Gary Hunt – Outpost of Freedom
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.
Terri Linnell is known as “Mama Bear” to the Patriot community. She has been an activist since 2008, when her sleeping giant started to awaken. Terri has been to Washington DC three times for redress of grievances, and participated in the Bundy Ranch Standoff in Nevada.
She is known as “Betsy Ross” to the FBI community. She was given that name by the FBI when she agreed to be an informant at the Malheur Wildlife Protest in Burns, Oregon, during January 2016. Linnell later testified for the defense, stating clearly it was just a protest, protected under the first amendment.
Terri’s time as an informant was under 6 months, yet she will give you some insight to the inner workings of the FBI, and their handling of “Confidential Human Sources” and how the government is absolutely watching citizens.
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.
Federal authorities have arrested California resident Gary Hunt after he failed to show up in U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown’s courtroom this month to explain why he shouldn’t be held in civil contempt for not removing from his blog information about informants the FBI used in its investigation of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Hunt, taken into custody in northern California Thursday on a warrant issued by Brown, is expected to be transferred to federal court in Oregon soon to attend what’s called a show cause hearing before the judge.
SEALED ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR ARREST WARRANT AS TO GARY HUNT AND ORDER SEALING ARREST WARRANT
Burns Chronicles No 58 “Twice Put in Jeopardy” Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom March 23, 2017 Of course, we must start with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, as it is the “supreme Law of the Land. The pertinent […]
When I was in the Army, I had to obey the orders that were given to me, by my superiors. That obligation ceased nearly fifty years ago.
Since that time, I have only taken “orders” from my employer or supervisor, though I have given “orders” to subordinates, as a part of my supervisory responsibilities in various positions I have held.
I have also given “orders” for food or other purchases, as I don’t expect waitresses or clerks to be mind readers.
In all of the above instances, there has been a relationship predicated on the fact that there was some implied obligation by virtue of the relationship, fiduciary or voluntary, between the “orderer” and the “orderee“. Yes, I made those two words up, but I suppose that all reading this will get the point being made.
The government has persistently suggested that I have “aided and abetted” the defendants by exposing informants that were paid by the government to spy on the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during January 2016. That is only one of the elements that needs to exist before the Court can find me in contempt of court for non-compliance with the Order to remove all prohibited material from my website and any other website.
The other elements include whether I am subject to the Court’s Protective Order, and, if so, do I fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. Currently, the Court has an outstanding Order that I appear and show cause why I should not be held in contempt of court.
As has been reported by Maxine Bernstein’s Tweets (my primary source for keeping track of the doings in the Portland Group 2 trial), I have finally been served with the Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 1901). I say “finally” since the first notice had come from Maxine. Next, I received a FedEx delivery. However, that doesn’t satisfy initial service. So, On Wednesday, February 22, I received a call from my favorite FBI personality. SA Matthew Catalano. He is good natured, diligent in his duties, and appears to have not taken a side in this ongoing battle between Judge Anna J. Brown and the United States’ chief Shyster, Billy J. Williams, on the one side, and yours truly on the other. I had already made plans for Thursday, and he seemed quite busy with other matters, so we agreed to meet on Friday. When we met, he handed me some paperwork, specifically the Order to Show Cause.
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Agent Catalano showed Hunt that there was an option for Hunt to call and request a defense attorney, and Hunt acknowledged this. Although Hunt took the copy of the Order to Show […]
In the previous article, though suggested in the government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause, of February 7, 2017, it really didn’t get to the heart of “Prior Restraint”. So, let’s get to the heart of that matter.
Let’s start with the law that explains the potential severity of publication of certain information, in a case similar to what the government and Judge Anna J. Brown are attempting to construct against me. Section 793 (e) of the Espionage Act was cited as the authority by which the government attempted to impose “Prior Restraint” on the New York Times for publishing what was known as the “Pentagon Papers”. The Papers had been leaked to the press by a government employee who had signed a non-disclosure agreement (not just based upon a Protective Order), which precluded that employee from divulging any information protected by Section, 793 (e):
Outpost of Freedom
February 21, 2017
In Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux, I address the jurisdictional issue that the government addressed in their Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause, of February 7, 2017. Due to the length of the Supplement, and the length of #6, I chose to address two remaining issues in a subsequent post. Those two issues, Prior Restraint and Qualified Press, will be addressed in that order.
Let’s review this whole situation from the beginning. After all, it has taken a month and a half to get to this point, so perhaps a refresher is in order.
On January 5, 2017, I was hand served a “Cease and Desist Letter” by an FBI agent. Since the service was disclosed on Facebook, I wrote a “Statement with regard to the Freedom of the Press“, on January 6. That was followed with a series entitled “Freedom of the Press“, beginning on January 7 entitled Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI. The following day, January 8, I explained the Cease and Desist Letter with Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist.
These events were preceded by a number of articles that I had written in the “Burns Chronicles” series. In those articles, I exposed FBI informants associated with the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Oregon. The information used to identify and expose the informants was derived from some Discovery documents I had obtained.
Case 3-16-cr-00051-BR Document 1689 Filed 01:10:17 Page 1 – 5
Case 3-16-cr-00051-BR Document 1681 Filed 01:06:17 Page 1 – 11
Demand to Cease and Desist Public Dissemination of Protected Material
TO: GARY HUNT 3:16-cr-00051-BR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Based on the record on the government’s Motion (#1788) for an Order to Show Cause, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to appear on March 10, 2017, at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom 14A of […]
ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION (#1788) FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
I have noticed over the years, that some believe in quality, as I do, and others believe in quantity. They think that throwing out a massive missive will drown the opposition in, well, paper. It appears this is the new approach by the United States Attorney, and minions, from Portland, Oregon. They have, with their most recent filing (Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause), on February 7, exceeded all my expectations, in terms of quantity. They have cited 30 court decisions. I have reviewed five of the cited cases, though I will comment on more of them. Since their research is of such poor quality, I would be my pleasure to review cases for them in the future. However, if I work for the government, my prices will not be discounted. Considering how poorly their current hired help performs, it just might be worthwhile for them to get it right, for a change.
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1840 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 12