This interview from 2/10/17 of Gary Hunt by The Official Hagmann & Hagmann Report, is a full hour and forty minutes of interview. Topics covered from his beginning as Surveyor with IRS Difficulties in the 1980's, to Court Orders from Anna Brown Related to his coverage of The Malhuer Wildlife Refuge Adverse Possession Attempt. Gary in his own words answers many question that people have recently put forth about his history and Character. A very Interesting and Eye Opening watch.
“Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under [17 U.S.C. § 512] that material or activity is infringing … shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer…who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing….”
Well, it subjects John to penalties, should he not be able to prove that he owns Redoubt’s video, or, that conditions of use were imposed upon Redoubt’s video. This may cost Lamb a few buck more than his filing fees.
Two days after Lamb filed that above with the Court, the Judge ruled, in his Order Denying Temporary Restraining Order” (pgs 8-9).
The Judge cites Montana Code Annotated, 27-19-315.
To set this record straight, Wendy Kay did ask John if she could video it for Redoubt News (see below). John said okay, so it was not just an observation, it was consent. John imposed no conditions on the videoing for Redoubt, which made the Redoubt video the property of Redoubt News, a patriotic and very well presented news source.
News is not news if it can’t be gotten out. There is always an endeavor to get news out to as wide an audience as possible, So, GMN (Guerilla Media Network) agreed to live stream the video, which seems to be the source of the problem.
So, let’s look at the video that was, by consent, the property of Redoubt. John’s tactic was to claim a copyright violation; however, it is absent any proof. So, if we boil that down, John is claiming that he has rights over the property of another person. Normally, that would be theft, and perhaps fraud.
In identifying the Misdeeds of Government, it requires a diligent search of available information. However, often that research produces some interesting results. That is the situation with this article, since it begins with events surrounding the arrest of Dave Bundy (The Bundy Affair – #12 – Dave Bundy’s Two Citations), on April 6, 2014, and ends with the declaration of Mistrial on Decembers 20, 2017. However, in that span of time, over three and a half years, the following events played out.
Dave Bundy was pulled over on Nevada State Highway 170, a road that goes from Interstate 15, near the road to the Bundy Ranch, to Bunkerville. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had attempted to close the highway.
Dave got into a dispute with the BLM and was arrested and charged with two citations (explained in the linked article above). It is this arrest that begins this series of events. First, we have, from the National Park Service “DIRECTOR’S ORDER #9: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM”, which, on page 2, explains when and where arrests may be made.
I received in the mail, with no return address, an 18 page email that I had heard about. However, the details in what I had heard were minimal, at best. But, having the whole 18 pages, I find that the initial, or original email was only 17 pages.
In an undated email from Larry Wooten to Andrew D. Goldsmith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, National Criminal Discovery Coordinator, Wooten writes of many misdeeds in the entire Gold Butte Impound Operation, that being the operation that unfolded near Bunkerville, Nevada, back in early April 2014.
In a cover email, the eighteenth page, to Steven Myhre, United States Attorney for the Nevada District, in a forwarded email, the 17 page emails is included for a total of 18 pages. Wooten explains in the cover email that his superiors, his chain of command, would not deal with what he had presented to them. I’m not quite sure why he sent it to Myhre, since Myhre is implicated in the information, along with any others.
Gary Hunt was by court order ,ordered to remove all “prohibited material” related to Informants working under cover for the Feds.
Gary Hunt was by court order ,ordered to remove all “prohibited material” related to Informants working under cover for the Feds. This would be the Burns Oregon Event. A national News Station aired material of this very nature to millions without any sort of action to date. Gary Is Patriot reporter that works out of his home. For the last 30 plus years. He has no team of lawyers like the MSM stations do so of course Gary was a soft easy target. As a result what you will find at http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?page_id=1702 Articles that have lost all information that has been redacted. I guess what we could expect now Is yet more statues to fall , then mass book burning , I am sure will follow. Much like all supporting documentation that was Ordered by the court to be destroyed. Below the quote, In red text was written By Gary Hunt.
3:16-cr-00051-BR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT Related
A federal judge has found California resident Gary Hunt, who published the names of confidential informants who helped the FBI during the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in contempt of a court’s protective order.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown has given Hunt until noon on Wednesday to remove the articles on his blog that reference the informants and destroy all government documents he received on the informants.
If he doesn’t, he’ll face more “coercive sanctions,” the judge wrote in her 23-page ruling.
In a “Finding
of Facts and Conclusions of Law Finding Gary Hunt in Civil
Contempt”, Judge Anna Brown has determined that Hunt has
violated judge made law in excerpting information from FBI Form
1023s in his series of articles about informants.
investigation of those forms, Hunt was able to determine who
informants involved in the occupation of the Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge were. To provide proof of his assertions,
rather than simply make unfounded accusation, necessity required
proof of those claims be included in the articles..
Kevin “KC” Massey filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request back in October 2016. He just received a response (FOIA Response). Though only two and a little bit of a third page, it is rather interesting. You can read the whole Response, though I will give some highlights. “xxx” indicates redactions, mostly names.
It begins with a Summary of Events, “On September 2, 2014, Cameron County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) Investigator and Task Force Officer (TFO) for the FBI Brownsville Field Office xxx called ATF SA xxx for assistance on the ‘BP Militia’ case.” So, the government had already set up an investigation on the “BP Militia”. So, well, it wasn’t just a coincidence that the events of August 29, 2014 occurred as they did. (ATF=Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms; SA=Special Agent; BP=Border Patrol; NFA=National Firearms Act)
On January 26, 2016, several people, in two private vehicles were on their way to a scheduled meeting John Day, Oregon. While in a forested area, with extremely poor, if not non-existent, cell phone coverage, they were set upon by modern day highwaymen (highwaymen were people who stopped travelers and robbed them). The driver and passengers of the second vehicle submitted to the demands of the heavily armed interlopers, at gunpoint, to leave the vehicle and sit on the side of the snow-covered roadway.
The driver second vehicle, a white pick-up truck, following the exit of one of the passengers, sped away, seeking the assistance of a peace officer, Sheriff Glenn Palmer, of Grant County, Oregon. However, within a couple of miles they found that the highwaymen had set up a barricade across the road, barring passage. The highwaymen, hidden behind their vehicles, began firing shots at the white truck. This forced the truck off the road, where some rather adept driving may have saved one of the highwaymen’s life, by swerving, at the last moment.
Gary Hunt : Statement by Gary Hunt Regarding the Freedom of the Press; Show Cause Hearing of August 23, 2017
I intended to write an article about the Freedom of the Press hearing in Portland, Oregon. However, since I had decided to testify, I had mentally prepared to answer cross-examination questions, should they be asked. My problem in writing this is that the answers given and the answers not given are mingled together in my mind, I can’t quite sort them out and be sure of the accuracy of what I say. As to discussing other matters that were brought up, as well as examination and cross-examination of the government’s two witnesses, FBI SA Jason Kruger and FBI SA Matthew Catalano, are also mingled in my mind, as well as much that was presented by both the prosecuting attorney and my able counsel, Michael Rose.
Therefore, I will, at this time, simply give an overview, from my perspective, of what occurred.
August 8, 2017, was the date set for the government to file their response. They did so in the Government’s Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt. That will be the subject of this article, however the recent background, since the May 9, 2017, Jurisdiction Hearing.
As a result of that Hearing, the government first filed the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (June 12, 2017). That was the subject “Freedom of the Press #16 – Jurisdiction Hearing“. It appears that since January, when the government sought to have me held in Contempt of Court, they have yet to come up with a case citation that supports their position.
My response was filed as Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (July 21, 2017). This Memorandum increases the burden on the government, separating articles published before the “Supplemental Protective Order” and the one article published after that Order. The government has yet to meet any standard of proof with regard to their legal responsibility to do so.
In “Liberty or Laws? – Justice or Despotism?“, I discussed how the case law method provides the government, through judicial proceedings, to move, a decision at a time, away from the intent of the Constitution. In recent events in the second Tier 3 trial, only two-thirds of the trial was declared a “mistrial”, while the other third was not declared a mistrial. I say this because the first trial, by the government’s design, included six defendants, all of whom were accused of wielding firearms on April 12, 2014, when the Bureau of Land Management returned the surviving captured cattle to their rightful owner. Two defendants were found guilty of some of the charges. The remaining four were not found guilty of any of the charges, though they were also not found not guilty. So, there was no mistrial on the two, but there was a mistrial in the same singular trial of the other four.
When the colonies severed their allegiance to England, in 1776, through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, they had to have some form of law upon which to deal with matters, both criminal and civil. To do so, they adopted the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776. This, then, became the foundation of laws upon which both the federal government and state governments began the process of developing their judicial systems.
What is important to understand is that the laws that they adopted were concerned with Justice. For example, though Webster’s 1828 dictionary has no definition of “judicial”, an adjective, it does have one for that body that is responsible for that function of government, the Judiciary:
JUDI’CIARY, n. That branch of government which is concerned in the trial and determination of controversies between parties, and of criminal prosecutions; the system of courts of justice in a government. An independent judiciary is the firmest bulwark of freedom.
Through our history, there have been legal scholars who stand well above the current lot, in that their concern for justice was paramount in their considerations, and the subject of much of their scholarly writings.
When was the last time that the common Cause uttered Cliven Bundy, Dwight Hammond, Steven Hammond, Pubic Land policy? What happened to the other defendants in Nevada and those convicted in Oregon? What happened to the focus that brought thousands together in their respective support to the Cause? Have these all been abandoned?
Some of those who have been staunch supporters of the elements of the Cause objected to what happened on Memorial Day weekend. They are accused of creating division. There are near relentless attacks on those who have steadfastly supported the original Cause, many from as early as April 2014. Though until that weekend, had uttered no objection to those who chose to add the prisoner abuse issue to the agenda.
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.
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.
A federal judge Tuesday directed prosecutors to lay out their case in writing to support their argument that California resident Gary Hunt knowingly violated a court protective order by posting the names of informants who helped the FBI during the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown also asked the government to address the “efficacy” of pursuing a contempt of court ruling, considering that Hunt already has spent seven days in jail and some of the FBI informants’ names came out during the course of two federal conspiracy trials stemming from the 41-day refuge occupation last year.
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:
Gary Hunt has filed is court documents for his 5-9-17 hearing before Anna Brown in Portland Federal District Court. He is challenging the court’s jurisdiction over him in this matter Includes Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2077-1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 3 […]
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Related
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.
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.