Gary Hunt : Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?

Freedom of the Press #17
Is This Legal?

Pamala R. Holsinger, (OregonLive)

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 knowinglyfails 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.

 

Posted in Court, Editorial, Gary Hunt.

Constitutionalist, Patriot, Constitutional Activist, Concerned Member of the Community. Learning, Watching, Working, Promoting and Sharing.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.