Independence Day 2016

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, in the year of our Lord, 2016, and of Our Independence, 241

"But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America."

Thus wrote John Adams, to his wife Abigail, on July 3, 1776. The Independence from Britain had been approved the day before he wrote to Abigail, yet the final wording of the Declaration of Independence wasn't completed and its final form wasn't approved until July 4, 1776.  John Hancock did sign the document on July 4, though it was many months later when the final signatures were affixed thereto.

Now, 240 years after those men were willing to "pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor", most have lost sight of what their intentions were, what was created from their fortitude, and what so many have died in the cause of, until recently.

Six years ago, I set out to identify what that Declaration would look like, today, should we, once again, cast off the yoke of despotism. I did not refer to it as a declaration of independence, rather, as a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, since we still have a Constitution, and there is no government that we want independence from -- only a return to the limitations imposed upon that government by the Constitution that created it.

The grievances that were set forth in that document were as follows:

• They have created a fourth branch of government (Administrative Agencies) that is independent of, and not subject to the will of the People;
• Their courts have refused to rule upon the Constitutionality of matters before them;
• They have imposed taxes that appropriate fully one-third of the value of one's earnings;
• They have generated a debt obligation on our posterity, still unborn, into the unforeseeable future;
• They have seduced millions of their people into dependence upon that government, at the expense of their neighbors;
• The have secured for themselves benefit packages approaching those realized by members of Royal courts;
• The have allowed the appointment of officials in capacities not recognized by the Constitution, and barred from recourse by the People;
• They have established control over State and local governments by funding and obligations associated therewith;
• The have supported the creation of a standing army amounting to over one million officers who have both civil and military authority given them by the government;
• They have expanded the standing army by granting policing powers to many agencies of government who have no need to be armed and authorized to use those arms;
• The have provided undue immunity and impunity to those who have been given such powers;
• They have enacted laws that have effectively limit the selection of government office holders from two primary parties.
• They have endeavored to create empire around the world, which serves not the People of this nation;
• They have waged war without a proper deceleration of war stating who the enemy is and what event will conclude those wars;
• They have enacted laws well outside of any police powers anticipated by the Framers of the Constitution;
• The have subjected States to arbitrary control of the federal government contrary to the guaranteed form of Republican Government within the States;
• They have allowed the use of fiat currency, contrary to the Constitution, and have continued this practice under the guise of a national emergency, which has existed for over 80 years;
• They have allowed favored financial institutions to loan money that does not exist to the people, at usurious rates;
• They have loosened the immigration laws that have served this country well through its history, and refuse, now, to enforce those laws that had been enacted to protect our nation from invasion;
• They have taken States of the Union to court for the State enforcing laws that the federal government refuses to enforce;
• They have extended their jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of the States, nullifying the State's right to a Republican Form of Government;
• They have assumed jurisdiction in foreign lands, enforced by kidnapping, torture and assassination;
• They have suppressed traditions held dear, for centuries, in this nation;
• They have removed the rights of traditional churches and have granted rights to churches foreign to our heritage;
• They have assumed authority not granted by the Constitution;
• They have denied the States and the People rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights;
• They have refused to abide by the "Separation of Powers" doctrine by allowing members of the judicial branches of government to hold office in the legislative and executive branches of government;
• The have granted to fictitious entities (corporations, associations, unions and other organizations) rights that are recognized to be granted by the Creator only to the people, in their individual capacity;
• They have formed alliances with foreign nations which are objectionable to the intent of the Constitution, and grant favors to foreign interests over the interest of the People;

• They have accused large groups of our population, including veterans who have fought for the country, of being a source of threat to that government, naming them as terrorists.

The very same author, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Stephens Smith (November 13, 1787), wrote:

"what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."

So, we must ask ourselves just what we are celebrating, this July 4, 2016. And, we must ask ourselves what we intend to do about that which we once held so sacred.

This article can be found on line at Independence Day 2016

Liberty or Laws?

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself"

Does the Fifth Amendment Stop at Miranda?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 6, 2016

The principle element in this discussion is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

• No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The provision that is of concern is, "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."  And, we must begin by understanding that, as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says,

• 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.

Clearly, the Fifth Amendment, then, is a prohibition against the government, "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the federal government's] powers"

To understand the role of the Supreme Court, at least for nearly the past century, we need to review what Justice Brandeis explained in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), in which he explained the "rules" that the Court had adopted to avoid "passing upon a large part of all constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision."  (See About Ashwander v. TVA)

The pertinent rules from that decision are:

• 2. The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it…  ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless necessary to a decision of the case…
• 3. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied….
• 4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.
• 7. ‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided…

To summarize the pertinent rules:

• The Court will not decide on the constitutionality, unless absolutely necessary - rules 2 & 4.
• When the Court does rule on the constitutionality, that ruling will be as narrow as possible - rule 3.
• The Court will, whenever possible, rule on statutory construction to avoid ruling on constitutionality - rule 7.

Now with this in mind, they won't rule on the constitutionality, unless necessary, and if they do rule on constitutionality, they will make that ruling as narrow as possible.  We will look at a Supreme Court decision that we are all familiar with, Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

In Miranda, which requires that law enforcement officers notice the person being investigated for possible criminal activity be advised that he have the right to refuse to talk and to have an attorney present.  However, in keeping with Ashwander rule #7, the ruling deals only with those in custody.

So, the question arises, why would one's right only apply to when one is in custody (they narrow ruling)?  If one the right to not incriminate oneself, "to be a witness against himself", would that not apply once suspicion was raised against him, or does it only apply after he is in custody?.  Wouldn't it really be a prohibition against government, both before and after one was in custody?

If a law enforcement office, in uniform or plain clothes, with the intent of trying to elicit a confession, or information that would incriminate someone, while in custody, was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and confirmed by the Supreme Court, then why would we assume that that prohibition did not also extend to when one was under suspicion?  After all, when one is under suspicion, the law enforcers are just a small step away from putting someone in custody.  Why would that prohibition only come into play when the actual act of custody was implemented?  Is it possible that those who ratified the Amendment intended for that form of chicanery to be acceptable?  Or, was their intention to prohibit divisive means of acquiring incriminating evidence in apparent conflict with the wording of the Amendment?

Now, we need to visit a little historical background to carry the ramifications of the intent into an understanding of changes in practices between the Eighteenth Century and modern law enforcement, to put a proper perspective on how the intent of the Amendment is circumvented.

In the Eighteenth Century, spying, intelligence gathering, and other such undercover work was carried out in higher levels of government, only.  The consequence for being caught practicing such infamy was death.  Consequently, those willing to lay their lives on the line for the greater cause of national politics carried out such work.  The idea of spying on their own citizens was out of the question.  After all, it is the job of any decent government to protect its citizens, not to treat them as they would an enemy.  The idea that such practices could be used in the lower elements of society, in pursuit of criminals rather than state secrets or wartime intelligence, was not a practice, as honor was conscientiously upheld.  To deceive alleged criminals would be to stoop to the level of criminals.

We have looked at the possibility of law enforcement officers, in plain clothes or uniform, and whether it applies to them, prior to custody.  It would seem that such practice, if the intent were to obtain incriminating evidence prior to the act of custody, would be as unacceptable to the Framers as it would be after one was taken into custody.

So, while we are here, let's go a bit further.  As explained in two previous articles (Informants Amongst Us? and Vortex - The threat that keeps us apart), law enforcement uses both agents and informants to obtain information.  An agent is an employee of the government, so we can include him in the discussion that follows.  Informants, however, are of three general categories.  There are informants that we might call "wannabe spies".  One of those was Oliver Murphy, the friend that turned traitor to Schuyler Barbeau, and who received "over $3,500" (See Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License) to work as an agent" for the government.  Then there are those who have been charged with a crime and have "adjudication withheld", subject to performance of certain tasks for the government, which if deemed satisfactory, the charges are dismissed.  This is what the government attempted to do with Randy Weaver, and the result is a form of compensation, dismissal, for performance.  The third type of informant is the one that becomes disenchanted, or develops moral objection, and then runs to government with information that would incriminate others, however, there is no compensation except the satisfaction or gratification that informant achieves by his actions.

Of the three, it is the first two that we are concerned with, as the third is not acting as an agent of the government (law enforcement).  However the first and second are receiving consideration, either in cash or other benefits.

Pulling this together, we have the possibility of a paid agent, a paid informant, or an otherwise compensated informant.  Each of them becomes what is legally referred to as an "agent".  Now, to understand this, we will look to Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, to verify that they do come under the legal definition of agent, and then on to understand the legal aspects of that "agency".

• Agent.  A person authorized by another to act for him, one intrusted with another's business.  One who represents and acts for another under the contract or relation of agency...  One who undertakes to transact some business, or to manage some affair, for another, by the authority and on account of the latter, and to render an account of it.  One who acts for or in place of another by authority from him; a substitute, a deputy, appointed by principal with power to do the things which principal may do.
• Co-agent.  One who shares authority to act for the principal with another agent and who is so authorized by the principal.
• Independent agent.  One who is an independent contractor exercising his own judgment and subject to the one who hired him only for the result of the work performed.
• Subagent.  One authorized by agent to help perform functions for principal.  Generally, absent express or implied authority, an agent has no authority to appoint a subagent.  The subagent is subject to control by both agent and principal.
• Undercover agent.  A person who works as an agent without disclosing his role as an agent.  In police work, one who makes contact with suspected criminals without disclosing his role as an agent of the police.  He gathers evidence of criminal activity which may later be used at trial of the criminals.

So, regardless of which capacity, yes even undercover agent, there is a legal relationship with the principal.

Now, let's look at Agency (also referred to as the law of agency).  First will be a common Internet definition of law of agency.  That will be followed by definitions from the same Black's Law Dictionary.

• The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual, or non-contractual set of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party.
• Agency.  Relation in which one person acts for or represents another by latter's authority, either in the relationship of principal and agent, master and servant, or employer or proprietor and independent contractor.
• Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.
• Special agency.  One in which the agent is authorized to conduct a single transaction or a series of transactions not involving a continuity of service.

So, a legal relationship is created and the agent is subject to the principal's control.  Now, if that legal relationship thus created were considered, then the agent would be as bound to the law as the principal.

We need to consider whether the intent of the Amendment is applicable to those in law enforcement who are bound by the amendment, even before custody.  Remember, the Court admits to the narrowness of the decision -- as it was presented by the Court in Miranda.  However, if we consider that even absent custody, the suspicion is sufficient to warrant divisive means in an attempt to obtain incriminating evidence from the suspect, and therefore is an effort to entice the suspect to bear witness against himself, in violation of the Amendment.  For, whether before or after custody, it is making the suspect a witness against himself.

So, if an agent, or an informant working in the capacity of agent (see definitions above), is seeking that information (evidence --- witness against himself), is he not legally bound by the prohibition embodied in the Fourth Amendment?

In 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 would expect to see conducted by the KGB or the Stasi.  Surely, even though the Court has not yet broadened its edict into the expanded misapplication of the Fourth Amendment, it must weigh heavily upon our conscience to accept that the practices suggested herein would fit comfortably within the minds and morality of those who gave us this once great nation.

We need to see with a broader view of what Miranda's limitations are, to hear the words of the Framers, and to understand their intent when they put those words to paper.  Recall, from the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

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

The Fourth Amendment is one of those restrictive clauses that apply to the federal government.  It is for us, then, to assure that the government does abide by the Bill of Rights -- as much as a part of the Constitution as those Articles that created the government.

This article can be found on line at
Liberty or Laws - nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Burns Chronicles N^o 10
Is There a Peaceful Solution?
Redux
Representative Greg Walden

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 22, 2016

In a previous article, "Is There a Peaceful Solution?", I included a link to a video.  Based upon a number of comments, it appears that many decided not to watch the video, instead filling in the answers, for themselves.  They continue to assume that there is a peaceful solution to the problems that we are facing in dealing with the federal government.

Understand that Representative Walden spoke to the House of Representatives on January 5, 2016, just 3 days after the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was occupied, though the occupation had nothing to do with being "armed"; and the day after Dwight and Steven Hammond turned themselves over to the Bureau of Prisons, at San Pedro, California -- to serve the harsh sentence imposed by the Appellate Court, not by the trial court.

I have underlined the more significant portions of what Rep. Walden had to say, so that you can fully understand that the administrative agencies tend to ignore the laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution, by that branch that has the sole authority to enact laws. The specific wording of that provision of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

For those who believe that there is a peaceful solution, I can only ask, "Just how do you propose to achieve that solution, when the laws are ignored by the government, when they choose, and misapplied (as in the Hammond case) when they choose?"

* * *

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues are aware of the situation in Harney County, Oregon, where a group of armed protesters have overtaken a Federal facility in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

This group is led largely by people who are not necessarily from Oregon, although they obviously have supporters from Oregon.  They were originally there to protest the sentencing of Dwight and Steve Hammond.

I know the Hammonds.  I have known them for probably close to 20 years.  They are longtime, responsible ranchers in Harney County.  They have been sentenced to prison not once, but now twice.  I will get into that in a moment.

The point I want to make at the outset is for people in this Chamber to understand what drives people to do what is happening tonight in Harney County.

I have had the great honor and privilege to represent Harney County for a number of years.  I have seen the impact of Federal policies from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration.  I have seen what happens when overzealous bureaucrats and agencies go beyond the law and clamp down on people.  I have seen what courts have done.  I have seen the time for Congress to act and then it has not.

I want to put this area in perspective because I think it is really important to understand how big this region is.  By size, my congressional district in Oregon is something like the seventh or eighth biggest in the Congress.  If you overlaid it over the east coast, it would start in the Atlantic and end in Ohio.

The county where this occupation is taking place--Harney County--is over 10,000 square miles.  There are 7,000 souls inhabiting it.  If my math is right, that is one person for every 1.4 miles.  One person for every 1.4 miles.

Just this one county is 10 times the size of Rhode Island.  It is larger than the State of Maryland.  And 72 percent of it is under the command and control of the Federal Government.

It is the public's land.  That is true.  But what people don't understand is the culture, the lifestyle, of the great American West and how much these ranchers care about the environment, about the future, about their children, about America, and how much they believe in the Constitution.  Now we see the extent they will go to in order to defend what they view as their constitutional rights.

***

But, I want to talk about what happened with the Hammonds.  I want to put in perspective what happens almost every year in my district.  That is these enormous wildfires.

The Miller Homestead Wildfire in 2012 burned 160,000 acres, mostly in this county, if not all; 250 square miles, a quarter of the size of the State of Rhode Island.  That was just in 2012.

The Barry Point Fire that year, in Lake County, next door, burned 93,000 acres.  Last summer alone, we burned 799,974 acres across Oregon; that is both forest and high desert.  In 2012, 3.4 million acres burned in Oregon.

There was another fire in Malheur County.  The Long Draw Fire, in 2012, burned 557,000 acres, five times the size of Rhode Island.  So 93,000 acres, 557,000 acres, 160,000 acres, all burning.

The Hammonds are in prison tonight for setting a backfire that they admit to, that burned 139 acres, and they will sit in prison, time served and time going forward, 5 years, under a law that I would argue was never intended to mete out that kind of punishment, and I will get to that in a moment.

***

When Secretary Babbitt, the Interior Secretary at the time, came before the House Resources Committee, of which I was a member, I said, Mr. Secretary, your own resource advisory committees in the area just reported that there was no need for additional protection on Steens Mountain, and yet, you and the President are threatening to create this national monument.  Why do you waste the time of the citizens to go through a process to determine if additional protections are needed and then ignore what they came up with?

To Bruce Babbitt's credit, he agreed when I told him: I think you would be surprised about what the local ranchers and citizens of Harney County would be willing to do if you give them a chance.  To his credit, he said: All right, I will give them that chance.  And, he did.

We went to work on legislation.  It took a full year.  I worked with the Hammonds.  I worked with Stacy Davies, I worked with all kinds of folks, put a staffer on it full-time, multiple staffs, and we worked with the environmental community and others.  And we created the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act, model legislation, never been done before, because I said: We don't have to live by past laws, we write laws.

So, we wrote a new law to create a cooperative spirit of management in Harney County.  The Hammonds were part of that discussion.  We saved a running camp, Harlan Priority Runs.  We protected inholders.  We tried to do all the right things and create the kind of partnership and cooperation that the Federal Government and the citizens should have.

Fast forward on that particular law.  Not long after that became law, and it was heralded as this monumental law of great significance and new era in cooperation and spirit of cooperation, some of those involved on the other side and some of the agencies decided to reinterpret it.  The first thing they tried to do is shut down this kids' running camp because they said: Well, too many, maybe more than 20, run down this canyon and back up, as they had for many, many years.  They wanted to shut it down.  So we had to fight them back and said, No, the law says historical standards.

Then the bureaucrats, because we said: You should have your historical access to your private property, if you are up on Steens Mountain, you should maintain that access like you have always had it.  Do you know what the bureaucrats said?  They began to solicit from the inholders in this area: How many times did you go up there last year?  You see, they wanted to put a noose around the neck of those who were inside.  That was a total violation of what we intended and we had to back them off.

See, the bureaucracy wants to interpret the laws we write in ways they want, and in this case, they were wrong, not once, but twice.

Then, a couple of years ago, I learned that, despite the fact we created the first cow-free wilderness in the United States under this law, and said clearly in this law that it would be the responsibility of the government to put up fencing to keep the cows out, as part of the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management said: No, we are not going to follow that law.  And, they told the ranchers they had to build the fence.

I networked with my Democrat colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, who was part of writing this law.  I said: Peter, you remember that, right?  He said: Yeah, I didn't like it, but that was the case.  BLM still wouldn't listen.  So, we continued to push it and they argued back.

Well, it turns out there had been a second rancher who brought this to my attention who they were telling had to do the same thing, build a fence, when the government was supposed to under the law I wrote.  The arrogance of the agency was such that they said, We don't agree with you.

Now, there aren't many times, Mr. Speaker, in this job when you can say I know what the intent of the law was, but in this case I could because I wrote the law, I knew the intent.

Oh, that wasn't good enough.  No, no, no.  No, no, no.  The arrogance of these agency people was such that we had to go to the archives and drag out the boxes from 2000, 1999-2000, when we wrote this law, from the hearings that had all the records for the hearings and the floor discussions to talk about the intent.  And our retired Member, George Miller, actually we used some of his information where he said the government would provide the fencing.  They were still reluctant to follow it.  So I put language in the appropriations bill that restated the Federal law.

***

This is a government that has gone too far, for too long.  Now, I am not condoning this takeover in any way.  I want to make that clear.  I don't think it is appropriate.  There is a right to protest.  I think they have gone too far.  But I understand and hear their anger.

Right now, this administration, secretly, but not so much, is threatening, in the next county over, that looks a lot like this one, Malheur County, to force a monument of 2.5 million acres, we believe.  I think this is outrageous.  It flies in the face of the people and the way of life and the public access.

***

We have fought other issues.  More than half of my district is under Federal management, or lack thereof.  They have come out with these proposals to close roads into the forests.  They have ignored public input.  They often claim to have all these open meetings and listen to the public, and then, in the case of Wallowa-Whitman, the forest supervisor who was eventually relieved because of this, I believe, completely ignored all the meetings, all the input, all the work of the counties and the local people, and said: Forget it, I am going my own direction.

There were 900 people that turned out at the National Guard Armory where they had a public hearing, standing room only and beyond, furious.

You see, how do you have faith in a government that doesn't ever listen to you?  How do you have faith in a government that, when elected Representatives write a law, those charged with the responsibility of implementing it choose to go the other direction and not do so?  That is what is breaking faith between the American people and their government, and that is what has to change.

The other thing that has to change, the law under which the Hammonds were sentenced.  Now, they probably did some things that weren't legal.  I have given you the size of the acreages that burned naturally.  I haven't gotten into the discussion about how these fires are often fought and how the Federal Government frequently will go on private land and set a fire without permission to backburn.  That happens all the time.

In fact, in the Barry Point Fire down in Lake County, they set fire on private timberland as a backburn while the owners of the property were putting out spot fires down in the canyon.  I drove down there afterwards.  They are darn lucky to have come out alive.

There was nobody sentenced under the terrorism act there.  Oh, heck no.  It is the government.  They weren't sentenced.  Nobody was charged.  Oh, it just happened.

Now, fires are tough to fight.  I have great respect for firefighters.  There are always two sides on how these fires get fought.  But I can tell you, a few years back in Harney County, because I went and held a meeting out there right as the fire was being put out, that the fire crews came in, went on private ground, lit a backfire on private ground, behind a fence line, that then burned out the farmer's fence, the rancher's fence, and burned all the way over and down into a canyon where there was a wetland, which would have been the natural break to stop the fire from the other side.  You see, they never needed to burn that land.

These things happen in the course of fighting fire.  It doesn't mean they are right.  But rare is it that somebody ends up 5 years in prison.

Let me tell you what the senior judge said when he sentenced the Hammonds the first time, Judge Michael Hogan, senior Federal judge, highly respected in Oregon.  He sentenced Dwight Hammond to 3 months and Steve to a year.  There were different offenses here.

He said, "I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum because, to me, to do so, under the Eighth Amendment, would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here."

The Judge went on to say, `"And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct would not have been the conduct intended under the statute."

"When you ask, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles, and there are homes up the ravines, it might apply.  Out in the wilderness here, I don't think that is what the Congress intended."

"In addition, it just would not meet any idea I have of justice proportionality.  It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience, to me."

Senior Judge Mike Hogan, when he did the original sentencing.

But, you see, under this 1996 law under which they were charged and convicted, it turns out he had no judicial leeway.  He could not mete out a sentence that was proportionate to what the crime was.

So yesterday, Dwight and Steve went to prison again.  Dwight will be 79 when he gets out.  Steve will be about 50.

Meanwhile, in Harney County, on the ranch, Susie will continue to try and survive; 6,000-acre ranch, she needs grazing permits to make this happen.  It would be a cruel and unjust act, by the way, if access to those grazing permits that allow that ranch to work were not extended.  What possible good could come out of bankrupting a grandmother that was trying to keep a ranch together, while the husband sits in prison, her son sits in prison?  What possible good?

They will serve their sentences.  There is nothing, short of clemency that only the President can offer, that we can do.  But we can change that law, and we should, so that nobody ever is locked in like that for a situation like this, where a senior judge, literally, on his final day on the bench, says this goes too far, it goes too far.  They appealed that, by the way, and lost.  But I believe that the judge was right.

***

They are good people.  Their sons and daughters, by a higher proportion, fight in our wars and die, and I have been to their funerals.  So to my friends across eastern Oregon, I will always fight for you.  But we have to understand there is a time and a way.  Hopefully the country through this understands we have a real problem in America: how we manage our lands and how we are losing them.

It is not like we haven't tried here, Mr. Speaker.  Year after year we pass bipartisan legislation to provide more active management on our forests so we don't lose them all to fire, and we are losing them all to fire.  We are losing firefighters' lives, homes, and watersheds--great resources of the West.  Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave.  He created this wildlife refuge in 1908.

There were some bad actors there in the 1980s, by the way.  They were very aggressive running the refuge, threatening eminent domain and other things that took ranches.  It was bad.  That lasted for at least a decade or more.  It has gotten better though.  It is not perfect.  There is a much better relationship, and the refuge and the ranchers work closer together.  In fact, during this fire in 2012, the refuge actually opened itself up to the ranchers for hay and feed because theirs was burned out because of this big fire.  So there was a better spirit there.

But there are still these problems: the threat of waters of the U.S. shutting down stock ponds and irrigation canals and a way of life, the threat of fire every year that seems to not be battled right and just gets away, and no one is really held accountable; the continued restriction on the lives of the men and women who, for generations, have worked hard in a tough environment.  It has just gone too far.  It is hurtful.

I hope people understand how serious this is felt and how heartfelt this is by those who pay their taxes and try and live by the law and do the right things and how oppressed they feel by the government that they elect and the government they certainly don't elect, and how much they will always defend the flag and the country, and their sons and daughters would go to war, some will not come back--and they have not from this area.

...  The BLM needs to make sure Susie Hammond isn't pushed into bankruptcy and has her ranch taken by the government and added to those that have been.  We need to be better at hearing people from all walks of life and all regions of our country and understanding this anger that is out there and what we can do to bring about correct change and peaceful resolution.

It is not too late.  We can do this.  It is a great country.  We have the processes to do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

* * *

The peaceful solution, then, should be solely those laws enacted by the Congress, such as the Steen Mountain legislation that Mr. Walden spoke of. The Executive branch is to carry out and enforce those laws. Though, as we have seen, they choose to interpret them other than the wording or the intent of those laws lawfully enacted.

Further, the agencies are empowered to adopt rules. To do so, they are to publish those proposed rules in the Federal Register and hold public hearings on the proposed rule. Now, this is just a bureaucratic trick. The hold the hearing, and regardless of the input by the public, the agency, once they have held the hearings, have satisfied the requirement. Then, they adopt the rule, even if 100% of the public input is contrary to the rule.

So when we realize that the legislative branch is without any constitutional authority to assure that they laws they pass have become "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI, clause 2), then we are at the mercy of the interpretation, or rules, of the agency that administers those laws.

With that in mind, let us return to the question:

Is there a peaceful solution?

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles N^o 10 - Is There a Peaceful Solution? - Redux

Burns Chronicles N^o 9
Civil Defiance or Submission?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 18, 2016

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

Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787) [North Carolina Supreme Court]

The unfortunate circumstances of January 26, 2016, which resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, and Brian Cavalier was a blow to an effort to expose the dishonesty of the federal government in its pursuit of acquiring land belonging to ranchers in Oregon.

In fact, the story behind what happened in Burns, Oregon actually goes much further.  It had begun to show the underbelly of the beast we call the US government, its failure in obedience to the Constitution, the very document that created it, and its failure to abide by established judicial "due process of law".  Perhaps most significant is its absolute disregard for human life, and especially so if that life is of one who believes in the Constitution.

Now, many have said that what was happening at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was of no concern to them.  Some have said, "We (the militia) are here to protect our state.  What happens in Oregon is not our concern."  And, they are right, but only to an extent.

In the hours that followed the events at Lexington Green and Concord, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, Militia from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, marched on dirt roads to come to the aid of those from another colony.  Within days, many more colonies had sent their forces to join those surrounding Boston.  Of course, it was not their concern, though they did realize what had happened in Massachusetts would, eventfully, happen in their own backyards.

Many have stated that their greatest concern is that the government will come to take their guns, and that will be the time to act.  However, they fail to respond to the slow and meticulous erosion of the Second Amendment, constantly progressing, bit by bit.  But, they still have their guns, so there is nothing to worry about.

However, just a week after the Indictments were issued in Oregon, a Grand Jury in Nevada issued Indictments against five people who were involved in events at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada, in April 2014, nearly two years prior.

Both acts, Nevada and Oregon, were acts of Civil Defiance.  Let's be clear about that term.  Civil Disobedience is a term applicable to participating in something that might result in ones arrest, or perhaps being assaulted by law enforcement.  These activities are conducted with the hope of political change.  They are, at best, inconveniences.

Civil Defiance, however, is an act in real defiance against unlawful authority.  Whether firearms are used actively, or passively, there is no doubt that Civil Defiance has the possibility for not just incarceration, but death.

During the Bundy Ranch affair, hundreds of armed patriots stood defiant against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees and contractors who were trying to arrest cattle for grazing on public lands.  The patriot weapons were simply for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment.  BLM was the aggressor, with force of arms and a "judge's edict".

In Oregon, once again, the patriots' arms were for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment.  There is no instance of those at the Refuge, or away from the Refuge, ever threatening or intimidating anyone.  In fact, they had a policy to let anyone venture into the occupied area, without threat, or harm.  Their arms were for self-defense.

The government, in this instance, under the control of the FBI, was the aggressor, however, unlike Nevada, the aggressor chose to shoot and kill LaVoy Finicum.  As can be clearly seen in the aerial footage, Mr. Finicum never had a gun in his hand.  He was lured into an ambush and shot.  He had no opportunity to defend himself, even if he had been armed.  Quite simply, the government that he was exposing murdered him.

So, let's put a little perspective on things.  Whether you are in Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, or elsewhere, what you have been reading about is your future, as much as those who have been directly affected by those events.  To "reason" that "it didn't happen to me" is both acceptance of the legitimacy of the government's proven practice, and submission to it.  When it finally gets to you, those who had more courage than you, have already been taken by the forces of government, either to prison, or to the cemetery.

If you cannot stand up for your fellow patriots, and instead, make excuses as to why you did not come to their aid, whether by location or disagreement of purpose, then you have submitted, and you can clearly see your own future.

I was asked the question "Is there anything that we can do about this?"  After some thought, I realized that the Indictment from Nevada was a message that the government is in the process of taking control.  This raises the question as to whether we can back them down.  If more of us begin standing up by occupying federally owned facilities, like the Refuge, or by taking other inspired actions, can we demonstrate that we are not backing down; that we are not willing to Submit to their unconstitutional activities, and that we will retaliate, as they have, by expanding our efforts in response to every unlawful or unconstitutional act committed by the government?

"In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.  There is no longer any room for hope.  If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight!  I repeat it, sir, we must fight!!  An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!"

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles N^o 9 - Civil Defiance or Submission?

Burns Chronicles N^o 8
Active Patriots v. Passive Patriots

image © 2016 Militia News

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 16, 2016

"...As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular.  What do we mean by revolution?  The war?  That was no part of the revolution' it was only an effect and consequence of it.  The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington.  The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies".

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson       August 24, 1815.

I believe that Adams's description of the Revolution, being the period in which the populace transitioned from faith in government to distrust of government, is probably appropriate for the 18th century as well as today.

Since Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas, we have seen a very substantial change in the attitude of large portions of our people, with regard to the government.  The recent murder of LaVoy Finicum, with the full knowledge that those who murdered him will have absolute and complete protection from the government, is indicative of that distrust.  The question, however, is not about that distrust, rather, which of us are truly Patriots, and which are only pretend patriots?

There was a transition, 241 years ago, where those who were loyal to the Crown and presumed that they would never fight against their government, found a moment in time had come to decide as to whether to maintain that obedience to the government, or take up arms against it.

On April 19, 1775, that time had come.  Those within a reasonable distance of Lexington and Concord, thousands of them, picked up their arms and ventured out into the beginning of a struggle that would last for another six years.  They left home and family, not knowing if they would ever return.  They crossed the line, not because of what had happened to them, but rather what had happened to their neighbors, many of them from other colonies.

As word spread through the other colonies, many thought the problem was only between Massachusetts and the Crown.  In time, they realized that the violation of the British Constitution and the loss of their "Rights of Englishmen" were in jeopardy, just as in Massachusetts.  They, then, chose their course.  They became Active Patriots.

The passive patriots that had not bought or drunk tea were split.  Some became Active Patriots, while others remained passive patriots, throughout the Revolutionary War.

We are at that point in our history where we are facing quite similar circumstances.  Some have already become Active Patriots, while others, though appearing to be active patriots, are, in fact, passive patriots, or worse.

The passive patriot simply needs to sit back and watch the world go by.  Perhaps he might express support for the Active Patriots, or for their cause, or even make contributions to that cause, financially, or otherwise.  But at best, he is a sideline supporter.  Some might be more active by participating in interim forms of government, such as Committees of Safety.

Some of those passive patriots went to Burns, Oregon, recently.  They were willing to demonstrate, carry signs, sound off in public meetings, and show support for those Active Patriots who had taken a step in Civil Defiance by opening the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration area to the public.

Of course, the Active Patriots went armed; the Second Amendment does provide for the "security of a free State", which they had declared the Refuge to be.  However, they made clear that the arms were solely for self-defense, and those who had the opportunity to visit the Refuge during these events found that the people inside were peaceful, unoffending, and courteous to all who visited them.  They were not the haughty bureaucrats who normally occupied those buildings.  And, those who visited them, without nefarious thoughts on their minds, were clearly passive patriots.

Now, there is a third side to this equation.  We don't find them in the historical context.  But, we find them in proliferation in our current era of "revolution".  These are the ones that would have traveled to Concord to discourage colonists from firing on the Redcoats, diverted them to another activity (perhaps carrying signs or pitchforks), or perhaps even have told the British what the Active Patriots were up to.

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)

Those who went to Concord knew that blood was to be shed.  The idea is to shed the blood of the enemy, and endeavor to keep your own from being shed, however, that consequence was a part of the effort.

During the course of events in Burns, there were many who contacted me, and others, asking whether the time had come.  These were Active Patriots, simply waiting for that day we all know was coming, but not wanting to simply go to an event (Sugar Pine Mine; Montana Big Sky Mine) and camp out, away from family and digging into their own purses to act out a role.  They really wanted to know if the British had fired on colonists, and if the colonists were going to fire back.

Some went to Burns.  Some remain, and some have since left.  They were insufficient in number to have any effect, because the false patriots had done everything that they could to divert as many as possible in the wrong direction.

If others are ready to go to a barricade and protest, or possibly for other purposes, they might divert them to over fifty miles away in a gesture of sympathy for a life lost.  So, let's look at the three, and put them in rather simple terms.

Active Patriot -- One who is ready and willing to take up arms, regardless of costs, affect on family, or fortune, and is committed to the cause to that extent.  These would properly be considered the real III% that are willing to take up arms.

Passive patriots -- These are those who will go to varying extent to support the Active Patriot, by any number of means.  They are the support every army needs, and they do so, willingly.  Often, their activities might put their lives at risk, but that is inconsequential to the completion the efforts that they have begun.  Time and money are their primary contributions.  These are the Supporters of the III%.

Finally, we come to the false patriot.  His actions tend to support the enemy, whether through disruption, diversion, intelligence gathering (frequent communication with the enemy), and often the attempt to discredit or ridicule those who are of the other classes.  These people are not patriots; rather, they are, in fact, simply false.  In years past, they would be referred to as "culture vultures" or "patriots for profit", if their concern was primarily their monetary gain.  However, others might be more accurately defined as "snitches", "informants", "spies", or worse.

Since we have progressed from Civil Disobedience, where one might get arrested and spend a few hours or days in jail, to Civil Defiance, where we stand, firmly, against the enemy, and endeavor to turn the continued encroachment of our rights, then we can fully expect that the time will come, soon, in which the line is drawn and the point of no return has been reached.  It behooves us to identify which role our neighbors will take.  If they are to be Active Patriots, or passive patriots, then we are in need of both.  However, if they are false patriots, then they need to be excluded from any aspect, no matter how mundane, of our work.  They need to be expelled from our community, for they serve no useful purpose, except that purpose which serves the enemy.

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles No 8 - Active Patriots v. Passive Patriots

Burns Chronicles N^o 7
What is Brandon Curtiss?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 15, 2016

I received a phone call from Ryan Payne, shortly after the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was entered by nine people, and restored to 'open to the public'.  Ryan indicated that there was a need for others to come join them, as they were concerned for the safety of such a small crew.

Now, many will question why they might be concerned for their safety, however, we need only consider the last few weeks to understand, as many patriots do, that the federal government tends to solve problems with bloodshed, unless all parties come out with their hands up, and submit to arrest whether there is a real crime, or not.

With the understanding that those who might enter the Refuge, since renamed Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), might find that the government would want to arrest them, it was felt by the Operation Mutual Defense Advisory Board (OMD-AB) that a caveat regarding that possibility be included in a call out.

Upon being advised, through other sources, that Brandon Curtiss, Idaho III%, had secured a 40-acre parcel for visitors to camp on, this seemed to be the solution to an alternate location for those who might otherwise not show up because of the caveat.

However, one of those inside of the HCRC expressed his concern that Brandon ("Brandon" will be used as a collective name for Idaho III% and Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), and the individual, as appropriate to the context), had stated that he was there, along with his following, to assure that there would not be another Waco, and suggested that "he would probably drop his gun and run, should things change for the worse".  It was with this in mind that I sought to contact Brandon, on behalf of OMD, and managed to do so through Pete Santilli, on January 10.

When I told Pete that I was trying to reach Brandon, he said, "just a minute", and he handed his phone to Brandon.  Brandon was cordial in the first part of the discussion, though he was rather assertive.  "Any militia that come to Burns are under my command", he said.  That sounded like a sort of militia martial law, and Brandon, with 8 or 9 years of law enforcement experience, but no military experience, has taken command.  But, then, I knew this was the "prime directive" when I called for Brandon.  He also claimed to have secured forty acres for camping purpose, directly across from the Refuge, though I found out later that it was directly across from the Narrows, about six miles from the Refuge.  Perhaps he "secured" it, or perhaps it was a fantasy, as he did not even know where it was.

I had been directed by the OMD-AB to ascertain whether, if Brandon decided to order everyone to go home, would he release those who came under the OMD banner?  For him to understand what this question was being posed, seeking a solution, I prefaced it with the "drop guns" concern.

Can I say that I was surprised when he "dropped the phone and ran"?  Well, I wasn't as surprised as I might have been, since the first few minutes on the phone, I was mostly listening, while Brandon appeared to want to both ask and answer his question as well as the reason for my call.

Pete, endeavoring to get patriots to work together, reestablished communications by having Brandon call me.  This time, however, it sounded as if we were on speakerphone, and additional parties were present, including Eric Parker and Brooke Agresta.

I tried to explain that I am old school, and when you seek a solution, you must understand the problem.  I don't believe that they ever fully digested that thought, as they spent quite a few minutes berating me, telling me what I said, which is not what I said, since I didn't have the opportunity, and finally concluded with Brooke telling me that she would destroy me in the patriot community if I didn't do something (I don't recall what) in the next three minutes, as she spoke for the next two minutes and then hung the phone up.

Well, that discussion didn't go to well, so I had to find an alternative for those who didn't want to risk the possible consequences of staying inside of the HCRC.  That, however, would have to be put off to another day.

That was my first 'introduction' to Brandon Curtiss, though his name had come up earlier.  In a report given by Ryan Payne to an OMD-AB special meeting, November 19, nearly two months before the above incident, Ryan Payne explained some circumstances surrounding the meetings held with both the Hammonds and Sheriff Ward.  The report, though second hand, bears out what subsequent events tend to substantiate.  The pertinent part of the report can be heard in this 12: 30 - clip, Ryan Payne speaking.

The foundation for subsequent activities by PPN, Idaho III%, and to some degree, OathKeepers, is clearly established.

My next dealing with Brandon Curtiss occurred 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.  Though my room was booked for another night, I had decided to return home where I am accustomed to writing.  So, I began loading my truck for the return journey.

The 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 would have to come from the Harney County area, to be effective.  What it said in part, was:

"Attention all Oathkeepers, Idaho Three Percenters, Pacific Patriots Network, especially Brandon Curtiss, Joe Rice, Eric Parker, and Stewart Rhodes.

. . .

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.

As I was carrying some things to the truck, a man walked up to me.  I recognized him as Curtiss, and I noticed that there were 4 other men with him, all in their twenties or thirties, and 3 of them quite husky.  Brandon introduced himself, and as is my habit, I extended my hand.  He replied that he would not shake my hand and then accused me of calling him a coward.  Now, the circumstances didn't warrant, in most cases, my attention to exact words, however, my reply was something along the lines that I did not call him a coward, only his action, or lack thereof, would make that determination.

One of the, let me call them, "goons", was taking video with his phone, so there exists a record of these dealings.  So, if I am in error, let them come forward with the entire video.

As I continued to go to the room and return to the truck to load it, Eric Parker challenged me, as well.  They tried to block my passage, and I had to walk around them.  At one point, I was putting things in the back seat (4-door) and when I turned around, Curtiss had blocked as much of the area between the door and bed of the truck as he could block.  There is no doubt that he wanted me to "push" my way through, and then claim that I had assaulted him.  However, I turned sideways and managed to slide out and go about my business.

During the course of my coming and going from the room, I called the manager and asked him to call the cops; that I was being threatened and harassed.  It might seem ironic to some that I ended up calling the cops on someone who spent 8 or 9 years as a cop, but why not give him a taste of his own medicine?

While the harassment continued, and threats were being made, I heard a voice from behind me saying, "Leave him alone!"  One of the beefier goons went up and faced this rather short, wiry guy.  When I glanced back over that way, a few seconds later, the goon had decided not to take on the little guy.

The manager walked by and told me that he had finally gotten through to the police.  Just a minute or so later, Brandon offered me his hand.  I told him that he had his chance, and chose not to take it.  At about the same time, the little guy said, quite loudly, "Don't do it", meaning don't shake his hand.  I was really beginning to like this guy.

When I had the truck nearly loaded, I went over to see who this supporter was.  I asked him if I knew him.  He simply replied, "Wolf".  He explained that he was a friend of KC Massey, and it struck me that I had interviewed him when I did the story of the shooting by the BPS agent.  I couldn't recall, at that time what his real name was, and now that I do, I think I'll just leave it at "Wolf".

He told me that he had been asked to go to Burns to protect me, though he refused to say who gave him those instructions.  So, that will remain a mystery to both the reader, and me but it was nice to know that someone, besides my family, was concerned for my safety.

While still talking with Wolf, the police finally arrived.  I explained what had occurred to the officer.  In the meantime, another patriot that I had met the night before had been watching from the second floor balcony, and he came down and joined us.  Both he and Wolf confirmed what I told the cop.

Meanwhile, other cops were interrogating Brandon and the goons, so that head cop, the one that I had spoken to, went over to put the pieces together.  Soon, he returned and said, "Everything has been taken care of.  You have nothing to worry about.  If there is a problem, call us and we well be here, right away."  I thanked him and wished him a good day.

Meanwhile, the second floor patriot was joined by his girlfriend.  I offered to take all to breakfast, but Wolf decided it would be his treat.  We went to a local truck stop and had a great breakfast, and a wonderful conversation between real patriots.

Interestingly, my dealings with Brandon Curtiss were not over.  On February 4, just after 11:00 AM, I received a Facebook PM from him.  It started out, "All bullshit aside with our differences, I am not planning on storming any barricades.  That would be insane.  This is getting spun up and out of control."

This led to a rather extended PM exchange, and a phone call (identified in the PM), that led to what I thought would be a resolution of our differences and beginning to work together.  It had to do with a conversation that I had earlier with someone who contacted me as he was traveling to Oregon.

The post in question, which will also appear in the PMs, states that PPN "will march through the barricades and through the FBI."  This information was passed on as unconfirmed, but would be necessary for the person to get to the Narrows and be prepared to bring those who were not affiliated with PPN to join them, if it were true.

My team continued to track the source of that information in an effort to confirm, or deny, the "information".  It had become quite apparent that many absurd stories had been circulating, by that time.

At 11:03 AM, February 4, I get a Facebook PM from Brandon Curtiss.

At 11:27 AM, begins the explanation as to what had occurred, and what the OMD position was in the matter.  To aid the four inside (Fry, 2 Andersons & Banta), we wanted to see if we could get them some relief so that we could be sure of "holding the fort" long enough to put out a general call, hoping for many more to come to Burns to assist in keeping the public lands open to the public.

At 11:32, I suggest that we begin working together.  Brandon agreed.  Then, I indicate what the OMD position is, that we need the relief to get in to the Refuge.

At about 12:30 Brandon wanted to go telephonic.  Not yet being sure that I could rely on what he said, based upon the previous experience, I recorded the call.  A timeline to key parts of the conversation follows:

0:24 - 4:00:  Explanation of how we can hold the ground.  Brandon builds obstacle to discourage any real action.  Then, he explains that he got a call from Oregon State Police (OSP) -- based upon what he had sent me (in PM at 11:18 AM).  So, I have to wonder why they called him.  They didn't call me, though I appear to be an instigator.  Does Brandon have some special relationship with the OSP?  Did they call him to get him to thwart any action that might provide relief to those inside?

5:06 - 7:50:  He suggests that this would be a "point of no return".  Darn, someday, if we want constitutional government restored, there will be a "point of no return".  He thinks that we would need a thousand "well trained patriots".  To form the battle line that has been suggested would only require discipline.  If we cannot get our country back without "well trained patriots", then we just might as well put our hands behind our backs and back up to the nearest FBI agent.  That is nothing more than an obstacle, really, an obstruction -- which has little merit.  When you have to fight, you fight with what you have.  Patriots have been training for many years.  Do we train into oblivion?  However, I continued to discuss a tactic that has been presented, as that tactic would be both unanticipated and difficult to defend against.

8:29 - 9:00:  Brandon talks about the call outs that they have done.  Those call outs will be discussed, elsewhere, but they have been absent any show of force, rather, they are intended to just get people to Burns and let them be a burden on the town (See The Burns Community).  Quite frankly, what he had, and continues to call for, has hurt far more than it helped those in the Refuge.  He then states that those who had come to Burns, and the Refuge, scattered after LaVoy was shot.  The cause and effect of that reaction is discussed in "Stand Up; Stand Down", and there were persistent phone calls and text messages, from PPN, to those inside, to abandon their positions.  This resulted in only 8 or 9 defenders by the next morning.

9:01 - 10:29:  Discussion of passive and active support.  Brandon seems to prefer passive (demonstrations), though he is Idaho III% (III% is the John Adams estimate of how many colonists FOUGHT, like with muskets, against the British).  This is also the difference between Civil Disobedience, which might get you arrested, and Civil Defiance, which is defying the presumed authority with arms, as at the Bundy Ranch in April 2014.  Then, he mentions LaVoy, and says that he doesn't "want anyone else losing their life."  So, now we step into the world of "peaceful resolution".  That was the mantra of the FBI, Sheriff Ward, Judge Grasty, and, apparently, PPN, Idaho III%, and the OathKeepers.

13:40 - 16:40:  Brandon explains that he spoke with Ammon and Ryan about letting them (Brandon) know when they were going to be "out and about" so they could be "over watch and scouting around".  So, they (Brandon) took a lot of hits since they weren't there (at the shooting).  However, the run into town has no good place for an ambush.  It is wide open.  Now, if someone wanted to provide "over watch and scouting around", there was no reason for Brandon to drop that mission, since he should have known that the road to Grant County went through the Malheur National Forest, with plenty of trees, rolling country, and many curves -- ideal for an ambush.  As far as not being notified, the meeting in John Day was well advertised as much as a week, or more, before that fateful day.  However, it is probably much easier to be sitting in a restaurant, enjoying a meal paid for by contributions made to support the operation, than to take the initiative and scout the route.  If they had done so, it is quite apparent that the ambush location was established at least a day before, when branches were cut from trees to facilitate firing positions, snowmobile tracks, and the entire ambush area prepared, and probably quite obvious, at least to someone who could "scout" an area -- before, not after, the fact.

18:25 - 19:10:  Brandon has both numbers and was going to give them to B. J. Soper, presumably to let him know that we are "working together".

21:44 - 22:04:  Here, Brandon includes the FBI, along with OSP, as having contacted him.  Why they have so much faith in getting answers from Brandon is a matter for speculation, at this point.

22:32 - 23:22:  Brandon says, "Well, we will work through it.  It's okay.  And the, by all of us coming to gather, and then working together, it just makes us stronger"....  We then, finally, "shook hands", over the phone -- that is the honorable thing that real men do.  Then, he says, "This is what we all need to be doing, working together and building our network, you know, larger."

So, we end the conversation with what should be a good and honorable working relationship.

On the morning of February 5, I discovered that, without notifying me, nor having received that call that Soper was supposed to have made to me, the "Call to Action" at the blockade had been changed to a demonstration at the site of LaVoy's murder.  Though I don't have the original message that I received that morning, the following is the wording from pacificpatriotsnetwork.com:

So, what had been discussed (above) was simply tossed out the window, the location changed, and raises the question as to the sincerity of Brandon Curtiss, as we have learned to expect from government officials.

My comment, with regard to this "working together", then continues the PM conversation.  Needless to say, Brandon Curtiss' true colors were amply demonstrated, not only by this most recent episode, but not in the least, inconsistent with what was reported by Ryan Payne, Brandon's asserting authority over any militia that came to Burns, his abrupt rudeness and unwillingness to talk in the early conversations, and finally, this attempt to obtain information, suggest that he was honorable, and then assigning the responsibility, not on himself, as leader of Idaho III% and PPN, but on Soper, who was probably never informed of the telephone conversation and the agreement to work together.

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles No 7 - What is Brandon Curtiss

Burns Chronicles N^o 6
Is There a Peaceful Solution?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 09, 2016

I have heard professed patriots, such as Melvin Lee (especially, beginning at the 19:27 mark), on behalf of Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), claiming that what was accomplished by Ammon Bundy and others was wrong, that there is a peaceful way to achieve what they were trying to achieve.  When what Ammon did is compared with our own history, they argue that there was no Constitution then, but there is one now, and we must abide by it.

So, let's set the record straight by starting with the Constitution.  There was an English Constitution, however, it was a compilation of acts and court decisions, beginning with the Magna Carta, and insuring the "Rights of Englishmen".  It was the Crown's refusal to recognize the rights of the colonists, as they were enjoyed in England that led to the Revolution.

Our Constitution is written in a single document, with amendments in addition to the original.  However, the Supreme Court will not pass on the constitutionality of a matter before it "unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case".  In other words, only as a last resort.  This was explained to the country in a 1936 Supreme Court decision, Ashwander v. T.V.A.

Lee also claims that there is a peaceful solution, suggesting demonstrating, petitioning politicians, etc.  Well, those are fine words; however, they are nothing more than words.  But, I don't want you to take my word for it.  I think that the best source would be a person, Representative Greg Walden, who had firsthand knowledge of the abuse by the administrative agencies, even though an act of the Congress was passed to set some rigid rules against such abuse.  If our lawmakers pass a law and the agencies ignore, or circumvent, the law, perhaps you can explain to me just how a peaceful resolution can be achieved.  Listen to the entirety of his Speech on the Floor of the House of Representatives (Published January 8, 2016 - 24 minutes).

So, what can we do to change things, peacefully?  To get government back to being the servant rather than the master?  I have read the OathKeepers post where they are trying to get Ammon and his people to leave.  They suggest that a "lateral move" to another, friendly, county, would solve the problem.  Well, it surely would have gotten them off the Refuge.  And, we heard both the Sheriff and the FBI constantly touting that they were seeking a "peaceful resolution", but, then, we have the aerial footage showing just how that turned out for LaVoy Finicum, Ryan Bundy, and the others who are currently facing 6 years of "peaceful" solitude.

Surely, had Ammon done so, they would have gone directly into the hands of the feds, or ended up being murdered, as happened to LaVoy Finicum on the 26th.  So, words, whether from the feds, law enforcement, or professed patriots, mean nothing.  Only actions speak loud enough to generate the attention, and the support of other freedom loving Americans.  Consider, too, that we have passed the point of even thinking that words, unless backed up by the threat of defensive force, are worth any more than the words of those who are destroying our country, and those who seem to, under the guise of "patriotism", support those deceptive words.

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles N^o 6 - Is There a Peaceful Solution?

Burns Chronicles N^o 5
The Burns Community

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.

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles No 5 - The Burns Community

Burns Chronicles N^o 4
Stand Up; Stand Down

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.

This article can be found at Burns Chronicles No 4 - Stand Up; Stand Down

Burns Chronicles N^o 3
Operation Mutual Defense (OMD)

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 Facebook page, 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".

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles No 3 - Operation Mutual Defense (OMD)

Burns Chronicles N^o 2
Ambush

LaVoy Finicum's last ride
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
                                                                                    Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2016

The Death of LaVoy Finicum

Note: Times given are referenced to the aerial time stamps, minus eight hours.  Quotations are based upon the best recollection of the witnesses.

I had lunch with Ammon Bundy while the Sharp family sang.  It was the first time I had met Ammon, and we went over the articles I intended to write about the events that led up to the actions of January 2, 2016, with the investiture of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration complex, since renamed the Harney County Resource Center.  The subjects for the articles were the misunderstanding of the people of Burns as to what source resulted in the fear and anxiety then extant in the town of Burns, and the information available in the "public" records contained in the filing cabinets at the refuge that might show the use of subterfuge in the obtaining of land to extend the federal "ownership", not only in the Refuge, but throughout Harney County.

Ammon also indicated his pleasure for the upcoming meeting in the Grant County town of John Day, expecting to get additional support from Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer.  As we discussed, it was to the backdrop of the Sharp family's vary harmonious singing.

I then visited Ryan Payne, an old friend and fellow board member of the Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Advisory Board.  Ryan, too, was looking forward to a productive meeting with the Grant County community, hoping to establish a Committee of Safety to become a voice from the disenfranchised people of that County, as they had in Harney County.

The meeting was to begin at 6:00 PM on January 26, 2016.  The drive, which in that part of the country, is a rather fixed route.  From the Refuge, you go west on Sodhouse Lane to State Road 208, then North into Burns where you pick up US 395 North, through Malheur National Forest, through Seneca, and finally to John Day.  The trip is just over 130 miles and is, unquestionably, the only practical way between the two locations.

Vehicle #1, the lead vehicle, LaVoy's white 4-door pickup truck, contained Robert "LaVoy" Finicum driving, Ryan Payne at shotgun, and, from driver's side to passenger side in the back seat, Ryan Bundy, Victoria Sharp, and Shawna Cox.  Vehicle #2 contained Mark McConnell, driving his brown 4-door Jeep, with Brian "Budda" Cavalier at shotgun and Ammon Bundy in the rear.  This was the position of all of the people as they left the HCRC, and the position of each until they left their respective vehicles.  Thus, they began their 33-mile drive to Burns, which resulted in an unexpected and tragic termination.

After leaving Burns, they traveled up US 395 about 15 miles north of the intersection with US 20.  As they passed National Forest Road 2820 (NF 2820) on their right, they noticed a line of trucks and other vehicles stacked up to enter US 395.  There were at least eight vehicles, rather odd for the middle of a forest.  This was about 4:25 PM, and about an hour out from their destination.

Once those vehicles turned north, the same direction they were traveling, it dawned on them that this might just not be a coincidence.  However, optimistically, they continued on their way.

Less than a minute later, Vehicle #2 pulled over in response to flashing lights and sirens.  Those who pulled over Vehicle #2 identified themselves as FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) with a loudspeaker.  They then instructed the driver to exit the vehicle and walk toward them, hands on his head.  He approached them, he was instructed to lie on the ground, head away from them, and "low-crawl" back to them, where they disarmed him, cuffed him and patted him down.  The same procedure was then addressed to the man in the back seat (Ammon), and finally to the man in the front seat (Budda), until all three were "secured".  All three acted without resisting, and fully compliant with the instructions given.  They were then placed on the ground with their backs against one of the FBI vehicles, where they remained until after those from Vehicle #1 were finally returned to that area.  Ammon's hat and briefcase were still in the Jeep when it was recovered from impound, two days later

Vehicle #1, realizing that Vehicle #2 was no longer behind them, and not wanting to separate from and abandon their friends, slowed to a stop just beyond NF 31, about 3/4 mile from where the ambush began.  They were followed by two FBI vehicles that stopped about 40 feet behind them.  Ryan Payne then stuck his hands and head out of the passenger side window and a single shot was fired, striking the truck near the outside rear-view mirror.

The first shot having been fired, Ryan's concern was for the women who were well within that line of fire.  He exited the truck, hands held about shoulder level, and yelled, "There are women in here".  Seeing the number of guns pointed at him, when the command was given, "hands on your head.  Walk toward us", he complied.  He was then searched, handcuffed, and taken back to where the three from Vehicle #2 were detained, a few hundred yards behind Vehicle #1.

After Ryan left the vehicle, LaVoy, seeing laser dots around him, and the observers in the back seat seeing a laser dot directly on LaVoy's hat, he sticks his head and one hand out the window and yells, "Go ahead and shoot me."  He follows that with, "We are going to meet with the Sheriff [Palmer of Grant County].  We have a meeting with the Sheriff.  You are going to have to shoot me.  We are going to see the Sheriff.  We are going to see the Sheriff."

LaVoy then turned to the remaining occupants and said, "We are going to see the Sheriff.  If you girls want to get out, then you can."  Victoria then replied, "I am not getting out."  She was terrified because Ryan had been shot at.

Shawna, a grandmother herself, was not going to leave a little girl by herself, opted to go with the flow.  So, the three in the back seat slid down, knees against the back of the front seat, getting their heads as low as possible.  In the forest, there was no cell phone service, so efforts to call out were futile.  Shawna, however, had her phone video camera on and was filming these events, as they happened.

At 4:33:47 PM, LaVoy accelerates and the chase was on.  Shawna then asked how far they would make it before the tires would be shot out.  Receiving no answer, she asked, "How far is it to John Day?"  LaVoy replied, "Fifty miles."

Just over a mile up the road, at the end of a left sweeping curve, three vehicles block the roadway.  The roadside has a snow bank about 2-3 feet high.  After just about 1 minute of flight, hoping to get to Sheriff Palmer at John Day, their hopes decelerate as rapidly as LaVoy's truck before it turns slightly to the left and plows through the snow.  As an agent runs into the path of the truck, LaVoy swerves further to the left, probably to avoid injuring the agent.  The truck comes to its final rest.  Although past the vehicles blocking the road to John Day, the failed momentum of LaVoy's efforts to reach sanctuary with Sheriff Palmer.

Unknown to those in the truck, and those back down the road, an effort was made to warn them of what was to come.

Victoria and Shawna were last minute passengers in Vehicle #1 because Victoria was late in preparing for the trip to John Day.  Her family had left more than ten minutes ahead of LaVoy, in that they were scheduled to sing at the Community Meeting, the destination of all.

When the Sharp family passed the checkpoint at Seneca, they tried to contact those behind them, but cell reception was non-existent where these events were unfolding.  Any chance to forewarn them of what they might expect was not able to be conveyed.

Within seconds, LaVoy is out of the truck, hands raised, and observing where the agents are, walks widely away from the truck and towards its rear to assure that if gunfire begins, that the truck and those inside of it are not in the line of fire.

[Note: A Witness has provided a correction -- that the gunfire started even before LaVoy got out of the truck. opf ]

The rear seat occupants slowly rise, after LaVoy exits.  They are still trying to stay low, but also to observe, as best they can, what is occurring outside of the vehicle.  They see LaVoy, hands in the air, trying to negotiate deep snow and probably uneven ground, stumbling, occasionally, probably because he was wearing his narrow cowboy boots.

[Note: Ryan Bundy is recording, verbally, on his cell phone, what is transpiring. Shawna Cox is taking video of the events, as they go down. Neither phone nor camera have been returned to their owners. opf ]

LaVoy then, probably still attempting to remove the threat from those still in the vehicle, yells, "Shoot me, just go ahead and shoot me."  As he is being shot, he turns back towards his friends, still in the truck, as if in a final good-bye.  Just 13 seconds after LaVoy left the truck, he falls to the ground, dead.  However, his arm does move, slightly, after he lay on the ground, perhaps as a last gesture to those still inside, perhaps a reflexive reaction.

Note: Second person information from one of the witnesses, indicates that LaVoy was shot [Note: The witness has provided a correction to the article - that the witness observed at least three shots that hit LaVoy, though there may have been ore. opf ]

Those inside are terrified; they see that LaVoy is shot, while unarmed.  In reflection, if soldiers (or Marines) in Afghanistan, had acted as the agents and shot an unarmed man, without provocation, would have violated the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of war, and would have stood Court Martial, then probably imprisoned or discharged from service.  Unfortunately, the ROE do not apply here, in our own "free" country.

At the same time that the gunfire was directed at LaVoy, by two agents clearly aiming at him, those inside of the truck begin seeing laser dots, perhaps thirty or forty at any given time, and Ryan Bundy is shot in the shoulder.  Bullets begin to pierce the truck; windows break, impacted by bullets.  All hell breaks loose as perhaps hundreds of bullets penetrate the vehicle or hit the snow, outside, sending clouds of snow into the air.  All of the windows had been broken by gunfire, which was described as "coming from every direction".

Ryan and Victoria had gotten on their knees, ducking as low as they could while Shawna remained in the previously described position.  They began to wonder if the gunfire would ever stop, and that eventually they, too, would be killed by the agents.

Laser dots were appearing on knees, seats, all over, inside of the truck and they realized that other agents had come out from behind trees on the left side, and perhaps the right side of the road, firing randomly into the truck and surrounding area.  Whether through the grace of God, or simply poor marksmanship, after nearly six minutes, those inside began yelling, "Stop, stop".  Then, gunfire, flash-bang grenades, and tear gas projectiles, ceased.

During this ordeal, Victoria, who had, just finished EMT school, said, "They shot him.  I want to help him", though she was restrained from doing so by Ryan and Shawna.  At eighteen years of age, gentle Victoria had seen war come to her own country.

The right side of the truck had plowed snow, so the occupants were told to exit the left door, Ryan Bundy, being first, walks, with hands up, onto the paved roadway and is secured.  Next comes Victoria, and finally, Shawna.  With no female agents present, Shawna watched very closely as an agent simply ran his fingers around Victoria's waistband of her pants.

The three were then detained, but allowed to lean against a van, in an effort to stay warm, as opposed to those from Vehicle #2, where they were forced to sit on the cold ground.

After a while, Shawna and Victoria were loaded in a van (not sure of the vehicle type) and driven back to pick up Payne, McConnell, Ammon and Budda.  Ryan Bundy was transported by ambulance back to Burns. 

They were detained at that location for what seemed like hours.  Ryan Payne, after learning of LaVoy's death, berated the forty, or so, agents, calling them murderers and that they had blood on their hands -- something that those who took over the refuge had attempted to avoid, since January 2.  However, those who had constantly expressed a desire for a "peaceful resolution" had, finally, drawn first blood in a contemptible act against American citizens, thereby proving the assertions made by Ammon Bundy throughout the course of the occupation of the refuge.

Victoria was extremely upset and constantly expressing her outrage over what the government had done.  Mark McConnell, surely upset himself, took it out on Victoria, for her vocal expressions, until quieted by the others.

Somehow Ammon, when searched, managed to sneak his cell phone past the pat down, and as they drove towards Burns, the interior lights of the vehicle being left on, was able to call his wife, Lisa, and began telling her what had happened, including the first outside knowledge of LaVoy's death.  As they approached Burns, the interior lights were turned off, probably so that those on the street could not see who the occupants were.  The glow from the phone face now showing brightly on Ammon's face.  They then stopped, pulled them out of the vehicle and found the cell phone.

Next stop was the hospital to check on Ryan Bundy, who still had a bullet in his shoulder, then on to a rest area west of Burns, where everybody was removed.  About the same time, Ryan Bundy was also delivered to the rest area.

All were given their Miranda Rights, and it is unknown whether anybody answered any subsequent questions.  They were then advised that they were being charged with "conspiracy to impede officers".  The document, the Criminal Complaint, must have been prepared after the arrests were made.  A nefarious practice, and probably illegal even by the standards of justice that were intended by the "due process" concept of law.  This is abundantly clear by the fact that "Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum" is not listed on the Complaint, for if it were prepared before the arrests were made, his name most surely would have been included, unless they had already intended to kill him.  More logically, the Criminal Complaint, a requisite for this type of arrest, was prepared after the FBI Special Agent, Katherine Armstrong, signed the Complaint, and Stacie F. Beckerman, U. S. Magistrate, signed the document, purportedly in Portland, some 300 miles away by road.  Certainly, not what we should expect from our government.

Finally, all were together, though, then, each was placed in a separate vehicle for transport to their final destinations.  Two vehicles transported Mark McConnell and Victoria Sharp back to Burns, where they were released.  The remainder went in the opposite direction, presumably directly to Multnomah County Jail.

As far as firearms, one witness said that LaVoy had a 9-mm in his shoulder holster, well under his armpit, and there is no indication that he reached high enough or deep enough under his jacket to even get his hand close to it.  With the exception of Shawna and Victoria, all were probably armed, as was the practice.  Ryan Bundy appears to have dropped his firearm into the snow as he exited the vehicle.  Mark McConnell had his taken when he was "apprehended" at the first stop.  LaVoy's well recognized revolver was left beside the seat when he exited Vehicle #1 to draw fire away from the remaining occupants of that vehicle.

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles No 2 - Ambush

Burns Chronicles N^o 1
Introduction

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.

This article can be found on line at Burns Chronicles No1 - Introduction

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
Terrorists at the Ranch

With Carrie Aenk's Statement on the Raid

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 14, 2015

 On November 14, 2015, when Schuyler Barbeau and a friend dropped off a case containing a rifle receiver, an 18" barrel, and a 10.5" barrel, the government had all they needed to bring charges against him -- for having three legal items in close proximity.  Though not seen by the friend, the contents had been described on the way to Oliver Murphy's house.

Later, according to the Criminal Complaint, the case and contents were turned over to the FBI.  According to the Complaint, "the CHS contacted the FBI" to turn the "evidence" over to them, though it appears that the Complaint is in error -- that the FBI was staking out the house, as that date had been set up for the drop off, and he was not "contacted" by the FBI, rather the FBI just showed up, got the evidence and then "secured" it.

The evidence is claimed to be an Short Barrel Rifle (SBR), however, it was a receiver, and two barrels, but, let's not quibble over reality when the government has other objectives.

However, since that time, the FBI has gone on a local television station and let local news agencies know that they have a "domestic terrorist" in custody.  So recently after the shootings by real terrorists in San Bernardino, California, it makes them look good if they can now capture a terrorist, even before he terrorizes anyone.

Now, as far as changing the nature of what they were doing, which was to punish Schuyler for not having registered and paid the $200 tax on a SBR, we can rest assured that the FBI will, undoubtedly, put together the chosen pieces of the "secured" hoard to resemble the SBR, long before it is introduced as evidence in court.

However, we must go one step further in the "integrity" of the FBI, or lack thereof.  The Constitution affords us protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures".  Specifically, Article IV, Bill of Rights, states:

• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, not only does the object of the search have to be "particularly described", it must be "supported by Oath or affirmation".

Now, the Criminal Complaint makes only two allegations in the single "Count 1".  Those allegations are about "violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5861(d) and 5845(a)(3)".  Title 26, by the way, is the Tax Code, not the Criminal Code.

However, on the Search warrant, that is supposed to be supported by Oath or Affirmation, we find those two sections of Title 26, but we also find "possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o)".  However, there is no "Oath or affirmation" to support these charges.  Quite simply, they were probably inserted to demonize Schuyler Barbeau and make him look looked something that he surely is not -- a terrorist.

So, let's look at one of the many definitions of terrorism, as defined in the same United States Code that has already been referenced:

• Title 18, United States Code, Section Sec. 2331.
• (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
• (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
• (B) appear to be intended—
• (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
• (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

So, we have "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State.".  Title 26, the Tax laws, are not criminal, they are, well, "taxes".

Now, in paragraph (B), it qualifies the act as one intended "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population", or, "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion".

With the television show, the press coverage (the source had to be the government, as Schuyler hasn't even been able to speak to family, let alone the press), there is no doubt that the efforts were to coerce the population and to influence the policy (jury) by coercion.  I think that there can be little doubt as to that affect, as we have already seen the press, and can fully expect the jury, to follow suit.

So, let's look at paragraph (A).  "Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life" that would be criminal acts under our laws.  So, absent lawful authority (as per the 4th Amendment), the acts, if they are violent and dangerous to human life, they surely qualify as terrorism.  At best, Schuyler may have said some things, but he never acted anything out.  That is Freedom of Speech, and is far less offensive that "Kill Whitey" or "Kill cops", but only one person has been arrested, though the news has shown many dozens of protestors with words and signs to that effect.

But, I digress.  Carrie Aenk was home, alone, on the Aenk ranch, some 280 miles from where Schuyler was arrested and Allen Aenk detained for hours.  The government knew that she was home alone, and the warrant was daylight only, and no provision for "no-knock" entry.  That is not how it played out

Carrie Aenk has written a statement about what occurred.  I will leave the reader to judge whether they (the People) would consider these activities to be "domestic terrorism", or not.  Below are some excerpts from that statement:

• "I have been raped without them touching my genitalia.  I no longer feel safe or secure within the walls of my home or boundaries of my property.  They have taken from me what I can never get back."
• "The Agent sees a sweater just inside the door, grabs it from the hook and drapes it over my shoulders when I see one of my dogs that was supposed to be kenneled in my peripheral view, and then he’s gone.  I run to the edge of the porch and down the steps to get my dogs back inside their kennels but I’m thrown to the ground before I can go any further, landing in the icy mud."
• "When I get back to the house, I walk straight over to the phone and turn my back to it so my fingers can call my attorney’s cell phone.  The Agent sees what I’m doing and takes the phone out of the cradle so I can’t use the phone."

The entire statement (pdf) is at "Carrie's Statement".  When you are finished reading her account of this ordeal, you may want to consider, based upon the information above, just who the real terrorists are.

This article can be found on line at Barbeau Qued in Seattle -Terrorists at the Ranch