, you know, the left side of his torso, where a weapon would be kept, and I know that through my training and experience, that had he pulled that weapon out and fired, or, had he pulled it out, I could not have reacted to stopping that threat to myself or to OFFICER  NO. 3, and the decision to use force against Finicum was to prevent any injury to OFFICER  NO. 3 or, myself.

And I know that that motion to pull a gun out can happen faster than I can react to it, and I couldn’t wait for the gun to be pointed at OFFICER NO. 3 or myself, that additionally, I know that a gun can be fired through a jacket right between arm and his torso, which would have been in line with where OFFICER  NO. 3 was.

Q.  Okay. What was your perception of the distance between Finicum and OFFICER NO. 3?

A.  Roughly 15 feet.

Now, let’s take another break {109-110}, and then we can improve what the record will show.

There is a couple things I’d like to add and clarify.  At the point the vehicle’s approaching, we had the group that was there, had set out spike strips.  The spike strips were just in front of the vehicles, and I knew that that would have no effect on slowing down that pickup that was coming at us.  I knew that that would not change the velocity of that vehicle and the impact it was going to have on coming into our scene.

When I made the decision to fire at Finicum, and I’m covering, and I use that force, I believed that he was going to pull a gun and shoot OFFICER  NO. 3, and in that moment with everything I was observing, the actions and verbal statements, everything that I had learned and been briefed on, I truly believed that he was going to shoot OFFICER  NO. 3.

Q.  For clarification, also for you, too, right? For your safety as well?

A.  Yeah. I mean obviously he had seen where I was, He had engaged, made eye contact with me prior to that moment, and clearly I was exposed to him and whatever actions he was actively trying to take, and what would have continued to happen if I did not use deadly physical force at that moment.

So, now, he realizes that shooting at the truck would serve no purpose, but, heck, I just wanted to shoot somebody.  After all, I had to get up early and drive all of the way out here.

And, I was sure that he was going to shoot Officer #3, it’s just that Officer #3 didn’t realize he was going to get shot — if I didn’t shoot first.  Oh, can I use that, too?  Yes, I feared for my own safety, as well.

Officer #4

Next, we have the digitally recorded, then transcribed, interview of Officer #4 {143-185}.  The interview was conducted on January 29, 2016.

Now, we have been told that this was a felony arrest stop, the purpose being to arrest those individuals that were considered the leaders of the Malheur NWR occupation.  However, the absence of a warrant brings into question the justification of the stop, as explained in Ambush.  However, Officer #4appears to have been paying attention.  When the following occurred {149}:

DCSO 4: Ok.  So, who-who was in charge of the operation?  Who’s running the show?

OFFICER 4: So, basically, it, uh, it was FBI’s, uh, information, we were just basically there to kind of, uh, assist with helpin’ ’em, how it was planned and how, uh, we were gonna be, uh, conducting, and determine who the traffic stop on, uh, then take those people into custody.  An had info-basically knowledge that they had, um, an active, uh, arrest warrant for ’em.

DCSO 4: -Um-hum-

OFFICER 4: –not warrant, but uh, information that they could be detained.

So, he realizes that there was no arrest warrant, that they “could be detained”.  Darn, everybody else, even the FBI spokesman, has said that the stop was to arrest, not to detain.  But, this fits with the absence of a Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrants, until after LaVoy was murdered.

Here, Officer #4 {180-182} describes as he arrives at the shooting scene.  Of course, he also takes the Officer Safety routine, and even suggests that if could have gotten the safety off on his rifle, we would have shot, too.

He’s crossin’ over the centerline an takin’ like, wantin’ the the corners wide, uh then, obviously, I know the roadblock is up-up ahead of us, uh, cause they had that information that, um, there-he had now left and was going to be traveling towards them, um, the,.  I didn’t know the exact location of the roadblock, uh, but It was kinda set up around a cor-a little bit of a corner and then a straight stretch after that.  So, I was following behind still, um, tryin’ ta catch up him, come around the, uh, kinda of a corner and at that point I could see, uh, a brief period of brake lights on LaVoy’s pickup and then, uh, the brake lights go off an It appeared that the vehicle accelerated at that point and um, drove-it almost initially looked like it was gonna take and just plow directly into all the vehicles and instead it looked like it made a last second decision to kinda go, uh, left and barely missed the spike strips that were-that were put out… in front of all the vehicles, um, barely misses that, tries going around to the left to go through the deep snow an looked like he was tryin’ to drive basically around, uh, the roadblock set up there and, uh, truck become stuck in the snow, right after that, I can-I can see all-all this happen but I’m still, uh, a ways behind at this point.  Um, I see the spikes up ahead where it’s happenin’.  Soon as the vehicle comes to a stop, the driver’s door comes open and about that point I’m getting-I could see LaVoy comin’ out at the same time, I see movement kinda back up-as I’m watchin’ him, I could see movement back up and to the left of, um, LaVoy, that, and, uh, could see there was another OSP person back up that-uh, behind him near a tree.  And, so by this time, I stopped near the spike strips an get out an basically, uh, get my gun up through the, uh, between the door and the A pillar of the-of the truck, tryin’ ta come up on a sights, still see what’s goin’ on, I could see another OSP person moving to my left, kinda away from Finicum an Finicum seems to be more or less, uh, kinda travelin’ kinda at an angle toward that, uh, OSP person who was back up to the left, an-and initially when Finicum comes out, he’s got his hands raised in the air but by this time, ya know, I was outta the vehicle and I can actually hear what’s goin’ on and I can hear him just say ta fuckin’ shoot him, is what I recall um, so. eventually, uh, by the time I get my gun out and kinda up in that direction tryin’ ta-kinda quickly observe what’s goin’ or if people are gonna come out, uh, his hands come down lower and basically, um, looks like he kinda makes a-a real quick um, I’m not sure if he kinda stumbled an tried to catch himself or what, but, uh, I could see what I recall, at least two times, uh, clearly that he made an like initial grab over to, uh looked like, like he-he reachin’ for a gun.  Like I said, I know that he carries a, uh, a shoulder holstered pistol, um, on him.  So, makes a initial grab, almost kinda looks like he didn’t-didn’t quite get it inside of his coat at that point and then almost reached up with uh, his, uh, second hand and was actually was able to get ahold of his coat and what I recall, uh, hold his coat and actually almost kinda get it open and then you could see him clearly reach inside, ya know-that point, I was tryin’-the first initial grab, uh, that he-he made to go inside, I believe he was going for his gun .  uh, and the gun I was actually shooting has a little bit longer safety on it to get to, um, per our policy is, ya know, ya have to be, uh, ya know, basically on on safety until you’ve made that decision to shoot.  At that point, I made the decision to shoot and was reaching out to get my safety off, uh, an actually had to roll my hand around, it takes a little bit longer to actually get to it.  uh, get my safety off, comin’ back up onto, ya know, getting’ back into target and see him then, like-like I say, clearly reach in-inside and, I-I believed he was going for his gun at that point, and that’s when I heard, uh, a couple shots go off.  I don’t know exactly how many, but, I-I mean it was at least a couple.  um, so once the shots go off, I basically kinda gettin’ on my trigger at that point, and but it-by then you could see that he’d been hit and went down pretty quick.  So that’s when I decided not ta-not shoot, um, stayed there on him fer a little bit, I mean, obviously everything seems like it happens super super fast, but um, ya know, once I could tell he was-he was actually down, uh, so from that point, I saw um.  ya know the-the OSP guy that was up off to the left of Finicum, they were in very close proximity to each other and that was the other reason I basically made that decision to shoot just because-just the close proximity to, uh, the other OSP officer that was there, uh, I felt that basically he was in danger, uh, and,  so, after he went down, um, after a minute or so, nobody had else had came out of the-the vehicle, um, I know other people scrabblin’ around all over the place.

Simply for an understanding of the OSP opinion of FBI, I include some Q&A {164-165} from the interview — about the mysterious FBI agents:

DCSO 4: and how about the FBI guy that was in your rig?

OFFICER 4: From what I recall he went by, ya know what?  I might be thinkin’ of a different person.  From what I recall, his name is Officer 13.  I’m not 100%

DCSO 4: -maybe-maybe Officer 13?

OFFICER 4: Maybe Officer 13.

DCSO 4: Ok.  Alright since I’ve been on this I’m figurin’ out these guys are mysterious.

OFFICER 4: (chuckles), yeah.

Officer #7

Next to be interviewed is Officer #7 {186-212}.  The top of the forms has a date of January 26, and the bottom, February 18.  However, the date of the interview is not given, only that the interview was conducted “At approximately 2143 hours” {187}.

Officer #7 describes his arrival at the scene of the shooting.  LaVoy is already “down hard” {201-202}.

DCSO 4: Ok, so, when you got there to this gray vehicle, you recall, um, any gunshots or less lethal being fired or commands being given, anything like that?

OFFICER 7: I heard-I heard a lot of um, I didn’t hear any gunshots, um, there was multiple people, um, yelling commands at the truck, I can’t tell you who was yelling what though.

DCSO 4: Ok.

OFFICER 7: Uh.  And as far as, um, less lethal, I, I believe when I got there, the right front passenger window, um, was broken and I assumed by one of the other member’s 40mms.

DCSO 4: Ok so-so what happened next?

OFFICER 7: Uh, I recall seeing, uh, an Individual that I recognized as being Mr. Finicum, um, he was lying, um, in the snow, uh, generally to the rear of his vehicle uh I recall uh, Officer 6 arriving shortly thereafter and I recall Officer 6 asking one of the FBI agents uh, something to the effect of what’s the status, or something to that effect, referring ta Mr. Finicum, an I recall the FBI agent stating something to effect of he’s down hard, which we all-er I interpreted as he had been shot.

DCSO 4: Ok.  So what-what happened next?

OFFICER 7: Uh, there was, um, I-I was being told-I-an I don’t-I can’t recall by who, one of-I believe-one of the agents near me, um there was still people in the vehicle not coming out.

DCSO 4: Um-hum.

OFFICER 7: Um.  One of the agents.  I don’t recall the verbiage he used, but he asked me ta put, um, 40mm.  uh, less lethal rounds, um, into, the vehicle I uh, made eye contact with Officer 6, um, and, uh verbally-I don’t remember what words exactly I used or he used but I, um, got verbal confirmation from him that I was ok to do that.

DCSO 4: Ok.

OFFICER 7: Um, and I then, uh, targeted the the area where the dash meets the front windshield and I believe I fired six rounds into the dash slash windshield area through the broken right front window.

DCSO 4: Ok.  Is that the right front passenger window?

OFFICER 7: Correct.

DCSO 4: Ok.  Now is that-are all those 40mm?


DCSO 4: You remember what-what kind of less lethal-what kind of munition it is?

OFFICER 7: Yeah, those, um, were 40mm, um, they’re, uh, direct fire non-lethal rounds, these particular ones were filled, um, with, uh, OC powder.

DCSO 4: And what do those-look like?-Can you describe those rounds?

OFFICER 7: Uh, yeah, they-they have a-an aluminum casing, um, uh, there’s a kind of a black, it-um, the collar area an then these particular rounds the um the cartridge itself and the-the tip are all painted orange.

DCSO 4: Do-do you recall firing any of the-I guess the blue sponge rounds-impact rounds at all?

OFFICER 7: I-initially, I did not.

DCSO 4: Ok.

OFFICER 7: Uh I may have, um, fired blue-we call ’em blue tips, um, same cartridge but no OC powder, later.

DCSO 4: Ok.

OFFICER 7: But initially, I, I’m certain the first six were all the orange tips.

DCSO 4: Ok.  All the same spot, the dash windshield?

OFFICER 7: -correct

Here, again, we have a fusillade, and the government people can’t grasp why the people in the truck don’t just get out.  However, just to make it worse, shortly thereafter, he says, “There was-there was delay, uh, I believe-I had-I had reloaded, I didn’t, uh, ejected the empty casings from the multi launcher [A 40mm launcher that holds 6 rounds], um, I believe I put six more orange tips in, uh, there was a delay, uh, where no one had no one was coming out of the truck, um, I recall putting,  uh, firing more rounds into the same location, uh, the front dash slash wind-front window area but I don’t recall how many rounds I fired on that second um, deployment.”

Officer #5

Then we have the interview of Officer #5 {213-239}.  The interview was conducted on January 29, “At approximately 2242 hours” {214}.

Officer #5 describes his duties {219}, “So during the brief, I-I was told I would be driving the green van.  That was one of our, uh, vehicles that we brought for this operation.  I would be assigned to drive three FBI, uh, HRT members.  Two of them were gonna be main shooters with long guns and the third was their K-9 unit.”  So, the FBI HRT had “shooters“.  This kinda deviates from the OSP is going to do the stop and FBI do the arrests.

As Officer #5 exits his truck and begins to get a grasp on what is happening at the roadblock, just before LaVoy falls to the ground, he describes the provocation created by the FBI {226-227}.

An then as you work your way across the highway, there was, uh, one of our vehicles an then another FBI truck, if I recall correctly.  As-as we are finally pulling up, I hear one of the FBI agents say, “He’s shooting, He’s shooting!”  I look up an I see an individual out of the white truck with his hands kinda out to the sides, and one of our uh, I think it was Officer 3, one of our SWAT units-OSP was in-in the timber kinda coming out, so as I hear he’s shooting, he’s shooting, I look up and it looked to me like this individual was being challenged by Officer 3.  So, then I look back down, I have to stop the truck to let the FBI guys out, park, I say, “Go, go, go!”  I grab my 40 and as I’m stepping out, I see.  uh, at the vehicle-what’s called a nine banger-FBI said in the brief that they would have these-it’s basically a flashbang, uh, a noise sound diversionary device that has nine, like really bright little firecrackers-they said if something like this would occur, they would be throwing them, just to let us know, hey, man that’s not gonna be rapid succession of gun fire, that’s gonna be our nine bangers.  So I see them going off, and now I am closing distance to go up to our vehicles.  I remember there was-there was two FBI vehicles in the roadblock with ours in the middle.  I’m working my way out to that point, so I could start fortying if I needed to, uh, Finicum’s vehicle.  Doing, so, I see Finicum falling to the ground, so I’m thinking he’s complying with commands.  I get up to our vehicle with, uh, some FBI units and one of our, uh, SWAT units named Officer 1.  The FBI is, uh, asking for a 40mm to open the window because the-the passenger’s window in the front had been closed at this point.  It is not tinted.  The back passenger compartment window is tinted and-is also closed, so we cannot see In the truck.  So, they’re asking for authority to open those windows up.  So I step up, it’s loaded with an orange tip, which is an OC round, it’s a harder round, but will basically burst into an OC powder, when it hits, but we use ’em to break windows cuz they are a little bit harder initially.

So, an agent is yelling, “He’s shooting!  He’s shooting!”  This would get everyone in earshot on their toes, and really defensive — ready to shoot at the shooter.  To top it off, they are using “nine bangers”, to emulate rapid fire, possibly to force those in the truck to return fire.  Nothing provocative here.  Just move along.

Later {230}, he reaffirms that activity:

OFFICER 5: The-the loud noises I heard were the-what I interpreted as the nine bangs goin’ off.

DCSO 4: Ok, um-

OFFICER 5: –yeah, the only indication that somebody was shooting was the FBI agents saying he’s shooting, he’s shooting.  I didn’t know who.

It is difficult, given the above, to believe that the FBI HRT wasn’t trying to provoke a shootout.  The entire nature of the roadblock, had LaVoy not by-passed the initial intended stop, on the roadway, was to provide a perfect ambush kill zone.  Now, that would be speculative, without the testimony of Officer #5.  However, his testimony suggests the probability of that intention — kill them all.

Officer #6

In The Officer #6 transcription {242-274} we get a rather interesting comment {246} where he mentions State Police, FBI, and adds, “and there may have been other people Involved, but a lot of people were plain clothes and not displaying identification.”  As far as what their purpose was, he says {249}, “We were told that there was federal probable cause for arrest of the main players.

In discussing Shawna Cox’s exit from the vehicle, he describes her difficulty in negotiating the heavy snow {271}, we get this sequence:

(#3867): OK.  I just want to confirm that, Um, and then even even though they had to walk over, uh, presumably the same snow that LaVoy Finicum had just walked over, is that correct?  The same area of snow?

(#6): The same area, I don’t, I couldn’t attest to the depth of the snow,

(#3867): Right.

(#6): But she was having some difficulty navigating it.

When Officer #6 was asked if wanted to add anything, he made this comment {272}, somewhat surprised at not understanding that he had participated in the murder of an innocent man, with no constitutional authority or arrest warrant to do so:

The only thing that’s struck me as very odd, uh, as we were getting the scene organized and turned over for investigation, uh, the people who were detained were all standing with FBI agents, uh, who were part of the operation.  And as I walked to talk to one of the the FBI guys to coordinate some, uh, I forget what I was going to coordinate, but wanted to talk to them, the older lady, who had trouble navigating the snow, looked at me and asked me if I believe In the constitution.  Which struck me weird because a man was just killed.  Uh, in in my experience, my 15,16 years in law enforcement, when some, something like this happens, whether you know the person who was shot or injured, or you’re just a bystander, that’s what they want to talk about.  And so her question about whether I believed in the constitution or not, it almost, it irritated me.  You know, cause that’s what we want to talk about right now?  OK.  And then so, I started to walk away.  I remember Mr. Payne turning around and mean mugging me, trying to give me a dirty look like he’s a tough guy.  And I didn’t understand that.  Like it’s not the time for, you know, your attitude right now.

Unfortunately, many have taken the oath simply to get their jobs — with no real consideration to what they have taken an oath.  He just doesn’t seem to understand that he has only dealt with criminals, in the past.

Officer #8

Finally, we get to the Officer #8 {275-298} interview, and the last of the interviews in the report.

It appears that some believed that it was to “detain”, some believed that there were arrest warrants, and Officer #8, well:

(#3867): OK.  And what was the, uh, was their, uh, crimes that they had committed?  Or what was your understanding about, uh, the reason to arrest them?

(#8): Uh, we were told (cough) that there were federal indictments out on these individuals for, uh, it was some longwinded, uh, federal statute that I don’t exactly, I’m not going to, uh, I’d butcher it if I tried to repeat it.

With regard to walking in the snow, we have this testimony {285}:

(#3867): I saw, at the scene, when I was there, that there’s some snow where that truck and uh, and uh, stopping and it’s fairly deep in some areas.

(#8): Yes.

(#3867): Did did they have to walk over that snow to get to, uh, where they were taken in to custody?

(#8): Yeah, they did.

(#3867): OK.  Uh, they then, uh, they fall over?  Um.

(#8): They st, they looked like they stumbled.  Uh, you know, they tried to have their hands up and their hands dropped for for a little bit, but, uh, it was one of those things that you could certainly tell that that it was because of the terrain they were walking on and not because of, they were actually trying to grab a weapon.

(#3867): OK.

(#8): So, it was clear to me and that that even though they might have dropped their hands for a brief second, that it we really wasn’t, the intent wasn’t there.

So, again, walking in the snow, especially with hands held up, creates an observable “stumbling”, as LaVoy’s walking was described by some of the officers, is “reaching for a gun” a justification, after the fact, for shooting LaVoy?  Especially considering that one officer even testified that an agent said, “He’s shooting!  He’s shooting!”

After a break, we come back to clarify that “fear” in the officers.  Officer #8 tells us {294-295}:

Um, so um, our team had had a few, uh, briefings and an then talked about, uh, the situation and I know several times we were told, “Yeah, just be prepared, er, if this, this is developing” and then, “Expect to be called”.  Um, having bags packed in case you are called and prepared for cold weather.  Um, during, during, uh, these briefings, we were told that, uh, a little bit of the history-back in 2014, uh, with the stand-off of when he was in Nevada, when they actually, uh, confronted federal agents, pointed rifles at, uh, federal agents, uh, that they had counter-sniper positions, sometimes even two, one to two guns per agent on them.  So, and they were able intimidate those agents, uh, and made them retreat, uh, so, there was a sense of empowerment that they could do this and get away with it.  Um, received pictures, huhh, both on the news and the briefings of, uh, these key players, Ammon, uh, Finicum, Payne, uh, Ryan Bundy, all these guys.  Uh, they, we’ve been told that they known, they’ve been known to carry firearms.  I’ve seen, uh, pistols on hips ranging from, uh, semiautomatic to to revolvers, uh, shoulder holsters, uh, people carrying everything from a hunting rifle to shotguns to, uh, semiautomatic rifles.  We were told that they had people at the refuge with, uh, in the tower, uh, with possibly .50 caliber, um, rifles.  So we were told that these these folks were were were well armed, um, and that they may say this that they need, are willing to die for their cause, um, to fight, fight the government, uh, to get the land back, to get the Hammonds, uh, out of prison.

And, finally, from Officer 3866 {323}, we know that LaVoy’s body was removed at about 1:00 AM, on January 27 (the next morning).

As far as Crime Scene photos, either Officer 3866 was obsessed with LaVoy’s truck being difficult to remove from its location, frozen in the snow bank {325-356}, or we are simply denied any photos with substance.

Surely an interview was done with Officer #3.  He was the closest to LaVoy Finicum and best able to describe what happened during the shooting, especially his observation of whether he was scared and whether LaVoy was stumbling, or reaching for a gun,  Absent his interview, we must wonder why the government chose to keep it from us.


  1. Keith says:

    Hi Gary was just wondering if you have seen the second report that was released that has officer #3 statement in it, it is about 25 pages long. Would be good to read your take on it.

  2. […] « Burns Chronicles No 16 – Ambush – Part 3 – As Told and Retold by Government Witnes… […]


Burns Chronicles No 17 – “a speedy and public trial”

Burns Chronicles No 17
“a speedy and public trial”


Justice w noose

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 29, 2016

Is it for the government to interpret the Constitution, or is it for We, the People, to interpret that document, which, as is so clearly stated in the preamble, approved by us, through conventions of representatives in all thirteen then independent states under the Articles of Confederation?

There can be little doubt that Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial, must, in many instances, determine the intent of the Constitution.  The same was true under British rule.  However, when the government interpretation reaches the point of a gross deviation from intent, we cannot leave it to the government for that interpretation.  For, to do so allows the government to bypass the Amendment Process described in Article 5, and simply pass whatever laws they want.  When that happens, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and we are subjected to nothing less than a despotic government, failing to be government created by the Constitution, rather acting as an oligarchy, with no regard to the limitations imposed upon them by the Constitution.

So, in a larger sense, it must evolve to us, when the government so grossly misapplies those powers and authorities granted to it by the Constitution, to take, again, the reins of government, and to force those who claim to represent us back into their limited authority, by whatever means necessary.

The events in Harney County, Oregon, have brought a rather interesting light upon the actions of government.  So, we will begin by comparing some of their actions to historically recognized abuses, and then the remedies evolving out of those prior violations of our natural rights.

The Declaration of Independence has two complaints against the Royal government that we can easily recognize in our current government.  First is the immunity of government from the imposition of punishment for the violation of our rights, especially that of Life, itself.  In the list of “injuries and usurpations”, there are many abuses.  However, the two most directly related to the current discussion are:

[15] “For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states

As we have seen so often, and has been shown in the current events in Harney County, the determination of whether LaVoy Finicum was murdered, or his death was, simply, not a matter of consequence, the determination of the “Tri-County Major Incident Team” provides a report that simply explains the roles various officers played in what resulted in what the autopsy described as a homicide” (murder, in lay terms),  is left in the hands of the government. That blue line protects those on the other side of it, and the report of the team, simply a description and justification for, well, murder.  This excludes, completely the federal involvement where FBI agents provoked and participated in the shooting.  (See “As Told and Retold by Government Witnesses“)

This, most assuredly, constitutes, at best, a mock trial.  However, that becomes a stretch when there is even a failure to reach a verdict.

Next, we have:

[18] “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of a trial by jury

This is brought up now only as a matter of understanding the intentions of separation from British rule.  The discussion of just what a trial is will be the principle discussion, below.

Once separation from British rule was established, in the third iteration of a form of government, it was, as mentioned above, a Constitution, approved by the people.  The original Constitution contains two elements.  First, the Constitution itself, and second, a Bill of Rights, necessary “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” (Preamble to the Bill of Rights).

Within the Constitution, we have only one provision that addresses the current subject.  It is found in Article I, § 2, clause 3, to wit:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Now, this clause provides only that the trial “be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have committed“.

Clearly, the ambiguity of that provision was not what was intended by the People, as the Bill of Rights, in the Sixth Amendment, expounds upon and defines where such trial should be held.

In all criminal prosecutionsthe 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.

As far as the “speedy trial” provision, this has been codified in 18 U.S. Code § 3161.  The accused is to be tried within 70 days of arraignment or Indictment, as per 18 U.S. Code § 3161 (c) (1).  However there are exceptions, and the prosecution has sought an exception under 18 U.S. Code § 3161 (h) (7) (b) (ii), which provides an exception if the trial is “complex”, meaning many defendants, which the prosecution is claiming.  They have only had, in the case of most defendants, and nearly all of the charges, since January 2, to prepare to prosecute this case.  The Indictment was dated February 3, 2016, which would anticipate the trail to begin by April 13.  And, it appears that we might be right on course for the trial, though the interruption of an Indictment out of Nevada just may throw a stick in the spokes of the government’s wheel, for the six defendants accused in both Oregon and Nevada.

This, of course, is the result of the federal government in Nevada waiting nearly two years before seeking an Indictment, as if there were no crime until they chose to make one.  So, where in the Constitution is there a provision for the government to make a crime out of nothing, after those two years?  Surely, there is no more evidence of a crime than there was back in 2014.  So, We, the People, must judge whether this action in Nevada is a violation of the intent of that portion of the Sixth Amendment.

Now, let’s move on to the “public trial“, the “impartial jury“, the “State and District… as previously ascertained by law“, and, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him“.

Public Trial

Surprisingly, we only need look back a few decades to see what the application of “public”, with regard to a trial was.  Black and white movies, and some in color, depict the public nature of allegations of a crime.  The press had access to crime scenes, though the government now corrupts that aspect by closing the scene so as “not to taint evidence”.  On occasion, they may let photographers (non-governmental) to take pictures of certain scenes, where that public display will support only the government side of the story.  Free access, by those representatives of the people known as the press, provided the community with knowledge of the crime and as complete an understanding of the circumstances has could be had, until such time as witnesses testified on the stand.

Somehow, beginning in sixties, or thereabouts, the government began clamping down on public access to information regarding crimes.  They stopped allowing photograph coverage and access to crimes scenes, on a slow but continually more restrictive progression.

Then, we come to the witnesses.  Back then, the witnesses often spoke to what their observations were, though not to the extent that they would, later, under examination and cross-examination.  And, that would include witnesses for both the defense and the prosecution.  Now, those who have been accused, and witnesses on their behalf, are restricted by the Court, and by their attorneys, from discussing any matter regarding the alleged crime.

An example in the current matter is the prohibition imposed by “Conditions of Release”.  Though not having been found guilty, the punishment begins by either incarceration, perhaps even solitary confinement, or pre-trial release.  If one is fortunate to obtain the latter.

However, those that were released, I believe with the sole exception of Shawna Cox, have had rather severe restrictions put on them by order of the judge.  An example (comments prefaced with “[Note”):

IT IS ORDERED that the release of the defendant is subject to the following conditions:

(1) The defendant shall not commit any offense in violation of federal, state or local law while on release in this case.

(2) The defendant must cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if the collection is authorized by 42 U.S.C § 14135a.

(3) The defendant shall immediately advise the court through Pretrial Services or defense counsel in writing of any change in address and telephone number.

( 4) The defendant shall appear at all proceedings as required and shall surrender for service of any sentence imposed as directed.

Additional Conditions of Release

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant be released provided that the defendant:

Report as directed by the U.S. Pretrial Services Office.

Find and maintain gainful full-time employment, but significant travel for work must be approved in advance by Pretrial Services.

Do not change place of residence without the prior approval of U.S. Pretrial Services.

[Note: which applies, this or No. 3, above?  They aren’t even consistent in what they require — is it before, or after, a change in address?]

Travel is limited to [home state] and Oregon(for court purposes only) unless prior approval is obtained. from U.S. Pretrial Services.

The defendant shall not enter Harney County Oregon.

Do-not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled substances defined in 21 U .S.C. Section 802, unless prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner. This provision does not permit the use or possession of medical marijuana even with a physician’s written certification. The defendant is prohibited from using or possessing any synthetic intoxicating substance, including but not limited to “Spice”, “K-2” and other forms of synthetic marijuana.

[Note: this is not a drug crime.  Why does the government impose what is legal (medical marijuana) as a restriction?  Wouldn’t that be covered by No 1, above, if were illegal?]

The defendant shall submit to testing for a prohibited substance if required by the pretrial services office or supervising officer.

Testing may be used with random frequency and may include urine testing, the wearing of a sweat patch, a remote alcohol testing system, and/or any form of prohibited substance screening or testing. The defendant must not obstruct, attempt to obstruct, or tamper with the efficiency and accuracy of prohibited substance screening or testing.

[Note: This does not apply to the officers involved in the murder of LaVoy Finicum, since one of them refused a blood/urine sample, and, presumably still has his job.]

Participate in a mental health evaluation and counseling if and as directed by U.S. Pretrial Services. The defendant is also to take all medications as prescribed. The defendant shall participate in medication monitoring if directed by Pretrial Services.

Do not possess, nor control any firearm (or any weapon), ammunition or destructive device.

[Note: What Second Amendment?]

Avoid all contact and communication with the following named persons: Co-defendants, any individuals involved with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation or militia members.

[Note: the government’s witnesses can talk with each other, still work together, and have no such restrictions put on them.]

The defendant shall not make or publish any statements encouraging unlawful activity or about his criminal case.

[Note: the government has gone public with its case (trial by press), since the day after the murder of LaVoy Finicum.  A wee bit of double standard.]

The defendant is released on zero tolerance and any violations are to be immediately reported to the Court.

Do not use, possess, or consume alcohol.

[Note: damn, even wine or beer with dinner is no longer a freedom, that is otherwise legal, that can be enjoyed.]

The defendant shall be monitored by the form of location monitoring indicated below and shall abide by all technology requirements. The participant shall pay all or part of the costs of participation in the location monitoring program as directed by the court and/or the pretrial services officer.

[Note: Type of monitoring device would be indicated, and the cost of freedom prior to trial would include the ‘rental’ of said equipment.]

(XX) Home Detention. You are restricted to your residence at all times except for employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment, attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities as pre-approved by the pretrial services officer.

The defendant is placed in the custody of: [named responsible party] who agrees

a) to supervise the defendant in accordance with all conditions of release,

b) to use every effort to assure the appearance of the defendant at all scheduled court proceedings, and

c) to notify the court immediately in the event the defendant violates any conditions of release or disappears.

Travel for appointments must be approved in advance by Pretrial Services. ·

In the event the defendant violates the schedule of location monitoring, cannot be located, or violates any program rule of a residential treatment program or community corrections center, U.S. Pretrial Services is authorized to notify the United States Marshals Service or responsible law enforcement agency who is then commanded to arrest the defendant for the violation and bring him/her before a United States Magistrate Judge without unnecessary delay.

Advice of Penalties and Sanctions



A violation of any of the foregoing conditions of release may result in the immediate issuance of a warrant for your arrest, a revocation of release, an order of detention, forfeiture of bond, and a prosecution for contempt of court and could result in a term of imprisonment, a fine. or both.

The commission of any crime while on pre-trial release may result in an additional sentence to a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years, if the offense is a felony; or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, if the offense is a misdemeanor. This sentence shall be in addition to any other sentence.

Federal law makes it a crime punishable by up to ten years of imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine or both to intimidate or attempt to intimidate a witness, victim, juror, informant or officer of the court, or to obstruct a criminal investigation. It is also a crime punishable by up to ten years or imprisonment, a $250,000 fine or both, to tamper with a witness, victim or informant, or to retaliate against a witness, victim or informant, or to threaten or attempt to do so.

If after release, you knowingly fail to appear as required by the conditions of release, or to surrender for the service of sentence, you may be prosecuted for failing to appear or surrender and additional punishment may be imposed. If you are convicted of:

(1) an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of fifteen years or more, you shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for no more than ten years, or both;

(2) an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years or more, but less than fifteen years, you shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for no more than five years, or both;

(3) any other felony, you shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned no more than two years, or both;

( 4) a misdemeanor, you shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

A term of imprisonment imposed for failure to appear or surrender shall be in addition to the sentence for any other offense. In addition, a failure to appear may result in the forfeiture of any bond posted.

Now, the “Conditions of Release” raise another constitutional question, with regard to the Eight Amendment, which states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bail, n.  The surety or sureties who procure the release of a person under arrest, by becoming responsible for his appearance at the time sand place designated.  [Black’s 5th Edition]

So, once the “Conditions of Release” go beyond that required to assure appearance in court, as intended by the Framers, is it not Excessive?

Let’s go another step, when you have not been convicted of a crime, and you are bound by conditions that put your life, your daily routine, your health, and your ability to move freely around in society, under rigid restrictions, obedient to both the Court and the bureaucrat known as the “Pre-Trial Services” officer assigned to you, just how far above “involuntary servitude” are you?  Is that any less than “cruel and unusual punishment”?

Yes, I know, the Court will say that you agreed to it when you signed your name, but what choice had you?  The Framers surely did not anticipate the corruption of the Judicial branch, to the extent that we see imposed upon those accused, but not convicted, of a crime.

Impartial Jury & State and District

Though we have all heard the expression, “jury of your peers”, it is not specifically written in the Constitution.  The qualifier for the jury is, simply, “impartial”.

Impartial jury.  The provision of the Bill of Rights requiring that the accused shall have a fair trial by an impartial jury, means that the jury must not be partial, not favoring one party more than another, unprejudiced, disinterested, equitable, and just, and that the merits of the case shall not be prejudiced.  [Black’s 5th Edition]

However, in the Amendment, “impartial jury” is coupled with other criteria, that being, “of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.”

So, we shall return to the Constitution to see what was intended by the term “district”.  The first occurrence is found in the description of the intended national capital, “District (not exceeding ten Miles square).”  This is a relatively small district, not to exceed 100 square miles.

Though district isn’t mentioned, we have the first indication of where a trial should be held, “ The Trial of all Crimes… shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed” [Art, I, § 2, clause 3].  But, that was, obviously, too broad, since the Sixth Amendment narrowed it down, as stated above, to “the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”  Then, they allowed for a provision allowing that District to be “ascertained by law.”

Now, in Oregon, there are two types of “District” that have been “ascertained by law.”  First is the judicial district of Oregon, which encompasses the entire state.  Washington, the neighbor to the north, as two juridical districts, an Eastern, and Western judicial district.  However, neither of these seems to fit the wording of the Amendment.  So, we should look further and see if there are other districts, more along the line obviously intended, that were established by law.  This, of course, would be those established by the Legislative Branch, the Congressional Districts, which satisfy the criteria of size (smaller than a State) and representation, which is a logical conclusion, being a representative form of government, that the district intended have the commonality of location and representation.

Now, this wouldn’t necessarily require that the Court be located within the District, only that the “impartial jury” be comprised of jurors from that district.  And, this can be supported by the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, District of Oregon, Juror Management Plan“, adopted by the Court on February 2, 2015, which was also approved by the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

Now, I wouldn’t want to suggest that the government, in particular, the United States Department of Justice, doesn’t know what rules they are bound by, and that they would knowingly violate those rules, simply to assure that they could get an Indictment (in violation of the law) and a conviction (again, in violation of the law), simply to satisfy the desire to persecute (yes, that is correct) some people because they don’t like what those people did.

So, let you be the judge (pardon the expression, if you feel insulted) of just what the Plan says:

Section 1.04 Policy

It is the policy of the Court that all litigants in this Court, entitled to trial by jury, shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the Court convenes, and that all U.S. Citizens resident within the District shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. No U.S. Citizen shall be excluded from service as a grand or petit juror on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.

So, we have “a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the Court convenes.”  Perhaps poor grammar, however, in meeting with the constitutional criteria for “district”, and not leaving it solely within the “State”, we can find no other solution than to resort to the “division” level to satisfy the evident criteria that has been set forth by the Constitution.

So, just what are the divisions referenced in Section 1.04?  Well, they can be found in Section 1.07:

Section 1.07 Jury Management Divisions (See 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e) and Local Rule 3-2)

In order to facilitate juror management activities, the Clerk is directed to align Oregon’s counties into the following jury management divisions:

(a) Portland Jury Management Division: Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Hood River, Jefferson, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Wasco, Washington, and Yamhill.

(b) Pendleton Jury Management DivisionBaker, Crook, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, andWheeler.

(c) Eugene Jury Management Division: Benton, Coos, Deschutes, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, and Marion.

(d) Medford Jury Management Division: Curry, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, and Lake.

Shucks that was easy.  Even I could figure out that the only division in which the grand and/or petit jury could be selected from would be the “Pendleton Jury Management Division”.  I wonder why a United Sates Attorney could not figure it out — unless obsession takes priority over obligation under the Constitution; a true commitment to justice, rather than simply manipulation of the law to obtain a conviction.


One Comment

  1. […] Burns Chronicles No 17 – “a speedy and public trial” […]


Burns Chronicles No 18 – 1984

Burns Chronicles No 18



Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 4, 2016

Count 5 of the Superseding Indictment reads:

(Theft of Government Property)

(18 U.S.C. § 641)

On or about January 15, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants JON RITZHEIMER and RYAN BUNDY, willfully and knowingly, did steal, purloin, and convert to their use and the use of another cameras and related equipment, the value of which exceeded $1000, which is property of the United States government, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641.

The Statute cited is:

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

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

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

It is important to understand what the government has charged Jon Ritzheimer and Ryan Bundy with.  It may be clear from the Statute that the requisite for it to be a crime is “to convert it to his use or gain.”  So, to be sure that we are looking in the right direction, here are a few definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Steal.  The term is commonly used in indictments for larceny (“take, steal, and carry away”), and denotes the commission of theft, that is, the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, and without leave or consent of owner, and with the intent to keep or make use wrongfully.

Stolen.  Acquired or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act of taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership(or possession) permanently.

Theft.  A popular name for larceny.  The taking of property without owner’s consent.  The fraudulent taking of personal properly belonging to another, from his possession, for from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person talking it.

Larceny.  A rather lengthy description, with the significant element being “felonious intent“.

So the taking of the property must be for keeping, depriving the owner of the benefit of ownership, and must be felonious in intent.

Note that the Indictment, Count 5, says, “convert to their use and the use of another cameras and related equipment.”  However, that Statute simply says, so, was the equipment taken used for “their use, or the use of another“?  Unfortunately for the government, the answers is definitely, and demonstrably, not.

Now, we do have a record of what happened, with regard to the cameras and other equipment.  There are three videos that will answer all of our questions.  The First Video is a 12:20 video, January 15, showing the cameras and other equipment being removed from two locations.  And as you will see, if there is damage (not theft, as claimed), it is to the padlocks and, perhaps, to some wiring harnesses.

The boxes the cameras were housed in say “SCADA Circuit ID”.  SCADA is “Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition”.  Since they don’t appear to say, “Property of the US Government”, they are probably contract equipment, which is included in the Statute, but not in the Indictment.

At 4:45, LaVoy says that he will give the cameras to the FBI, at the gate, meaning the point where you leave Narrows-Princeton Road to drop down to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters.  Later, at 10:05, Jon Ritzheimer shows some of the other “equipment” that was removed, and repeats that they can come and get it, meaning the FBI, as mentioned by Lavoy.

The Second Video (1:22) is a press conference held on January 16.  LaVoy says that some Harney County residents informed them of the surveillance cameras, and that they did not want them there — they wanted them taken down.  He then extends an invitation to the FBI to come to the Monday (January 18) press conference, and that the FBI can pick up the cameras and equipment at that time.

The Third Video (4:30) is a continuation of the press conference of January 16.  At the beginning, LaVoy explains to press that the citizens of Harney County came to them with concerns over surveillance.  They wanted the cameras removed.  At the 2:30 mark, a reporter walks away with a camera.  LaVoy retrieves the camera so that it can be returned to the FBI.

Are these the acts of thieves, or simply the acts of people who are concerned about the government’s very expensive obsession with spying on the people, as George Orwell described in his novel, “1984”?

The cameras were not converted to their use, rather, they went from a public road, where they could have been stolen by others, and stored on what the government claims to be government property.  The offer was publicly extended to the FBI to pick up the cameras.  That is not the act of a thief.

Unlike the government, that has returned some personal property, destroyed hundreds of pounds of food, and still retains much of the private property that was left at the Refuge, and which they are converting to their own use by searching anything with an electronic memory storage for any information (pictures, videos, documents, audios, without warrants) that might be of use to them.

So, once again, We, the People, have to decide what acts are criminal, by either intent or actions, or leave it to the government — whose sole objective is to suppress dissent.



One Comment

  1. Paul Niblocksays:

    Indeed, it seems that the government will leave no stone unturned and no potential charge unpressed. The irony of the government being the arbitrator of justice while claiming victimhood hearkens back to a time of vigilantism. They should tread carefully, as there are many who are following closely every action they undertake. Gratuitous abuse of the ‘legal’ system they control will only foment further distrust and anger, rather than any intimidation. I do not hold much hope for any justice to come from them.


Burns Chronicles No 19 – Property?



Burns Chronicles No 20 – Who Owns Your Video? Who Owns Your Voice?

Burns Chronicles No 20
Who Owns Your Video? Who Owns Your Voice?

LaVoy from Shawna Cox video

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 28, 2016

In light of the many complaints filed against the Arnold Law Firm, attorneys for Ammon Bundy, over their method of raising funds to pay for a legal defense against a government back by hundreds of attorneys and millions of dollars, perhaps there is another side to this story that needs to be looked at.

Shawna Cox had the wherewithal to begin recording the events, from the first stop to the murder of LaVoy Finicum.  In so doing, she recorded a moment of history that cannot be duplicated.

We all know that if you are in a position to have exclusive footage of an event of such magnitude, there is some value, to some news agencies, for exclusive use of such footage.  How often have you seen “Exclusive to XYZ News”, or something similar?  Well, it would not be “exclusive” if it were freely put out in the public domain, for the use of all.

I contacted a number of news agencies (in each instance, I agreed not to disclose the name of those willing to aid me in an effort to determine what value that particular footage might have.  It was predicated on the footage being exclusive and that its availability would have been shortly after the event, while it was still front-page news.

The results were that some would not have paid, as per their policy, for any such footage, to an estimate of that value being perhaps as much as $300,000.00.  Interestingly, the higher numbers came from the established, checkout stand, publications.  Those that rely on strange births, flying saucers, and other such attractions, intended to generate spontaneous purchases.  But, that does not change the color of the money that such footage might bring to the owner of the intellectual property.

Shawna Cox is currently being represented by a court appointed federal public defender.  This is not to suggest that she is not being well represented.  On the contrary, her attorney has gotten her released, had the conditions of release modified to give Shawna more freedom to conduct her family business and care for her family.  Included in the reduction of constraints, there was also an increase on the restrictions of what she could say and whom she could communicate with.  Her attorney, with help from others, managed to get the Court to remove some of those restrictions, primarily because those restrictions made it difficult for her to work in preparing for her own defense.  Shawna is the only defendant that has been released under a relaxed set of restrictions, as explain below.

Now, suppose she had in her possession that footage, shortly after she was released from jail.  Suppose, also, that she chose to take advantage of her foresight in taking the footage by selling exclusive rights to it, which would be her right to do, so as to provide funds to assure a greater defensive effort than what is currently available to her under the meagerly funded federal public defender program.  Would she then be able to mount a better defense against the leviathan known as the United States Department of Justice?

However, at this point, that ability to assure a far better funded defense is now moot.  The government chose to steal her property, make it public, and totally destroy any value she might have obtained from the sale of her own property.  In fact, they still retain both the camera and footage, and as such, well, denied her a degree of justice in a very expensive legal process that had been created by that same leviathan.

Now, if the government wants to argue that it is evidence, then they should have held it for trial.  Instead, they put it out, and by so doing, influenced the public by putting their narrative on what it means, leaving that image with the potential jurors.  Had it been presented with clear explanation that LaVoy, like many people, wary of law enforcement, would have presented it.  If you are concerned for your safety, you have a right to call for another officer to be present before you roll your window down, or exit your car.  LaVoy clearly stated that he wanted to go see the Sheriff in Grant County (Glenn Palmer), and that the FBI/OSP are welcome to follow him to where he would feel safe, especially with all of the guns pointed at him and the others, including women, in the car.  Instead, they create the narrative, “Shoot me”, as a request, rather than the fact that our rights must be worth something, perhaps even our lives, if we wish to retain them.

I’m sure that the Justice Department is fully supportive of the claims being filed against Arnold Law, since that effort, if successful, will strip Ammon Bundy of the means of increasing his ability to defend both himself and the others named in the Indictment.  After all, if you have a weak case, you want to restrict the other party of as much of their ability to counter your accusations as you possibly can.

Another consideration:  Those who remain in jail have no restrictions on their ability to speak out, though most often, their attorney will tell them not to.  However, those who have been released are coerced, yes, coerced, into giving up their right to speak, as is indicated on their respective release document.  The specific wording, on most of the Release Orders, reads:

  • Avoid all contact and communication with the following named persons: Co-defendants, any individuals involved with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation or militia members. ‘
  • The defendant shall not make or publish any statements encouraging unlawful activity or about his criminal case.

Do you think that such restriction is placed on the FBI, BLM, or the other players on the government side?  Clearly, they are not.  For instance, Sheriff David Ward has come out in an interview with his take on the events that occurred in Burns and at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, in a speech, demonizes all patriots by explaining that the threat exists that other parks or facilities will be taken over.  However, she offers no proof of such intentions; she simply demeans the entire conservative patriots in one broad swipe of the brush.

Probably the worst abuse of truth is demonstrated in an article, based upon Fish and Wildlife Services, alleging the extent of damage caused by the occupation.  A review of the claims (pictures) is presented, briefly, at Malheur Damage Explanation

However, those who are presumed to be innocent are denied, either by limited communication privileges in jail, or restrictive Conditions of Release, from getting a truthful version of the contested facts out to the public.

And, those who profess their own innocence, the Department of Justice, scheme to deny justice to those in jail.


  1. Another good article Mr. Hunt. In my opinion the government shouldn’t have released any of the video tapes or they should have released ALL of the video’s unedited at the same time. I am sorry but if you black out certain information that is an edited version and there have been several “experts” that feel the first aerial tape they released has some “issues”. You would think that there would be numerous law firms and attorney’s willing to represent all of these defendants pro bono. It is a shame that most court appointed attorney’s fail to provide adequate representation. It is also a shame that there are still some being held in custody. I am not sure if Ms. Shawna Cox would have tried to get money for her video. She didn’t ask for money when she told her story that I am aware of. The truth is more important to her and the other Patriots. Now that should have been her decision not the governments and hopefully she will bring that up in a civil lawsuit. The government has clearly overstepped their bounds in so many ways in this case and many other cases. Restrictive conditions placed on the released individuals are over the top, like telling a husband and wife they can’t see each other or communicate with each other. This whole thing could have and should have been handled by the county sheriff, but we have found out that he is part of the problem.

  2. SWIFT says:

    The Bundys, more than anyone, should have known how corrupt and abusive the DOJ is. They are, were and always will be, more criminal than those they seek to persecute. It seems incredible to me that they don’t see a day of reckoning coming. When these individuals die, they will meet a judge, who is not in their back pocket, cannot be bribed or intimidated. All the lies, perjuries, bearing false witness, manufactured evidence, fabricated testimony and prosecutorial misconduct, will be demonstrated right in their faces. Woe and woe to them on that day. They must all be satanists, not to see whats coming to them. I’ll never understand stooping that low, just for a paycheck. With each passing day, the penalty they will pay, can only grow.

  3. Paul Niblock says:

    The propaganda machine went into over-over drive immediately and has not relented. It is an overwhelming and, frankly, frightening Goliath that appears impossible to contend with. It is also why those of us with awareness of the truth and the maligning of reality have tried so hard to inform the willfully ignorant great unwashed masses. I feel useless in the scope of it all. I trudge on, arguing blatant lies with documented and sourced facts only to find my comments deleted the next day in forums that are obviously moderated with bias. Your site has been a particularly useful resource that I again thank you for, Gary. Excellent information and articulation of the thoughts in so many of our heads.

  4. dennis ditmars says:

    Gary Hunt ; The same Govt Release of Ryan Bundy’s smartphone video applies. His smartphone video helps establish the FACTS as they happened to the Oregon Patriots who were on their way to an OPEN COMMUNITY Meeting in John Day, Oregon.

    • ghuntghunt says:

      I can talk with Shawna. I can’t talk with Ryan Bundy. I don’t write about something unless I have access to that person, or witnesses.
      However, I do agree with you, except Ryan’s video had far less to offer.

  5. […] XX. Who Owns Your Video? Who Owns Your Voice? [4/28/16] […]

Burns Chronicles Archived (1-10)

Burns Chronicles No 1 – Introduction

Burns Chronicles No 1


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2016

This is the first of a series of articles about the events surrounding the investiture of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration buildings by a group headed by Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven and Carol Bundy. The Bundys are well known for the events in Nevada that played out in April 2014. In that incident, the Bundys, along with hundreds of other patriotic Americans, went beyond “civil disobedience” and entered the realm of “civil defiance”, defying, with arms, the intrusion of the Bureau of Land Management into the long time operation of the cattle part of the Bundy ranch operation – denying rights that had existed for years and denying them their pursuit of the family business.

Though this writer only spent five days in Burns, he was able to meet many of the key players on the side of the patriots, some townspeople from Burns, and some of those who gathered, on one side or the other, to observe, or attempt to affect, the ongoing activities.

As the world knows, the events neared completion when the motorcade, on a peaceful mission to a community meeting in John Day, Grant County, Oregon, met the undue wrath of the federal government, and local and state law enforcement, resulting in the death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum and the arrest on rather interesting charges of 11 participants of the activities at the refuge.

In an effort to be as factual as possible, many witnesses still have to be interviewed to ensure that what will be written is as factual as possible. Due to the rampant, and most often unsubstantiated, rumors in social media, those stories that will follow should finally put to rest many of those false claims.

Every effort will be made to corroborate the factual aspects of these stories, which will result in each story only “going to press” after exhaustive research and interviews have been completed.

Due to the nature of the interdependence of some activities, conjecture may be used to bridge gaps. This is deemed necessary as the government, at all levels, is notorious for misrepresentations, omissions, concealing evidence under the guise of “ongoing investigation”, or simply to cover their misdeeds. Absent available facts, though circumstantial evidence tends to support conclusions of that interdependence, such conjecture will be appropriately indicated.

If subsequent evidence becomes available, the original article will have an addendum, at the online site, rather than revision of the original story.


  1. Sick..govment…and if they will do that to them …they will do it to u…3

  2. […] Hunt’s Articles: Burns Chronicles No. 1: Introduction Burns Chronicles No. 2: Ambush Burns Chronicles No. 3: Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Burns […]

  3. […] The following is a mirroring of Gary Hunt’s series about the 2014 Bundy standoff in Nevada. Hyperlinks to the original articles will be provided at the beginning of each section. For the currently unfolding saga about the Bundys in Oregon, feel free to read the “Burns Chronicles.” […]

  4. The State of Oregon, and the US Government, in a joint operation, shot my friend and colleague, LaVoy Finicum, in the back.

    The Shawna Cox video, available on YouTube put together by the Oregonian, clearly shows rifle bullet holes coming into Finicum pickup, BEFORE he got out of the truck. It also shows him getting out of his pickup with his hands up as the side window is getting shot out right next to him.

    Both the FBI assassination squad and the Oregon State Troopers shot him in the back.

    Ryan Bundy, who was inside Finicum’s pickup still has a bullet lodged in his shoulder!

    NO WONDER our Governments want gun control. And, fight Constitutional carry, like hell. It is a lot safer for the Bluecoats, and FEDcoats to “do their jobs”, like any good Nazi. And, “Stop the Virus (of the TENTH Amendment) from spreading into the next County.” – Governor Kate Brown

    Are you going to surrender? Are you going to retreat?

    – Capt. Karl

  5. Michael Loecher says:

    Please seriously consider sharing all or most of what you have shared here as well as what you have not shared already. Once & if they order you to delete & turn over others can continue to share. Let our oppressive government try to order us all form sharing!!! Keep yourselve safe fellow patriot!!!

    • ghuntghunt says:

      Nothing gets shared (published) until I have completed writing it an satisfied the the accuracy of it. All of that is readily available on my web pages. This goes all the way back to 1993.
      As explained, the information I received is only to be excerpted from, as I have done. I will not provide that information to anyone, being consistent with my agreement when I received it.
      The content that the government objects to is all contained in the Burns Chronicles, mostly in the informant articles.

  6. RWright says:

    Gary, thanks for writing the Burns Chronicles! I watched Pete Santilli live streams but your articles have given me more details!

    • RWright says:

      Do you have a Twitter account?

      • ghuntghuntsays:

        No, I could write anything in 140 characters.



        1. Kellie Pollard says:

          Do you think they probably knew which area was the blackout area for cell phone service on the route to the next county?

          Also, everyone has said that Finnicum had left his guns at the refuge. I guess they were mistaken.

          • ghuntghunt says:

            I would guess that there is just about no reception through most of the Forest.
            I have heard many things. I don’t believe things from most sources, only those that I trust.

          • Iva says:

            Lavoy’s guns were left at the refuge. Everyone there said so and several saw them. I would believe them before I would believe anything anyone else said. Plus it was very aparrent from the video that LaVoy was tazed and I believe he didn’t die right away. The video also shows the goons kicking him and shooting him again as he lay on the ground.

            • ghuntghunt says:

              Everyone at the Refuge said he left all of his guns at the Refuge? I was at the Refuge, after the shooting, and one person said he thought they were left there. Others told me he almost always carried his 9mm in a shoulder holster. His 45 revolver was probably on the seat, between the seat and the console.
              I was a photogramitrist in the Army. That is the study of aerial photographs. And, with that experience, I cannot support any of these fancy theories.However, I can rely on Shawna Cox, who just happened to be there. She saw none of what everybody else has managed to see.
              So, its my story, and I am sticking to it.

        2. Grandpa says:

          I’ve been through there. Cellular comms are spotty to non-existing. And please, Gary, stop using ‘investiture’…

          • ghuntghunt says:

            Webster;s 1828 Dictionary:
            INVEST’ITURE, n. The action of giving possession, or livery of seizin.
            The grant of land or a feud was perfected by the ceremony of corporal investiture, or open delivery of possession.

            The Act of those working along with Ammon Bundy was t deliver possession of the lanf back to the Public (and away from the federal government).
            And, please, Grandpa, don’t g into battle unarmed.

        3. Jester says:


          To assist your endeavor, if you haven’t already listened to the lengthy and detailed interview of Victoria by both a radio show host and a lawyer conducted just yesterday, I suggest you do. There is alot of new information that comes to light.

          The questiones directed to Victoria begin at 35:20

          Select highlights were compiled into a single comment posted on a webforum. Each marked by time. Link below.


        4. Longbow says:

          Quote: “Certainly, not what we should expect from our government.”

          What fantasy world are YOU living in?

        5. EJF says:

          Based on Levoy’s Videos, he has been harassed by the “BLM Criminal Element” simply because he opposed the unconstitutional acts of our Federal Government and protested. He was absolutely not a terrorist.
          There is no justification for the “Presumed FBI & State Police” murder of Levoy because he was peacefully protesting the unlawful taking of land, not destroying property.
          The “Black Criminal Element” has rioted numerous times destroying property of others, stealing property and even shooting at police. Why were none of these people killed???
          There should be a huge public outcry for this assassination, demand to know who fired the shots and bring them before a Grand Jury to decide their fate.

        6. […] on January 28, two days after the murder of LaVoy Finicum. Due to the arrests made during the Ambush, I no longer had access to people and information that were necessary to what I intended to write. […]

        7. […] of the events that led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum was presented in a previous article, “Ambush“.  However, as a result of a press conference given in Bend, Oregon, on March 8, 2016, we […]

        8. […] Hunt’s Articles: Burns Chronicles No. 1: Introduction Burns Chronicles No. 2: Ambush Burns Chronicles No. 3: Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Burns Chronicles No. 4: Stand Up; Stand Down […]

        9. S. Michels says:

          Don’t you find it odd that Robert Lavoy Finicum is in small type on the description of offenses, and the rest of them are listed in CAPITAL LETTERS????

          • ghuntghunt says:

            No, I don’t. It is proof that the Criminal Complaint and the Arrest Warrants were prepared after they murdered LaVoy.
            I thank them for that foolish mistake. They murdered a man of whom they had no apparent authority to arrest, in what they call a “felony arrest stop”.

        10. […] the absence of a warrant brings into question the justification of the stop, as explained in Ambush.  However, Officer #4 appears to have been paying attention.  When the following occurred […]

        11. […] the absence of a warrant brings into question the justification of the stop, as explained in Ambush.  However, Officer #4 appears to have been paying attention.  When the following occurred […]

        12. […] the absence of a warrant brings into question the justification of the stop, as explained in Ambush. However, Officer #4 appears to have been paying attention. When the following occurred […]

        13. […] though in both states, only the government has demonstrated a propensity for violence (See Burns Chronicles No 2 – Ambush and The Bundy Affair – #11 – “Violence Begets Non-Violence”). Perhaps it is […]

        14. […] his version of what happened that afternoon.  Much of what he told me was contained in “Ambush“.  […]

        15. […] provided his version of what happened that afternoon.  Much of what he told me was contained in “Ambush“.  […]


        Burns Chronicles No 3 – Operation Mutual Defense (OMD)

        Burns Chronicles No 3
        Operation Mutual Defense (OMD)

        OMD Logo LH

        Gary Hunt
        Outpost of Freedom
        February 6, 2016

        An understanding of just what Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) is, as the MSM has often referred to OMD in their articles, but have failed to explain its nature, is now in order. It is best compared with the Committees of Correspondence, first established in the 1760s, to communicate between colonial communities, and to request assistance, when warranted. As the events began unfolding in Harney County, a few months before, the Advisory Board consisted of five members, with positions available for another two seats. The Advisory Board structure was intended to ensure that, unlike many patriot appearing organizations, the leadership is not vested in one person. Instead, a matter before the Board would be discussed, with various ideas, suggestions, concerns, and other considerations, and then the majority would determine the viability of a proposed operation.

        Any proposal for a call to action was first reviewed and a “brief” prepared, based upon available information and contact with the individual(s) who were under consideration for a call to action to afford them protection of Life, Liberty, or Property, if threatened, unjustly, by a government agency.

        If the Board determined that a situation warranted a call to action, then word would be sent to supporters/volunteers. There are no members of OMD, except the Advisory Board and a second tier of volunteers who assist in the various “functional disciplines“.

        Operation Mutual Defense evolved from its predecessor, Operation Mutual Aid, which set out the initial call up for the Bundy Ranch Affair, back in April 2014. That evolution resulted in the structure of the Board, as described above.

        If an action is initiated by the Advisory Board, a callout would be made via the Operation Mutual Defense webpage, the Operation Mutual Defense Facebookpage, and through the OMD Mail List where supporters/volunteers would receive notification of any call to, action, or other pertinent information regarding OMD activities.

        Since there are no “members” of Operation Mutual Defense, there is no “command structure”, hence any participation is strictly voluntary. OMD is only the messenger, though the process described provides an understanding of the circumstances surrounding any event, and expectation as to what to expect when volunteers arrive, a point of contact, and an “Organizational Plan for Militia Response” that explains how command will be developed, sets up protocols for operations, and other information regarding details as to expected responsibilities of those participating.

        Unlike any other organization, where an individual, or a small group, dictates control over participants, OMD provides a structure not unlike those used by Militia in both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, a “shared command” (historically referred to as “Council of War”), assurance that bad decisions would be minimized, as all decisions are made by elected “officers”.


        1. Amerium says:

          Awesome get Washington working like this. Let the wise rise

        2. Dennis Stewart says:

          Need to learn from this, so we need to get the info out to the other units what went right, or wrong.

        3. […] Hunt’s Articles: Burns Chronicles No. 1: Introduction Burns Chronicles No. 2: Ambush Burns Chronicles No. 3: Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Burns Chronicles No. 4: Stand Up; Stand Down Burns Chronicles No. 5: The Burns Community Burns […]

        4. […] III. Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) [2/6/16] […]

        5. […] Burns Chronicles No 3 – Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) […]

        6. […] the surprise takeover of the refuge. Payne is an Army veteran from Montana who was a leader with Operation Mutual Defense (OMD), formerly known as Operation Mutual Aid (OMA) before that organization split into two. The […]

        7. […] the surprise takeover of the refuge. Payne is an Army veteran from Montana who was a leader withOperation Mutual Defense (OMD), formerly known as Operation Mutual Aid (OMA) before that organization split into two. The […]

        8. […] October 11, 2015, the initial Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Advisory Board (AB) held their first meeting. Each meeting had an agenda and the AB members agreed […]

        9. […] October 11, 2015, the initial Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Advisory Board (AB) held their first meeting. Each meeting had an agenda and the AB members agreed […]

        10. […] October 11, 2015, the initial Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Advisory Board (AB) held their first meeting. Each meeting had an agenda and the AB members agreed […]


          Burns Chronicles No 4 – Stand Up; StandDown

          Burns Chronicles No 4
          Stand Up; Stand Down

          LaVoy and Ammon

          Gary Hunt
          Outpost of Freedom
          February 7, 2016

          On the morning of January 26, 2016, I traveled to the Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), formerly known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, from Burns. I had arranged to get the necessary information for some articles I intended to write.

          When lunchtime came, I went to the mess hall. The Sharp Family had just begun with one of their songs, and I saw Ammon Bundy sitting with others at a corner table. I walked up and asked if I could sit at that table, and Ammon, graciously said, “Yes, please sit down.”

          I had spoken with Ammon a number of times, in the months prior, though we had never met. As I introduced myself, I realized that he had been looking forward to our meeting, as I had.

          We discussed the stories I intended to write, and he was fully supportive of the story lines, especially the one that would be about the people of Burns and their reactions to certain events, both in and out of town.

          Before I left, the Sharps began another song. I had heard audio tapes of their singing during the Bundy Affair, but they didn’t compare to the live performance I heard that day.

          After lunch, I located Ryan Payne. We had spent over a week together in November finishing a PowerPoint Presentation for Committees of Safety (CoS). This presentation had been used to explain the concept of CoS to some of the residents of Harney County. They then formed their own Harney County Committee of Safety.

          I gave Ryan an inscribed copy of a biography of Robert E. Lee, which now still sits where he placed it. I had also forgotten to bring long johns, and needed some bottoms. Ryan went to the storeroom and retrieved a pair, explaining that they were from the delivery made through III Percent Patriots, just a few weeks before.

          Both Ammon and Ryan had expressed their interest in the upcoming meeting at John Day, Grant County, and another meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer. Little did we know, then, what was soon to come.

          I returned to my room in Burns and began writing. About an hour later, I received a phone call that reported that there had been a shooting and that LaVoy Finicum and Ryan (later to learn it was Ryan Bundy, not Ryan Payne) had been shot. About 15 minutes later, after some confirmation of the shooting, I headed back down to the HCRC. Realizing that most of the leadership at the HCRC was traveling to Grant County, and recognizing that it was imperative that some additional forces might be necessary to retain the public lands open to the public, I picked up my role of Public Relations for OMD. We had previously discussed and approved a call out to bolster the efforts at the HCRC. We felt there was time to prepare a call out, but suddenly, that call out became imperative.

          I contacted my team (not a part of OMD, rather some wonderful, unpaid, people that assist me in research, audio/video editing, and other mundane tasks) and began dictating a call out, as I drove the thirty-three miles to the HCRC. Though not properly proofread, it was prepared and the remaining requirement was to get affirmation from those at the HCRC — that they wanted their forces supplemented.

          Upon my arrival, I found a number of team leaders and other higher-level members discussing the shooting, the determination to hold their ground, and a refusal to accept orders from outside. It seems that a lot of people calling the individuals tried to talk them into abandoning their mission. I asked if they wanted a call out, and to a man, they said, “Yes”. So, I instructed my team to spread that dictated call out around the Internet. It was sent out at 7:56 PM PST, January 26, 2016:

          From Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom in Burns, Oregon.
          Attention all Oathkeepers, Idaho Three Percenters, Pacific Patriots Network, especially Brandon Curtis, Joe Rice, Eric Parker, and Stewart Rhodes.

          This is a call-out to the membership of Operational Mutual Defense (OMD) and friends.

          You have an obligation to proceed to the Harney County Resource Center (the wildlife refuge), immediately, in order to protect the patriots still there. If you fail to arrive, you will demonstrate by your own actions that your previous statements to defend life, liberty, and property were false.

          To members of Operation Mutual Defense, this is an emergency. The purpose of Operation Mutual Defense is to respond to overbearing actions by the federal government that has become threatening to life, liberty, or property. Lavoy Finicum has been murdered by the FBI, and Ryan Payne [Bundy] has been shot.

          They were en route to a meeting where had been invited by the Grant County sheriff to address the citizens in Grant County, a peaceful mission.

          The time for all good men to come to the aid of their country has come — to the Harvey County Resource Center, which is 30 miles south of Burns, Oregon.

          Stand by your oath. God Bless America.

          You will note that it was directed at certain organizations present in Burns since January 2, or earlier. Though we didn’t know what the government’s next step would be, time was of the essence. There were a number of members of those organizations just 30 miles away, and they were absolutely necessary if the HCRC was to be held. They were present in order to discourage a “Waco type” raid, according to all of their public statements.

          In my haste to get to the HCRC, I had failed to take my computer. I had mail lists that went to upwards of 800 people, and getting the call out to them was imperative. The “hot spot” at the refuge was no longer active, but efforts were being made to get it reestablished, so I opted to return to Burns to get my computer. When I returned to HCRC, I learned that women and children, as well as many of the men, especially from those organizations, had left. However, there was hope that they would soon be replaced by some of those who had been staying in town.

          I had stopped at the bridge on Sodhouse Lane (the road to the HCRC) where a front-end loader had been placed on the bridge to prohibit traffic. Jason Patrick was there, as was a wonderful “young” lady named Barbara Berg. I found that the hotspot had not been restored, so I decided to wait in the press area (west of the bridge) and assist Jason in coordinating interviews with the various press. This task ended up going until about 7:45 the morning of the 27th.

          Shortly before, a press crew had come in and said that a roadblock had been set up on SR 205, the direct route to Burns and the last of the available roads out from the area. They had been told that once you go out, you could not return.

          At about 7:45, a lady from ABC called the press together and explained that she had received a call from the FBI. They had told her that there were “armed forces” on each side of us, and that the FBI could not provide for anyone’s safety, unless they left the area.

          About that time, a friend called and said that she had been told that I would be assassinated when I left. I knew that the government did not like my writing, but I shrugged off the warning. However, that message remained in my mind and created a bit of apprehension.

          I had intended to go to the Narrows (restaurant, store, and campground) about six miles west and cover what I could from there. Instead, I decided that I might be better off returning to Burns, though I was still a bit anxious about the message. I determined to place discretion ahead of valor, and return to Burns.

          I asked one of the press members who I had spoken with, before, if I could leave with him so that there was someone present if the rumor were true. He said that he could not ethically do so, but informed me that he would be leaving shortly.

          Most of the press proceeded to the Narrows, where he and I also went. When he was ready to leave, I pulled out behind him. At the stop sign, he remained conspicuously longer than necessary, so I pulled around him as he nodded at me.

          As I approached the checkpoint, I saw that the woman in front of me had gotten out of her car, held up her hands, and walked toward the motioning agent. I was behind her about 50 feet, where the first stop was implemented. I removed my bulky jacket, not wanting to appear to have any place in which to hide weapons.

          Finally, her car was driven forward by an agent, and I was motioned to the next stop. I arrived with head and hands out the window, except to the extent that I had to steer the truck. I then exited, walked across the road, then forward, hands raised, to the awaiting agent. I was patted down, asked my name, did I have weapons, and showed identification. He asked if I was press, I told him yes, he asked for my press credentials, I told him they were on the dashboard of my truck. Another agent verified that they were there.

          Then, on to what was referred to as “Clearance #1”, where I was again questioned. By then, I was shivering; perhaps both from cold and apprehension, and the agent asked if I wanted a coat out of the truck. I affirmed, and as the agent drove my truck by, I was able to retrieve both coat and hat.

          My truck, again, left me, and I was escorted up to “Clearance #2”, where I stood and talked with the agent. He was from the mid-west, and I asked him where he was staying. He said he had just arrived and immediately went on duty.

          Finally, he received a report that I had passed clearance at #2, and I was allowed to go to my truck and drive up to “Clearance #3”.

          At #3, I found that the agent was from “up north”, and had not stayed in Burns. So, it appears that they were deployed from their home bases directly to duty. This would explain why there were so few battle dressed agents staying in Burns or at the airport.

          While waiting for my final clearance, the reporter behind me was passed through, drove around me and up the road. About 600 feet up, he stopped, and both he and his partner got out and took pictures, showing that I was still alive at Clearance #3, and the last of the checkpoints.

          However, his passing me was a cause for apprehension. This was heightened when the next vehicle behind him was cleared and drove by me. I had been at #3 for almost twenty minutes, when I was finally cleared when he repeated what had been transmitted through his radio, “White hat is cleared”, and allowed to continue on toward Burns. A total of fifty minutes, filled with rising anxiety, and finally relief.

          I had agreed to an interview with a reporter, in exchange for lunch, but first, I had to attend a press conference at eleven o’clock. After the press conference, we did the interview, and I returned to my room and a mountain of phone calls. After returning the calls, I was finally able to, after 34 hours, lie down and get some sleep.

          When I awoke, I found that nobody had shown up at the HCRC to bolster the force, and even worse, that more had left. Concerned that many might be driving toward Burns, and not sure how long the few remaining there (down from the 8 or 9 that had been there at last report), I realized that circumstances, as they were, could not be improved by additional people arriving, with no place to report to, and the final door being shut. That 12-hour window when people could easily enter the area was closed. So a stand down was in order. I sent out the following at 9:21 PM PST January 27, 2016.

          From Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom
          In Burns, Oregon

          Based on existing circumstance, support is too late, and would be dangerous, or at least result in your arrest if you attempted to get into the Refuge.

          As I left the Refuge, this morning, troops were still arriving, according to those I talked with were arriving from various points as far east as Iowa, and further north. They appeared to have been staged at their home bases until they deployed directly to their field assignments. My estimate of perimeter troop strength would be 200-300, and one of these that I spoke with explained that he was “external perimeter”; they had even developed a protective perimeter concept, so that there were two lines that had to be overcome to gain entry.

          At this point any effort to provide support for those inside by joining them would serve no useful purpose, and would be a fool’s errand.

          OMD is currently working with others to establish a foundation upon which to build, so that the work begun in freeing public lands can be completed.


          1. tommytunes says:

            We Need Veterans calling out Veterans who are supporting this Vile Current Ruling Classes of EVIL occupation of USA citizens resources and their rights to benefit from these resources and be the Industry that Processes these resources as well as Anyone that supports this current ruling classes efforts to divide Citizens away from their Constitutional rights , rights to be a self supportive society is a disgrace to the USA !!!!!!!
            WHY we must ask is the reason for all this Dividing of Citizens away from their rights to be a self supplied society ??? We have seen this over the last 30 years with Trade POLICY after trade Policy , REGULATION after Regulation all that has ONLY DIVIDED THE CITIZENS AWAY FROM THEIR RIGHTS TO BE A SELF SUPPLYING SOCIETY , WHY WHY WHY ????? WHERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL Leave the Blood Money being Paid by this EVIL WRATH of Sadistic Thuggery , so that these who are Commanding such Wrath against the Citizens of the USA dividing them from their rights to be self supportive , WHO and How many will walk away leaving these vile creatures helpless on their Mission of SKULDUGGERY ??????????????????????????????

            • Amerium says:

              Whow. Americans contemplating waring with ANTI CHRIST Americans. Calling for a civil war. What a tragedy. What I see is the government being weopens ready. Having unlimited cobra and apache helicopters 5 on sight. And opposition with no matching fire power. A receipt for a slaughter aka Waco x3000. JESUS how we need you and the angels now.

          2. […] evening before, I had written a call out (explained in Stand Up; Stand Down). In that call out, I had recognized the necessity of an immediate response, and that response […]

          3. […] Introduction Burns Chronicles No. 2: Ambush Burns Chronicles No. 3: Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Burns Chronicles No. 4: Stand Up; Stand Down Burns Chronicles No. 5: The Burns Community Burns Chronicles No. 6: Is There a Peaceful Solution? […]

          4. […] his field reporting on January 26th, Gary Hunt met with Ryan Payne in Harney County, Oregon, and described the […]

          5. […] estimate of when people outside could have known what had happened came out to 10:00 PM. Heck, I knew by 7:00 PM, and as I recall, it was one of my team members that had called me (in Burns) from another state to […]

        Burns Chronicles No 5 – The Burns Community

        Burns Chronicles No 5
        The Burns Community

        gunfight FBI PPN

        Gary Hunt
        Outpost of Freedom
        February 8, 2016

        I arrived in Burns, Oregon on Sunday evening, January 24. After checking into the Silver Spur Motel, I drove down to the Refuge. At the gate (a truck blocking the roadway into the building complex), I was questioned. I mentioned both Ryan Payne and Ammon Bundy, as they both knew that I was coming up to write some articles about subjects peripheral to the story that was currently hitting the news, social media, and anywhere a listener or reader could be found. Unlike Waco, where fax networking was the patriots’ media, this modern age has made information access a whole new world. I was more interested in the back stories than what was readily available.

        After a few radio calls, I was escorted down to the Admin building, then directed to MOB (Militia Operational Base), where I found Ryan. I was welcomed, warmly, and assured that access would be less difficult, in the future. It was mid-evening, so I returned to Burns and got a good night’s sleep.

        I had picked up an ATT phone on the way up, but was unable to “initiate” it, so the next morning, having learned that only Verizon service is available at the newly named Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), I went to the local Verizon store and purchased a phone and a month’s worth of unlimited calls.

        While waiting for nearly an hour to get my phone, another man that was waiting for service went outside to have a cigarette. I joined him and asked if I could interview him regarding what was happening in Burns. He agreed, so I got my recording out of the truck, and began my first, and only recorded, interview. His name is Chuck, and he had lived in and around Burns for over forty years. He drives a truck for a living.

        When asked what he thought about what was going on down at the Refuge, he said, “I think those guys are on the right track.”

        What about what is going on here in Burns? “I stopped at the airport yesterday and got treated like I was flying the ISIS flag, when I drove up there.”

        Same thing when I went to the Courthouse. All I wanted to do was talk to a state cop. I had a horse missing. I had guys pointing guns at me; FBI agents pointing guns at me. I said, ‘Guys, I’m not packing’. They wouldn’t back off. You probably won’t print this, but they are a bunch of assholes. They need to back off from treating us locals like we’re gonna shoot them… I don’t want to be treated like an outlaw just because I live in this town.”

        I asked him about the influx of Oregon State Police and the Sheriff’s deputies from other counties. He said, “They need to go home. I don’t want to be paying these federal agents and all these extra County Sheriffs and all of the State Police, when those guys out there are on the right track. All they need to do is go out and talk to them. We just don’t need them.”

        I asked him if he believed that the federal government ever gave in, once they had made up their mind. He answered, “I don’t think so. If the jerk-off in the White House would just release the Hammonds, like he has done with all of the drug dealers and all the other federal prisoners — just sign a pardon. All they did is light a fire to protect their ranch. Just sign a pardon and let them go. This would all settle down.”

        What about the aspect that those at the Refuge want the land to go back to the people? “I think that is where it ought to be. Not only in the Refuge, but in the Forest Service, and the BLM. I go out here and try to ride my 4-wheeler, I can’t. Cause every time I jump my 4-wheeler out of the back… Here’s the BLM cop telling me he’s gonna write me a ticket; because I’m going to ride me 4-wheeler on public land.”

        You’ve seen the signs that say, ‘Enjoy Your Public Lands’, haven’t you? “No, no, not in this county. I’ve seen them. They’re bullshit. You wanna camp, you have to camp in one of their campgrounds that you gotta pay them to camp in. Then, they come and harass you. You can’t go to the woods anymore, cause they burned all the timber off, so now they got it all blocked off so they can do their experiments, or whatever the hell they are doing up there.”

        Did they burn some timberland here, in Harney County? “Oh, hell yea. They let the first get away, and then they come in and build backfires twenty miles away from the fire that was going. And, the two fires never, ever, got together. Thousands of acres have been destroyed by the Forest Service. One time, they brought in firefighters out of Georgia and they went out and built backfires along the roads, twenty miles from the original fire. They didn’t even fight the fire. And, they burned all of the timber off. I think they burned the timber off because they don’t want any logging. It’s not job security for these loggers to go out and log it. If they log it, we don’t have wild fires. We used to log this country and keep that timber thinned out and moved back, and the brush was kept down. Them loggers would replant, but they never clear cut. They go out and selective cut after the Forest Service marked the trees they wanted out. And, they would go out and they would cut them, drag ’em out, knock the brush down. We didn’t have fires. Now, we don’t have loggers, but we got fires everywhere; All the time.”

        He continued, “There was a big fire out here towards John Day. It burned all of that country off, cause it hadn’t been burned in fifty years. The Forest Service just won’t sell the timber. If they won’t sell the timber, the loggers can’t have it. What’s the Forest Service got to do with selling timber? They don’t own those trees. It belongs to us. They won’t sell the timber. The timber revenue used to pay for our schools. There is no timber sold, anymore. There ain’t no logging goes on here. The mill is shut down, it’s gone.”

        What do you know about ranching and cattle?

        “I know a little bit about it. Most of the ranchers around here, they deal with them, because they have to.

        I’ve lived here my whole life. I like to take my 4-wheeler out and ride. And, I can’t, anymore. That’s what’s got me siding with the guys at the Refuge. The Forest Service and the BLM are the gardeners that we hired to take care of our garden. They are not the law enforcement, they don’t own it. And, they need to quit telling me what to do on our property. They should just go out there and tend to our trees, go out there and tend to our water holes, make sure that grass is growing, and shut the hell up.

        “It’s really not just my 4-wheeler, it’s that they think they own it. Many years ago, the first Forest Service cop I saw, she was in the county parade. She’s riding a horse and all Ramboed up; guns, tazers, all the Rambo BS, and she’s setting on a horse, and I asked her, what the hell does the Forest Service have that’s worth shooting somebody over. And, she says, ‘Well, I have to protect myself.’ So, I said, ‘Well, if you weren’t an asshole when you walked up to someone in the woods, you wouldn’t need protection. You wouldn’t need a gun to protect yourself. If you walked up to someone who was cutting a tree down, to burn in their house, and you weren’t a jerk about it, you wouldn’t need protection, you wouldn’t need a gun.

        “It’s like these jerks up here. You know, treating me like I’m an outlaw walking up to the Courthouse. That’s my Courthouse up there. I paid for that Courthouse and the Sheriff’s Office. I can’t even go to the Sheriff’s Office. Can’t get anywheres close to it. I pay that guy’s wages. I pay for his building, I pay for his heat, we pay for all of that. But, we can’t go up there, because that idiot FBI agent has got it all surrounded. They challenge me with automatic weapons. They’ve got it surrounded up there. You can go to the Courthouse, but you got to get through FBI agents to get into the Courthouse. The Sheriff’s Office is right behind it, but you can’t go to the Sheriff’s Office. That’s my Sheriff, and I had a horse out. I went to the Sheriff’s Office to see if see if I could just get somebody on patrol to just watch out for it. State cops, and the Sheriff’s deputies. I wanted to talk with the State Police, but I had to have the cop come outside of the barricades to talk to me because I couldn’t go inside of the barricades to talk to him. A cop that I’m paying for. It’s horseshit, it is all horseshit!”

        What about Judge Grasty? “He needs to be in the Sheriff’s jail. I don’t know him all that well. I know who he is.”

        I did interview others, though more informally. At restaurants, standing in line at the Safeway, and a couple of them just stopping someone on the street.

        The interview with Chuck is consistent with most of what I heard. There were some common aspects, as everybody I interviewed had no problem with what was happening 30 miles away, whether they agreed with what they were doing, or not. Thirty miles distance had no effect on the Burns community, except a little additional business, such as more outsiders in the motel and at the local diners.

        Their concerns, apprehension, and “fear”, as expressed by Sheriff Ward, had nothing to do with those at the Refuge. There was concern over the FBI and multitude of Sheriff’s deputies from other counties coming into their community, setting up barricades, and otherwise the presence of so many law enforcement people in town. However, the greater concern seemed to be the number of people walking around their otherwise peaceful community, armed. These would be those who professed to keep things peaceful, and avoid another “Waco” at the Refuge, while arrogantly walking the streets, almost like the gunfighters of the past, though holstering automatic pistols instead of Six-guns.

        Though both sides blamed the peaceful occupants of the Refuge, they chose to impose upon the community rather than direct their efforts at what they claimed to be the problem, or those to be protected.

        When I asked if they had been to the Refuge, most answered that they already had, or that they intended to go down and meet the people that were standing up for their rights.




        1. Christopher Cilley says:

          When I read this I think there is a misrepresentation and certainly a shortsighted view of what the people expressed as you reported…
          “However, the greater concern seemed to be the number of people walking around their otherwise peaceful community, armed. These would be those who professed to keep things peaceful, and avoid another “Waco” at the Refuge, while arrogantly walking the streets, almost like the gunfighters of the past, though holstering automatic pistols instead of Six-guns.”
          I am more of the mind that those from other areas (not police or Feds) who were there armed did indeed help keep the situation from becoming another Waco or Ruby Ridge. If the ‘law enforcement’ had been the only ones, in all their numbers, who were carrying the arms, it could have been very easily turned into another Waco. I have little doubt that the presence of armed citizens gave the ones in charge a chance to think twice about initiating any killing at the refuge or in town, what happened out on the highway with LaVoy.
          Perhaps the townsfolk didn’t realize that at the time but I’m sure after the FBI/SP murdered LaVoy in an isolated area, that if given the chance, they could have very easily done the same at the refuge and elsewhere!! They already had that mindset! The citizens did indeed insured that things remained as peaceable as possible!!

        2. […] Today, however, they are comprised of people who want to take charge; they want to control the situation; they may even want to help save the lives of Active Patriots by convincing them to submit to arrest. And, they will tell others that they were simply trying to avoid any bloodshed — even after blood had been shed. Let’s refer to them as false patriots. (See The Burns Community) […]

        3. […] Burns Chronicles No. 3: Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Burns Chronicles No. 4: Stand Up; Stand Down Burns Chronicles No. 5: The Burns Community Burns Chronicles No. 6: Is There a Peaceful Solution? Burns Chronicles No. 7: What is Brandon […]

        4. […] Today, however, they are comprised of people who want to take charge; they want to control the situation; they may even want to help save the lives of Active Patriots by convincing them to submit to arrest. And, they will tell others that they were simply trying to avoid any bloodshed — even after blood had been shed. Let’s refer to them as false patriots. (See The Burns Community) […]