A Well Regulated Militia Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» A Well Regulated Militia » Militia Operations » Militia Discussion » 15 Snitches (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: 15 Snitches
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Gary Hunt:

quote:
I am finally back home from having spent just over one week in the Sacramento County Jail.

I want to thank all who have supported me throughout this ordeal, whether with financial support, open support on Social Media, and those who prayed for a good outcome. Through extremely limited communications, I was still able to find out some of what was going on outside of the jail walls.

Currently, the ground is still held with regard to the matter of the jurisdiction of the Court over my articles. A hearing is scheduled for May 9, in Portland. It has been stipulated to, that my appearance at that hearing is not an admission of jurisdiction -- it is simply to decide whether, or not, there was jurisdiction. If it is determined that there was jurisdiction (which I doubt), then a Show Cause hearing will be held at a future date.

I will be writing a number of articles, some prior to that first hearing. Others will be written after that hearing, to include the outcome of that hearing and other matters that I am not at liberty to discuss at this time.

I have held my ground, and will continue to do so. Hopefully, this will be an encouraging lesson to patriots; you can challenge the government and win. With this in mind, it is abundantly clear that:

IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17061 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Judge releases man held in Malheur informants case.

quote:
California resident Gary Hunt, speaking by phone from jail Thursday, promised he would show up to court in Portland to defend his right to publish details about FBI informants involved in the investigation of the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

"I give my word, my bond, my honor that I will appear at a time designated by the court,'' Hunt told U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown. "Believe it or not, I've been looking forward to discussing the issue in your presence.''

The judge responded that she needed more than "his word'' before she approved his release from custody.


Hunt, 71, was arrested last Thursday on a warrant that Brown signed after he skipped a hearing to explain why he shouldn't be held in civil contempt of a court order that demanded he remove his online publications revealing confidential FBI informants who assisted in the investigation of the 41-day refuge occupation.

He has spent the last week in the Sacramento County Jail.

Hunt has argued that he was never a defendant in the federal conspiracy case and that the federal judge in Oregon doesn't have any jurisdiction over him nor does her order demanding he remove his online posts.

Brown advised Hunt on Thursday that he can make what's called a "special appearance'' in court and not waive his challenge to the court's jurisdiction.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Pamala Holsinger objected to the release of Hunt without him signing an appearance bond or posting something to require his appearance.

"Every single court order on this issue he has ignored,'' Holsinger said.

Hunt interjected that he would sign an agreement, but it can't contain the word "defendant.''


"I'm not a defendant in anything. I can't agree to be a defendant,'' he said. " If you strike the word 'defendant,' I'll sign it.''

Brown said Hunt could have avoided jail if he had made his position clear in writing to the court or called the court.

The judge directed the prosecutor and Portland attorney Michael Rose, assigned to represent Hunt, to craft some type of written agreement for Hunt to sign, with "an enforceable promise he'll appear'' before her at 2 p.m. on May 9 to argue if the court has authority over Hunt.

By 4:30 p.m., Hunt had signed a $10,000 "appearance bond,'' and the judge ordered his release. If Hunt doesn't show up in May, he'll forfeit that amount of money.

"I would like to sleep in my own bed for a change,'' Hunt told the judge. "This has been a hardship for me.''


The presence of nine informants sent to the eastern Oregon refuge last year, as well as six others who worked on the case for the FBI, came out during the first trial of occupation leaders.

Hunt, according to prosecutors, apparently got hold of FBI reports on the confidential informants that prosecutors gave to defense attorneys as part of their sharing of evidence before trial. The court ordered the reports not be shared with others.

Hunt was a member of the advisory board for Operation Mutual Defense, a network of militias and supporters founded by Ryan Payne, one of the refuge occupation's organizers.

In a motion to release Hunt, two Oregon assistant federal public defenders described him as a Vietnam veteran and retired professional surveyor with no prior criminal history and long-term ties to his California community. The Federal Public Defender's Office, though, can't represent Hunt going forward because the office already represents a defendant in the refuge takeover case.

Occupation leader Ammon Bundy and six others were acquitted of conspiracy and other charges after a five-week trial that ended Oct. 27. Eleven pleaded guilty to felony charges and another three pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespass charge. Four other defendants were convicted of felony and misdemeanor charges after a recent 10-day jury trial, followed by a bench trial before Brown.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17061 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a trap. Braun is maneuvering Gary into her gestapo kourt where she will declare that he is most certainly within her jurisdiction. I look for all of his constitutional arguments to be declared 'irrelevant and of no bearing to the case at hand'.

Look at the current Bundy trial where another female judge has basically disallowed the accused from calling witnesses or mounting any effective defense.

It's all a rigged game with a predetermined outcome. Just like Strat's case.

[ 04-08-2017, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: ConSigCor ]

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 15162 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's my feeling too. He's going to have to raise his legal points an appellate court and, given that it's the Ninth Circuit, most likely to the Supreme Court.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17061 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConSigCor:
It's a trap. Braun is maneuvering Gary into her gestapo kourt where she will declare that he is most certainly within her jurisdiction. I look for all of his constitutional arguments to be declared 'irrelevant and of no bearing to the case at hand'.

Look at the current Bundy trial where another female judge has basically disallowed the accused from calling witnesses or mounting any effective defense.

It's all a rigged game with a predetermined outcome. Just like Strat's case.

We can only say the truth and predict the outcome based on education and experience, then make recommendations on the basis of experience, before we are disregarded and humiliated.

The New American has been running articles on the various land and rancher abuse cases. People just don't really give a shit unless it's a zero risk zero cost option that's guaranteed to win, and zero risk zero cost options are never likely to win.

[ 04-08-2017, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Breacher ]

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
mak9030mag
NCO Contributor
Member # 2955

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mak9030mag   Email mak9030mag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sad day in a amerikia,another patriot gets screwed. Rights are pretty much protected if it benefits the courts.
Reality is we the people in the eyes of the system are looked at and treated as property of the state. Nothing more nothing less.
In a democracy it is what is best for the collective, as a whole. Not what is best for the individual as in a republic.

--------------------
Mak

Posts: 953 | From: washington | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OH, I can buy the concept of what's best for the "collective" until you run into those arrogant evil people who are the "real collective".

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sojourn to Sacramento

quote:
Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
April 11, 2017

Introduction

This past Saturday, April 8, I returned home from a week long visit the Sacramento County Jail. I was in jail based upon a Warrant for my arrest for failing to appear at a show cause hearing on March 10. The Warrant and what led up to it will be the subject of a future article.

I am writing this article to explain a system that, quite frankly, ignores our rights, especially when only accused of a crime. It will give a little insight into life behind bars, at least those of the Sacramento County Jail. I can’t say that this compares to the treatment that those currently held in jail in Oregon (Jason Patrick) or Nevada (many still innocent people) are receiving, but, perhaps it will help to understand that they are being treated similarly, or worse.

It will also explain what I have gone through. Now, when I go to Court in Portland, next month, I will be entering the courtroom on the terms that I had to establish. Fortunately, though without a plan going in, the final result is that I achieved a bit more than I could have expected, thanks to Judge Anna Brown.

The Arrest

Around noon on March 30, 2017, a nice, sunny, warm day, here in Los Molinos, California, I received a phone call from FBI Special Agent Catalano. This was the fourth call he had made to me, since back in January when he first provided me a copy from the US Shyster demanding that I cease and desist publishing information obtained from the United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al, discovery evidence. He began by saying, I am here in Los Molinos with the US Marshals, and I suppose you know what this is about.” About that time, my wife buzzed me and told me that lunch was ready.

I then asked if it was to arrest me. He affirmed that that was the purpose. I asked if I could have about an hour to explain to my family what was occurring. After conferring with someone on his end, he said that would be okay. I told him that I would call him when I was ready. I must say that I honestly believe, because of the tone of his voice, that SA Catalano did not enjoy his task

I called my team and gave them the simple message, “I am going to be arrested and transported to Sacramento.” Please post that on my Facebook pages.” I told them that there was no more to report, at this time. Then, I went to the house, planning to do a bit more preparation, after I had eaten.

As I sat down to eat lunch, the task that I had anticipated, though somehow hoped would not occur, became reality. My wife and children know what I do, but our agreement is that my work stays in my office, and out of the house. They had no idea what I had been writing, but that was about ready to explode, big time, as I began, “I am going to be arrested within an hour.”

I tried to explain the background, and that the principles that I held so dearly had led to this situation. My wife, however, was distraught and my children simply confused. In the ensuing turmoil, I did not make adequate preparation. I did not fulfill my plan to make a list of phone numbers. And, as I have since learned, it would also be wise to take a fully charged cell phone, and some cash, if you are being “self-arrested”. These exigencies will be explained, where appropriate.

I did empty my pockets. I had only my reading glasses, a bandana, a cigarette lighter, cigarettes, and a crush hat. That, of course, besides the clothes that I was wearing.

Fully prepared for what was to come, I called SA Catalano and told him, “I’m ready. I will meet you on the road and I will be unarmed.” Then, I left my home, went to the road and walked down about a hundred feet, out of sight of my wife and children, and stood with my hands at my side.

A few minutes later, two vehicles came down our country road. They stopped about 200 feet from me. Then, they moved, slowly, in my direction. They stopped, again, and two armed US Marshals, automatic weapons, body armor, and fully black (that used to be the color for the bad guys, and, I presume, unchanged.). They stood, cautiously, by their vehicles and motioned for me to come toward them. I did so with my arms well out to the side and my palms facing toward them. When I got adjacent to the vehicle, one of the Marshals told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back, I did so. I asked, “Are you going to take me all of the way to Sacramento with my hands behind my back?” Another Marshall told him to “five-point” me, so even before the “cuffs” were put on, a waist-chain was wrapped around my waist. Then, they cuffed one hand, inserted the other cuff through a slot in the waist-chain, then cuffed the second hand. They frisked me, but took nothing from me. Next came the leg irons. They are larger in circumference than the handcuffs and have a chain between the two “bracelets”, about 2 feet long. I was then placed in one of the vehicles.

From there, we went into Los Molinos proper, near the fire station. I got out of the vehicle and they rearranged themselves, now, the four Marshals went to their respective four vehicles. I was thinking, holy crap, four marshals, four vehicles, and that doesn’t include Catalano and another agent in a beige FBI vehicle. The marshals commenced to get their equipment into their respective vehicles and then began the motorcade.

The Marshal who drove me down to Sacramento said that he would let me have a cigarette before we reached Sacramento, and he was good to his word. After about an hour, I asked if I could have my cigarette, and he said that I could. So, with hands cinched tightly to my waist, I managed to get the lighter out of my pants pocket. Then, I pulled a single cigarette from my shirt pocket, lit it, and slipped the lighter into the shirt pocket. To light the cigarette, I had to bend forward so that I could hold the lighter close enough to the cigarette to affect the desired exercise. The same process was necessary to smoke, so I would often leave the cigarette dangling from my mouth rather than contort myself to remove, and later, replace it.

Just over a third of the cigarette smoked, it fell from my hands onto the floor of the vehicle. There was no way that I could pick it up; I didn’t know what to do. He told me to step on it and light another one, which I did. When I finished that second cigarette, he told me to throw it on the floor and step on it, too. That became my last cigarette for seven days.

During the two-hour drive, there was quite a bit of conversation. The Marshal’s name was Rob (LNU, since he chose not to give it). He told me that Catalano had told them about me, that I was peaceful and simply a writer. He also mentioned that Catalano had told them that I had written kindly about him during our previous meetings. That sure took the edge off.

Then, we got into a discussion of my “crime”. Possible contempt of court, failure to appear at a show cause hearing, though nothing of violence. He suggested that I would probably be home by dinnertime, and called the US Marshal Office in Sacramento to see if they could arrange my hearing, as soon as possible. We were almost to Sacramento when they called back and said that my hearing would be the next day, Friday, at 2:00 in the afternoon. Well, there went my dinner at home, though I really was not prepared for what followed at the hearing.

As a bit of a side note, I asked Rob why they chose to drive the 120 miles, not even knowing if I was at home. He said that they knew I was at home. This got me to thinking, how could they know, for sure. Years ago, when I had an outstanding warrant in Florida, there was a phone call, I answered, then silence and click. Less than five minutes later, the police kicked in my door. A logical method is to call and see who answers. I did receive a phone call at 10:04 am. It was from someone that I haven’t heard from in a while — back when there was a bit of controversy. The timing would be about right, so I will patiently wait for that person, who I am sure will read this, calls and provides an explanation — or not.

Jail

The Booking Report shows that I was arrested at 12:15. I was taken directly to the Sacramento County Jail. I arrived there shortly after 2:00 and began the “Intake” process. First, they took my personal property, less clothing. Apparently, the US Marshals have to initiate the process, so, they took my belt, shoelaces, cigarettes, lighter, glasses, and my papers (the entire Freedom of the Press series and corresponding Court documents from Oregon). Then I was moved into a room with a bunch of other people. I just waited. . It is at this point that the 5-point” manacles are removed, with no replacement. Hands free, at least for the time being.

During this rather lengthy wait, some people began to discuss their charges. I was asked, and I stated that I was a federal prisoner. Well, that got the interest going, so I explained the circumstances that led to my presence in their midst. There were about thirty people in the room we were in, and only room for about five to lay down to sleep. There were a couple of guys trying to sleep on a bench and one of them looked over, seemingly irritated by the noise that was keeping him awake. We will get back to this particular person, later, though I don’t recall any direct conversation with him at that time.

Next, we were shuffled into “booking”, where our pictures were taken and wristbands made. This would be the official time of booking, and is shown as 19:09 (7:09 pm). So, that is five hours squandered due to the inefficiency of government. All of it in very uncomfortable circumstances. However, we are not even close to, well, being inmates/detainees. That won’t happen until we have a cell and a bunk. And, I was advised that the US Marshals would pick me up at 7:00 am.

Eventually, we were moved into a room where you are asked your size, then thrown a bundle and told to change into those wonderful orange suits. I didn’t know how they determined size, so the guy throwing the clothes said, “Two”, and tossed me my bundle. In the next room, we undressed, transferred all of our clothing into paper bags, and donned our new apparel. It was then that I realized that I was a “three”, though I remained dressed as a “two” during my entire stay.

Then, back to a holding cell. Finally, we are moved to semi-permanent quarters, 7th floor, West, pod 8, cell 14. A rather luxurious cell, or at least mattress, compared to my next two “rooms”. This was about 2:00 am. So, we can see that there was nearly 12 hours of “Intake” before I was finally confirmed as ‘incarcerated’.

Now, breakfast is served in our room at 5:00, though, since they don’t want you to miss the wonderful fare, they wake you between 4:30 and 4:45. I do not function too well with only three hours sleep, especially when there is no activity taking place, except, well, a healthy dose of boredom. There wasn’t enough time to really get back to sleep before my 7:00 escorted excursion to the federal building, just across the street from the jail, so I formalized the boredom by simply sitting on my bunk.

Speaking of my bunk, the walls, floor, and bed are either cold painted concrete or cold painted metal. The room is about 12′ x 8′. The bunks (lower and upper) are across the rear 8′ wall and about 3 1/2 feet wide. Then, you have a fine table, mounted securely to the wall, and finally, the kitchen/commode combo. When the commode is flushed, it is loud enough for you to close your eyes and think that you are at Niagara Falls. However, the sink has a cold and, well, ‘hot’, button. Each, when depressed, provides about ten seconds of flow. If you push the ‘hot’ button four or five times, you get what might be called extremely warm water.

There are two tiers, upper and lower. Each tier has 20 cells, totaling 40 cells, each with 2 prisoners. The open area has about 12 tables, most seating 4 people, and some seating 6. However, they are not used for eating, as eating is done in the cells. A serious lack of either foresight or application.

There are two telephones at each of three locations. Supposedly, two phones are for the “Norths” (Northern California Mexicans) and three for the Crips (Negros and other non-whites). However, and here is where White Privilege comes into play, the remaining phone is used by mostly non-whites. It seems that Whites are privileged if they get to use a phone. However, some of the Crips allowed me, to use their phone, once they were finished using it.

Phone calls can go up to 20 minutes. We are allowed out for an hour, twice a day, in the pod area, So, that means each phone, unless someone has a short conversation, usually handles only 3 or 4 calls. That, then, allows about 48 calls per day for 80 people.

Now, I was trying to comfort my wife, make contact with close friends and my team, and find an attorney. Considering that I was a detainee and not a convict, it would seem that access would be more readily available. Instead, under those conditions, it was quite frustrating. Persistence, however, finally got me to the point where I could contact some people that were very helpful in arranging things, contacting attorneys, etc. To them, my undying gratitude.

However, to put a bit of perspective on this whole things, when I went to my hearing for the Eastern District of California, I met my Federal Public Defender, Doug Beevers. His words, as well as mine, fell on deaf ears to the Magistrate Edmund Brennan. I was not released under unsecured bond, as was expected. Instead, I was held in custody pending transfer to Oregon. That order indicated that I would be available for the hearing on April 25, 2017. That would have been my 26th day in custody.

Believing jailhouse rumors, it appeared that I would be dieseled. Ironically, Pahrump was a weigh-stop in the western states. So, when I got out, I spoke with Jon Ritzheimer to compare notes. Jon was arrested on January 26; Moved to Oklahoma on February 13; Moved to Pahrump, Nevada from the 14th to the 19th; and, Booked into Oregon on February 19.

So, Jon’s sojourn was 25 days. My sojourn, as determined by Magistrate Brennan, would have been 26 days. There can be little doubt that the intention was to diesel me as they did Jon. However, as you will see, that is not what was intended, though that will be explained in a subsequent article.

The problem, however, is contacting an attorney, even though only accused, not even convicted. How can one seek “assistance of Counsel” (4th Amendment) when one can’t even contact his Court appointed counsel? Mr. Beevers could not call me in jail. We could only talk if he came to visit. And, there is just about none of that, until things started to change. This, too, will be discussed in its proper place.

We are also given a packet containing essentials. This includes a comb, toothpaste (I think — it smells like toothpaste), and what they call a toothbrush. The toothbrush is rather novel. It reminds me of the tip of a cake-frosting nozzle, though it is plastic and slides over your finger tip. On one side, it has a ridge topped by some bristles that are at least a 16th of an inch long. However, in my seven days, I never did master the art of brushing with that object that reminds me of a Cracker-Jacks prize. I simply brushed my teeth with my finger.

There are a few good people that I should name. The head trustee at 5W[est], pod 3, is a Negro named, or, well, answers to “12 Gauge”, nickname simply “12”. When I was quite far behind in phone calls, he arranged for me to have 45 minutes outside of my cell, with access to the phones. This allowed me to almost catch up after my White Privilege failed me.

Then, there was another White guy named Chet. He was extremely helpful in understanding just how the ‘system’ in the jail structure (prisoner side) works. I got to know the ‘rules’ and was able to get along with the rest of the population without creating ‘offenses’.

Then, there was Dustin. He was my cellmate for all but my first night in jail. We became good friends, partially because I did what I could to ease his withdrawal from heroin, and partially because he seemed to see me as a father figure and, hopefully, he will now see that he has to grab life by the, well, you know, rather than let life grab him by the same means. There will be one more, mentioned later, in its proper place.

The daily routine is breakfast at 4:00 am; Lunch at 11:00 am, and dinner at 4:00 pm, or thereabouts. Now, I have always had an aversion to eating something I could not identify. BTW, I lost about 5 pounds, so, perhaps, some may want to consider this route if they want to cut some weight off. Unlike clinics for that purpose, this is at taxpayers’ expense.

Between breakfast and lunch, and then after dinner, are the two “Day Room” one-hour periods in which you can make phone calls. Unfortunately, only once did that period overlap normal working hours. This makes it difficult to contact the attorney’s office, at least until later when I got his cell phone number.

That’s about it for the daily routine. Now, let’s see what it takes to check out of the Graybar Hotel.

Approaching Freedom

At about 2:00 pm, Friday, April 6, I joined a telephonic Release Hearing, before Judge Anna Brown, and included Pamela Holsinger, US Shyster’s Office; Susan Wilk, Federal Public Defender for the purpose of the Release Hearing; Michael Rose, Federal Public Defender, for all other purposes; and, Doug Beevers, California Federal Public Defender, and able counsel during my stay in Sacramento. Present in the Courtroom were some journalists, including Maxine Bernstein of Oregon Live.

Regardless of the Eastern District Magistrate Brennan’s effort to retain me in custody for another 24 days, we were down to obtaining my release. I was reluctant to sign the “Appearance Bond” and the “Notice to Defendant Being Released” because, well, those forms are for Defendants, which I am not. So, it was determined and agreed to that henceforth I would be referred to as “Person” or “Respondent”, thereby not subjecting me to the jurisdiction of the Court by chicanery. It was further determined that my appearance at the May 9 jurisdiction hearing would not be an admission to the jurisdiction of the Court. That was so agreed, I will be present in Portland on May 9, to argue jurisdiction, though I will enter the Courtroom under my conditions, as stated in writing. And, since March 10, when I “failed to appear”, my sole purpose was enter the Courtroom under those conditions. However, absent my stay in jail in Sacramento, I was at a loss as to how I could achieve that objective. Now, it is a done deal.

The appropriate paperwork was completed, and Mr. Beevers brought them to the jail for my signature. They were then sent to Portland, approved by Judge Brown, entered in the record, and the “Order Setting Conditions of Release” was transmitted to the Sacramento County Sheriff.

Less than an hour after signing the papers, as I sat on my concrete bunk, the loudspeaker announced, “Hunt, grab your blankets and towel and go to Control”. Control, by the way, is outside of the pod, between the 2 Pod and the 3 Pod. Any time you leave your pod, or return to your pod, you check in with someone behind a darkened window, giving name and purpose. My purpose was release, and this occurred about 5:00 pm.

From the pod, I went down to the first floor and a holding cell. There were nearly 30 people there when I arrived. Most already had their civilian clothes on — no more orange suits. I found that the next step would be the return of our civilian clothes, and waited, anxiously, to get back into something that I chose to wear. And, I waited. As I did, more people entered the cell.

One of those who had entered the cell shortly before I did said, “Gary, you’re here, too!” I looked around and saw a face that I had seen seven days before in intake. We had not really met, back then. Bob had been trying to sleep, though he had little choice but to listen as I explained my ‘crime’ to those that had asked. He had a good recall of names, and it was quite a shock to be recognized under the circumstances. We talked and he had a phone in property. I asked if I could call my attorney with his phone, once we were on the street. He willingly agreed, and we continued talking, wasting away the time, as best we could.

Then, a small group, about 15 people, was called into the next room. About 6:30, a bunch of paper bags filled with clothing, each having a name and number on them, were unceremoniously thrown into the room. A scramble ensued, each trying to find his clothes and change into them. I found mine, and trying desperately to find a place to stand to shed the orange and get back into my own clothes, I doffed the jail clothes, including underwear, and returned to some semblance of humanity with my real clothes now covering my body. We also received debit cards for any commissary funds still on our accounts, and any cash taken during booking.

This led us to believe that our time was short. However, it was well after 9:00 when they began calling the newly clothed, ex-prisoners, into the next room in small groups. In that room we were forced to stand and face the wall as one at a time, we were called to a workstation. There, we had to provide electronic thumbprints, instantly compared to those on file from our booking, and then allow the guard to compare our face with those pictures taken at the same time. We then had our personal property bags handed to us, not to be opened, and sent back to the wall.

Free, at last

After our group had all been electronically approved, we were told to go into a small room, with electronic doors. Once we were in that room, the door back to the cells was closed. Then, the door on the other side opened into the lobby of the Sheriffs jail, and we were told to go directly outside. My attorney had told me that there would be pay phones at this point, and that I could call him collect. Well, there were no pay phones, nor had there been an opportunity to use them, as we were shuffled out the door and onto the sidewalk.

It was raining. There was no cover over the doors. The rain was falling just a foot from the door and splashing on the windows. We had been cast onto the rainy street like stray animals — and this is how the Sacramento County Sheriff treats those who are “innocent until proven guilty”.

Once on the street, and free, again, I opened my property bag, grabbed my crush hat (glad now that I had worn it to be arrested), put it on my head and then grabbed my shoelaces. Still standing in the rain, I watched Bob thread his shoelaces, trying to keep them flat. However, we are out. And that is good enough to weather the weather.

I pulled out my cigarettes, offered him one, and we smoked our first smoke in a week. Then, we made plans to find a pay telephone. Well, after walking about four or five blocks and finding nothing open, he suggested we go to “Old Sacramento”, which are some nineteenth century buildings about twenty feet below the current street level and protected by a levy. We passed a rather noisy bar, not suitable for conversation, and then found an eatery called Fanny Ann’s. It was now about 10:15 pm. We decide first on some real food. Bob had no money or commissary, so I used my card to buy two large blue cheese-bacon burgers and a couple of sodas. We sat down to eat and contemplate our next move. Bob managed to borrow a phone from the bartender and called his mother to pick him up. I asked if I could go along and use her phone, though as we talked about it, the conversation changed to him getting his car and driving me the 120 plus miles to my home. I would give him $120.00 and the rest of what was on the debit card, and the deal was struck.

My team had arranged for an Uber driver, though they had expected me to be out before 9:00 and arranged for about that time for me to be picked up. My point of contact was Mr. Beevers, my attorney. I found later that he had waited at the door until just after nine O’clock, and then gone home. If I called him, he would have to call the Uber driver. If the Uber driver did not want to make the long trip, after the scheduled time, it would be a start over, and I just wanted to sleep in my own bed, for a change.

So, Bob drove me to my home in Los Molinos. We had some good conversation — not jail talk, as before, and parted as friends sometime after midnight — but I was finally home.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17061 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Freedom of the Press #14
Telephonic Hearing


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2017

In my previous article, “Freedom of the Press #13 – Sojourn to Sacramento“, I mentioned the telephonic hearing held on Thursday, April 6, leading to my release, just a few hours later. Prior to the hearing, it was set in stone, by Magistrate Brennan, in Sacramento, that I would not arrive in Portland until April 25. This fits the schedule for “diesel therapy” (where the run you all over the country, in a sense, punishing you for being accused of a criminal act), which would take me to Oklahoma, then to Pahrump, Nevada, and then on to Portland over a period of twenty-five days. The hearing, however, forestalled that tour of the West. What led up to that hearing is the subject of this article.

I was self-arrested at my home and transported to Sacramento, California, on Thursday, March 30. Judge Anna Brown was apprised of the arrest on Thursday, shortly after I was arrested. I will describe the events as I lived them and provide pertinent entries from the Ammon Bundy, et al case in Oregon, Docket reports.

03/30/2017 [ECF#] 2051
ORDER On March 10, 2017, the Court entered a Sealed Order # 2017 Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt. On March 30, 2017, the government advised the Court that Gary Hunt has been taken into custody pursuant to this Court’s arrest warrant. Accordingly, because there is no longer any need to maintain under seal the Court’s Order # 2017 , the Court directs the Clerk to unseal Order # 2017 Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

On March 30, Judge Brown knew that the Warrant had been served. Now, as I understand from my Federal Public Defender, Douglas Beevers, on Tuesday, April 4, Judge Brown had been waiting to be notified that I had arrived in Portland. Apparently, she expected me to be in Portland on Monday. When she contacted the US Marshal Service, they told her that I was being held in Sacramento. Apparently, she had been advised that I would be arriving on April 25, via the diesel route.

.

On 7:00 am, Friday, March 31, I was five-pointed (waist chain, handcuffs, and leg irons) and transported from the Sacramento County Jail, by US Marshal van. They drove about four blocks to get me to the Federal District Courthouse, directly across the street from the Sacramento County Jail.

I met my California Federal Public Defender, Douglas Beevers about an hour before my scheduled bail hearing. In about 15 minutes, I had to explain the circumstances leading up to my arrest. Magistrate Brennan refused me bail, and I was to be held, as stated, to be available in Portland on April 25. It was a done deal in Brennan’s mind when I went into his courtroom. The reason behind his set mind will be the subject of another article.

After the 2:00 pm hearing, I was returned to jail by the same means, though the driver stopped and started, quickly, a couple of times. There is no way to keep from sliding around when you are all trussed up. I can see how injuries can occur with this form of shackled transport. Fortunately, this was my last official government ride.

When I returned to jail, I found my new quarters already reserved for me.

Tuesday, April 4, one of my contacts advised me that, via email, that my attorney (Beevers) would be in that morning. When afternoon arrived, I was rather upset that he did not show up. I had no way to contact him.

Wednesday, April 5, afternoon, Beevers visited me and said that Thursday we would have a telephonic hearing with Judge Brown. I advised him that the Sheriffs Jail had no facilities for inmates to have secure communications with attorneys or any such hearing.

This started a series of communications that resulted in the determination to hold a telephonic hearing on Thursday, April 6, as described, above. However, I had already found that the Sacramento Jail has no provision for secure communication between my lawyer, and me except in a face-to-face visitor area. He passed that information up to Oregon. Judge Brown then arranged for the hearing. The guard that was in the room with me during the hearing informed me that what was happening by my being able to have such communication was “quite rare”. I must applaud Judge Brown for expediting the hearing by forcing the Sheriff’s Jail to accommodate that aspect of justice.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2054
Scheduling Order: SETTING a Show Cause Hearing for Thursday, 4/6/2017 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 14A before Judge Anna J. Brown. Gary Hunt is directed to appear by phone. Counsel for the Government and Counsel for Gary Hunt will be present in Courtroom 14A. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

This ended up being a “Release Hearing”, as I was not in any position to present any testimony or evidence on my behalf. See ECF # 2056 (below).

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2055
Motion for Revocation of Detention Order filed by Interested Non-Party Gary Hunt as to Defendant Ammon Bundy, Jon Ritzheimer, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox, Peter Santilli, Jason Patrick, Duane Leo Ehmer, Dylan Anderson, Sean Anderson, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Sandra Lynn Anderson, Kenneth Medenbach, Blaine Cooper, Wesley Kjar, Corey Lequieu, Neil Wampler, Jason Charles Blomgren, Darryl William Thorn, Geoffrey Stanek, Travis Cox, Eric Lee Flores, Jake Ryan. (schm) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

This Motion was at the request of my attorneys.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2056
AMENDED Scheduling Order: SETTING a Release Hearing for Thursday, 4/6/2017 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 14A before Judge Anna J. Brown. This Release Hearing is to consider whether Gary Hunt may be released from custody in Sacramento, CA, pending his appearance at a Show Cause hearing to be scheduled in Portland, OR. Gary Hunt is directed to appear by phone. Counsel for the Government and Counsel for Gary Hunt will be present in Courtroom 14A. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

I was not put into the call until close to 2:00, and I have no idea what occurred for the first hour. I have requested transcripts, as I believe that I have a right to know about all of the proceedings on my ’cause’.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2057
Order Setting Conditions of Release as to Gary Hunt by Judge Anna J. Brown (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Person and Appearance Bond) (slm) Modified on 4/6/2017, request from attorney Michael E. Rose to send him a copy of this order as Mr. Rose was appointed by Judge Brown for Gary Hunt. I e-mailed the order to mrose@civilrightspdx.com (schm). (Entered: 04/06/2017)

Then, we have the “Minutes of the Proceeding”, which, as I said, I joined about 2:00 pm.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2058
Minutes of Proceedings: Release Hearing held on 4/6/2017 before Judge Anna J. Brown as to third-party Respondent Gary Hunt. Gary Hunt appeared by telephone. ORDER – Appointing Susan Wilk from the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the limited purpose of preparing for and representing Hunt during this Release Hearing. Appointing Michael Rose for all other purposes. Scheduling order to follow. Counsel present for Plaintiff: Pamala Holsinger. Counsel Present for Respondent: Susan Wilk; Michael Rose (by telephone); and Douglas Beevers, Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of California (by telephone). (Court Reporter Amanda LeGore). Judge Anna J. Brown, presiding. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

As a result of the hearing, and working out some details, as explained in the previous article, I was released from “detention”.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2059
ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record at the Release Hearing held April 6, 2017, and pursuant to the Order # 2057 Setting Conditions of Release, the Court GRANTS Motion # 2055 for Revocation of Detention Order filed by Gary Hunt. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

In accordance with my and my counsel’s request, the following stipulations were made a part of the record.

04/06/2017 [ECF#] 2060
SCHEDULING ORDER: For all purposes related to proceedings against Gary Hunt in this matter, the parties and the Court will refer to him as “Respondent Gary Hunt” or “Respondent” or “Hunt,” but not as “Defendant Gary Hunt.” As the parties agreed during the Release Hearing on April 6, 2017, the Court will adjudicate Respondent Gary Hunt’s response to the Court’s Order # 1901 in two stages. The Court will first hear the parties’ arguments as to the jurisdictional issues Respondent seeks to make. Respondent’s memorandum regarding jurisdictional issues is due no later than Noon on April 21, 2017. The government’s response is due no later than Noon on May 1, 2017. No reply will be permitted, and, accordingly, the Court encourages counsel to confer about the merits of these jurisdictional issues before Respondent files his memorandum. The Court SETS a hearing regarding the jurisdictional issues on May 9, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14A of the Mark O. Hatfield U. S. Courthouse, 1000 SW Third Avenue, Portland, OR. Pursuant to its orders authorizing Hunt’s release, Hunt is required to appear in person at this hearing. In the event that the Court determines it has jurisdiction to continue to consider the merits of the government’s arguments in support of finding Hunt in contempt for allegedly violating certain Protective Orders in this matter, the Court will set an additional briefing schedule and another hearing date and time at which Hunt must appear to in order adjudicate Hunt’s response to the Court’s previous Orders to Show Cause. The Court directs Hunt’s counsel, Michael Rose, to ensure Hunt receives a copy of this Order. Ordered by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

Now, a behemoth system like the jail/prison system in this country is a difficult beast to cause to change direction. As it was, after the first hearing, I was caught up in a government paid tour of the Western States, by land and by air, all meals, and lodging paid with your tax dollars.

However, when Judge Anna Brown found that she would have either to set that system straight, or delay any hearings regarding the publication of my articles, for quite some time. Judge Brown asserted her authority to overcome that behemoth, arranging for the Sacramento Jail to establish communications for my participation. She also arranged for my counsel, Michael Rose, in Oregon, and my counsel, Douglas Beevers, in California, as well as other Federal Public Defenders in Oregon, to participate in a release hearing, all within a very short period of time.

I must applaud Judge Anna Brown for assuring that I served a minimal time on the Arrest Warrant and that I would be released, on conditions acceptable to all, except the US Shysters, and on my way home, as quickly as it could possibly be done.

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 15162 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoa, gee whiz, I'll bet it's humiliating to get treated that way.

So he has a public defender for a critical first amendment case. That fills me with confidence...not.

I guess the bright side is that it wasn't an Oregon based public defender.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Freedom of the Press #15
The Long Arm of the Law, or Not?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 25, 2017

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment VI

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

Now, this sets the stage for Jurisdiction. Any criminal proceedings must be in “the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Could it be any less for, say, a violation of a Court issued Protective Order? Especially, if that Protective Order only subjects a few, fully described people, in its mandate? The Order:

Here is the pertinent part of the “Protective Order” (#342):

ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense counsel may provide copies of discovery only to the following individuals:

(1) The defendants in this case;

(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and

(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall provide a copy of this Protective Order to any person above who receives copies of discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any person above who receives copies of discovery from defense counsel shall use the discovery only to assist the defense in the investigation and preparation of this case and shall not reproduce or disseminate the discovery material to any other person or entity.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Protective Order applies only to:

(1) Statements by witnesses and defendants to government officials;

(2) Sealed documents; and

(3) Evidence received from searches of electronic media.

So, you see by what is underlined, that the Protective Order does not apply to me. If I had received it from “defense counsel”, he would have given me a copy of the Protective Order. None of the defense attorneys gave me either the discovery or the Protective Order.

.The next question that arises is whether the Supplemental Protective Order is lawfully appropriate. The Supplemental Protective Order is prefaced with an “Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order” (#1691). The pertinent parts of this Order read:

To the knowledge of the government, Hunt is not a member of the staff of any defense counsel representing any Defendant in this case.

The Court issued the Protective Order in order to obviate “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery.” Order (#285) issued Mar. 9, 2016, at 2.

In order to make clear in the public record that the Protective Order prohibits even third parties from disseminating protected materials and information, the Court is filing a Supplement to the Protective Order together with this Order.

On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abetted the dissemination of materials covered by the Protective Order, and, therefore, the Court GRANTS in part the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order as follows:

1. The Court DIRECTS Hunt to remove all protected material and/or information derived from material covered by the Protective Order from his website(s) within 24 hours of the service of this Order;

2.The Court ENJOINS Hunt from further dissemination of material covered by the Protective Order or information derived therefrom to any person or entity.

3.The Court DIRECTS the government to serve Hunt personally with a copy of this Order together with a copy of the Protective Order (#342) and the Supplement (#1692) thereto as soon as possible and to file immediately in the record a certificate stating it has effectuated such personal service or otherwise ensured Hunt has personal knowledge of the contents thereof.

4.In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Note that the government acknowledges that the original Protective Order did not apply to me when they state. “Hunt is not a member of the staff of any defense counsel representing any Defendant in this case“.

Then, an explanation of why the initial Protective Order was issued is given with, “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery“. However, this is one of the government’s stock excuses, along with, “I feared for my life or the life of another”, “We were outgunned”, ” ‘X’ is a flight risk”, and a multitude of other phrases intended to simply justify an action against an individual, from extended incarceration to being shot to death, though unarmed. Now, this gets interesting. This Order tries to convert aiding and abetting into something that the statute does not. “On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abetted the dissemination of materials“. The statute and case law says that aiding and abetting in the performance of a criminal act. This is about as absurd as arresting someone for resisting arrest, when there is no criminal charge for which they are making an arrest.

.

Finally, this Order assumes me into jurisdiction, simply by stating my name. Heck, maybe they should have included someone else not subject to their jurisdiction, like Julian Assange.

Then, the “Supplement to Protective Order” (#1692), the ex post facto protective order, which may also be likened to a Bill of Attainder, states:

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order (#1691)Granting in Part the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, the Court supplements the Protective Order (#342) issued March 23, 2016, as follows:

Any individual or entity that obtains materials protected by the Court’s Protective Order (#342) is prohibited from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.

So, unlike the Order (#1691), I am not named, rather, any person, anywhere, that has passed on any of my articles that contained the excerpts from the Discovery, is now potentially made criminal by the Supplemental Protective Order (#1692).

As explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“, the hearing currently scheduled for May 9, in Portland, is only to determine if the Court has jurisdiction over me. If there is no jurisdiction, that ends the current matter, though it doesn’t necessarily close the door. The government could seek to file an injunction in the Eastern District of California (not the Oregon District, where Anna Brown is Judge, though the United States Attorney would simply be wasting your taxpayer dollars, as the case law in enjoining publication of such information is quite clear.

In preparation for the May 9 hearing, my attorney, Federal Public Defender Michael Rose, has prepared a Memorandum of Law, with my Declaration attached thereto, addressing the jurisdictional issue.

Generally, it makes the same case that I have been making in this “Freedom of the Press” series, for the past four months.

Now, the government has to lay out its case. They have until May 1 to do so, though I doubt that the cows will have come home by then. If the Court should rule that it does have jurisdiction in this matter, then they will be defying the intention of the Founders who wrote, and the people that ratified, our Constitution.

As Justice Black said, in the Supreme Court decision of New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971):

“Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.”

Will we, the People, tolerate the courts being asked by the Government, once again, “to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says“; rather, what the government wants us to believe that it says?

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 15162 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Freedom of the Press #16
Jurisdiction Hearing

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 15, 2017

To put proper perspective on recent ongoing events leading up to my jurisdiction hearing in Portland, Oregon, on May 9, 2017, we must go back to the Order (ECF #1901) to show cause why I should not be held in contempt of Court. That Order demanded my appearance to answer the allegations made by the government. It was specific to the show cause and had nothing to do with jurisdiction. Had I appeared, it could easily be argued by the Court that my appearance was a submission to jurisdiction. Now, as strange as it might seem, unless jurisdictional questions are raised at the outset, the Court can properly assume jurisdiction. My research indicates that this was firmly established as early as 1856 (Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1856)). Matters of jurisdiction were not the object of the hearing, and may not necessarily be heard.

The assumption of jurisdiction could be the possible outcome; the consideration of jurisdiction had to be established by other means. I was not sure just how this could be achieved. However, subsequent to my arrest, Judge Brown provided the opportune means in the telephonic hearing on April 6, 2017. This is fully explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“. Briefly, the matter of jurisdiction was brought up as a separate issue from the show cause, which at that time was the only subject on the table.

That Hearing resulted in the scheduling of the May 9 jurisdiction hearing, so the two issues, jurisdiction, and show cause (First Amendment – Freedom of the Press), were separate, and would be heard separately. The jurisdiction would be heard in one hearing, the show cause in a subsequent hearing.

Well, this was a start. However, it was rather discomforting. If I were to win at the jurisdiction hearing, then there would be no show cause hearing. And, I was pretty sure that I would win at jurisdiction, meaning that the Freedom of the Press issue would not have its day in court.

On the other hand, if I lost the jurisdiction hearing, then the Freedom of the press aspect would see the light of day. Heck, I even contemplated losing the jurisdiction arguments, though it is nearly as important, so that the other, more important, show cause issue could be heard and ruled on.

Well, on May 9, Judge Brown dismissed the jurisdiction motion, with her “Order Denying Request to Dismiss Contempt Proceedings for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction” (ECF #2095). The written Order was filed two days later, on May 11. The pertinent parts follow:

In particular, the Court finds the government has made a sufficient preliminary showing that evidence exists to support its theory that Hunt intentionally or knowingly aided and abetted a party to this litigation in the violation of the Protective Order (#382). That preliminary showing requires this Court to proceed to litigate the combined jurisdictional and merits-related issues. See Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983)(When “the jurisdictional issue and the substantive issue are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial.”). See also Young v. United States, 769 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2014).

So, we can see that as the government has, in the past four months, filed no less than ten documents in pursuing the finding of contempt of court; they have only “made a sufficient preliminary showing that evidence exists to support its theory.” It does not state that they made their case, only that they have made a rather poor showing of trying to make their case.

Judge Brown then states, “That preliminary showing requires this Court to proceed to litigate the combined jurisdictional and merits-related issues.” She follows that up with the following citation:

When “the jurisdictional issue and the substantive issue are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial.”

So, Judge Brown has achieved the best of both worlds, at least from my standpoint. She has merged, though distinguished, both the jurisdictional and the Freedom of the Press issues into the next hearing. Though she didn’t grant dismissal on jurisdiction at this hearing, she has not deemed that the issue of jurisdiction has no merit, simply that factors involved in the Freedom of the Press aspect may well weigh on her ultimate decision on both issues.

She then proceeds to list some requirements for the government to address, by June 12, 2017:

No later than June 12, 2017, the government must file a memorandum that confirms it is seeking a finding of contempt on the basis that Hunt knowingly or intentionally aided and abetted a party to this criminal case to violate the Protective Orders (#342, #1692), specifies any other factual basis for a finding of contempt against Hunt as to which this Court also has personal jurisdiction over Hunt to proceed, sets out the appropriate legal standards for the Court to apply, and makes any necessary legal argument. The government must support its memorandum with a complete and admissible factual record that establishes these disputed facts by the applicable burden of proof. To the extent that the government seeks a sanction against Hunt for publishing protected discovery information that ultimately was disclosed during the public jury trials in this matter, the government must justify such position with particularity. Finally, the government’s memorandum must also itemize the specific sanction(s) together with authorities to support the sanction(s) that the government requests the Court to impose against Hunt in the event the Court finds it has jurisdiction over him and finds him in contempt.

It becomes quite apparent that they have only scratched the surface, and in so doing, they have yet to provide any evidence to substantiate their claim of aiding and abetting. As the Order states, “The government must support its memorandum with a complete and admissible factual record that establishes these disputed facts by the applicable burden of proof.” The government has brought up the fact that Duane Ehmer had stated that I was in touch with the defense attorneys, that Facebook post is not valid evidence. And, that is what the government had hinged their entire aid and abet argument upon.

I think it is fair to say that since they knew, before the hearing, that the Facebook post was insufficient, they did attempt to bring in another accusation that has no merit in the current matter.

They brought up Ryan Payne, a friend, and Operation Mutual Defense (OMD) Advisory Board member, neither of which provides any substance to the aid and abet accusation. Though Ryan Payne was one of the defendants, he did sign a plea agreement and was not in a position to be aided by anything that I had written. They also brought up OMD, which had nothing to do with the events going on at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, or the subsequent trials.

Ryan Payne and I had spent over a week preparing a PowerPoint presentation on Committees of Safety. The presentation resulted in the creation of the Harney County Committee of Safety. Now, some might suggest that such an organization is illegal. If so, they simply fail to realize that Committees of Safety were fundamental in the creation of the United States of America. How can something so significant in our history be illegal? If it were, then the First Amendment would also be illegal. The right to freedom of speech, the press, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, are fundamental to our entire form of government.

It is apparent that the government wants to control the narrative; they also want to determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. This has been amply demonstrated in the government’s desperation, though perhaps inability, to compile a case against Freedom of the Press.

It seems safe to assume that when Judge Brown wrote, “To the extent that the government seeks a sanction against Hunt for publishing protected discovery information that ultimately was disclosed during the public jury trials in this matter, the government must justify such position with particularity,” that she had just such a concern in mind. To simply say what they believe does not meet the requisite of due process. They have to prove their case, and their evidence cannot be Facebook posts or out of context transcriptions of radio programs. After all, justice is the right of the people and the responsibility of the government.

So, the burden is, finally, exactly where it should be. The government must prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, and the people, that there is merit to their accusations. And that, my friends, is an extremely difficult task, when no crime or contempt has occurred.

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 15162 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 2 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Freedom of the Press #17
Is This Legal?



Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 25, 2017

In a previous article, “Freedom of the Press #13 – Sojourn to Sacramento“, I explained that Federal Magistrate Brennan (Sacramento) intended for me to receive diesel therapy, and that I would provide insight into just why he chose that route. It was an expected response based upon the information that he had been provided, regarding the Sealed Order Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt and Order Sealing Arrest Warrant (ECF #2017).

This Sealed Order was obviously prepared by the US Shyster’s Office. Their intention was to punish me, as they have most of the others in the Oregon and Nevada indictments, based upon contrived accusations.

The most oft-repeated contrived accusations that we are all familiar with are:

To justify shooting someone, “I feared for my life and/or the life of a fellow officer”.
Though some have homes, family, and jobs, “They are a flight risk and should be detained in jail until trial”.

Well, now we get another one to add to the list. I have been writing for 24 years. I have never carried a firearm during that period. Though my words may be inciteful, they are simply words (The Pen can be mightier than the Sword). There is no reason to believe that I would avoid arrest, as I had continued the dialogue regarding Freedom of the Press for nearly three months, and met, willingly, with FBI Special Agent Catalano, whenever requested. However, the wording in the Sealed Order states:

The Court, however, finds good cause to file under seal both this Order and the arrest warrant. Throughout this case and in the factually-related matters that took place in Bunkerville, Nevada, in April 2014 that are the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings in the District of Nevada, there have been instances of individuals avoiding the execution of court orders and/or arrest by engaging in armed confrontations with law enforcement. The Court issues under seal this Order and the warrant for Hunt’s arrest in an effort to permit the orderly execution of the arrest warrant.

Well, I wrote about Bunkerville (The Bundy Affair series), and I continue to do so. However, I was not present at that armed, yet peaceful, protest of the government’s effort at the semi-legal rustling of cattle by the BLM, including their intended violation of numerous state and federal laws regarding branding and cattle health certifications. I was at Burns for a few days. However, I was there to get a story on the treatment of the Hammonds, prior to the fires (See “The Harassment of the Hammonds“), that got them imprisoned for five years. There has been no effort on my part to avoid arrest by engaging in an armed confrontation with law enforcement. There was no arrest warrant in the possession of the FBI or the Oregon State Police during the stop, roadblock, and murder of LaVoy Finicum. Finicum, as the government has admitted, expressed to those who had no warrant, that he was going to a law enforcement officer, Sherriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Oregon.

This fiction was probably simply glossed over by Judge Brown. However, she “rubber-stamp” signed the Sealed Order and the Arrest Warrant. This was the documentation that was presented to Eastern District of California Magistrate Brennan, who had to decide if I should be detained and diesel transported back to Oregon. And, of course, with that as the only information that he had before him, the demonization of me was such that he curtly denied any alternative.

The case that Magistrate Brennan ruled on is United States of America v. Gary Hunt, Case No. 2:17-mj-00058. The records transferred from California to the Oregon case, United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al, case, in Oregon (which my matter still falls within), and the Booking Report, list the only charge as a violation of 18 U. S. Code §3146, “failure to appear”.

.

Wait, just a minute! Let’s look at the “law” I am accused of violating.

18 U.S.C. § 3146 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure – Penalty for failure to appear

Offense.–Whoever, having been released under this chapter knowingly—

– fails to appear before a court as required by the conditions of release;  or

– fails to surrender for service of sentence pursuant to a court order;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

Punishment.– The punishment for an offense under this section is–

– if the person was released in connection with a charge of, or while awaiting sentence, surrender for service of sentence, or appeal or certiorari after conviction for–

– an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of 15 years or more, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both;

– an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years or more, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both;

– any other felony, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both;  or

– a misdemeanor, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both;  and

– if the person was released for appearance as a material witness, a fine under this chapter or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

– A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to the sentence of imprisonment for any other offense.

Note: All “Punishments” are 1 year or more, a felony.

So, look at just whom, and only who, this statute applies to. “Whoever, having been released under this chapter knowingly— fails to appear before a court as required by the conditions of release;  –or fails to surrender for service of sentence pursuant to a court order…”

I have never been released under this chapter, as I was never within the jurisdiction of that Court. I was not subject to any conditions of release nor have I failed to surrender for service of sentence.

Heck, this statute doesn’t even apply to me, though it was the basis of my arrest and incarceration. However, as with the Sealed Order, I’m sure that the US Shysters knew what they were doing, and hoped that Judge Brown would not pay attention to detail.

However, as explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“, Judge Brown acted promptly to rectify this injustice.

This, however, demonstrates the attitude of the US Shysters’. They can contrive any story they want; cite a statute that doesn’t apply to the circumstances, and use whatever tools within their means to demonize and hold hostage those they have chosen to prosecute. More significantly, they can do so with near absolute impunity. If held accountable, at worst, it will simply delay their next promotion, or delay their next salary increase.

Meanwhile, the Americans and the Constitution that they are sworn to protect, are both subjected to punishment, loss of property, family, jobs, and reputation — with no means to fully recover from the onslaught brought by those who abuse their power, violate their oaths, and tarnish our Constitution.

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 15162 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | A Well Regulated Militia

All information posted on this site is the private property
of the individual who posted the information and AWRM.org,
and may not be reproduced anywhere without permission.
© 2001-2016 AWRM.org All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2