Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order Doug Knowles

Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order by Doug Knowles

January 12, 2017, 2:23 pm 

Freedom of the Press #4
The Order

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2017

I got a call from FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano, earlier today, January 11, 2017.  He told me that he had an Order to serve.  We made the same arrangements to meet at the restaurant in Los Molinos.  The restaurant only serves breakfast and lunch, so it was closed, but I figured that this wouldn’t take very long.

I arrived at about 4:15 pm, and he said that he had to serve me.  He handed me the Order, I looked at it and said, “I refuse this service, it is for the District of Oregon, and I am not within that jurisdiction.”  I held the paperwork out toward him, but he did not take it, so, I said, “I will keep this, but I want you to tell Judge Anna Brown that I refuse service, as I am not subject to the Oregon District’s jurisdiction.”  He agreed to convey the message, and then he proceeded to read certain portions of the Order to me.  When he was finished, I reminded him that I wanted Brown to receive my message, and he assured me that he would pass it on.  I feel certain that he will.  After all, that is his job.  We shook hands, and we departed.

Though I had already received two copies of the Order from other sources, I hadn’t read it.  The news traveled so rapidly that my phone was in near constant use.  However, between calls, I read portions of the Order.  As I did so, a smile crept across my face.  Now, you may wonder why I would smile after receiving the Order, but my first thought was that Judge Brown had not had an opportunity to read my article, that had gone out just a few hours before.  The Order had been docketed, and I received copies just minutes after posting my article.  Judge Brown had not had the opportunity to read my response to the Memorandum that had refuted most, if not all, of what she was provided by the US Attorney in the form of the Memorandum to prepare the Order.

Quite frankly, when Brown filed the Minute Order (See Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You), there were two possibilities.  First, that she really was holding the government’s feet to the fire, seeking real legal justification for issuing an Order.  The other, that she simply wanted the government to give her the paperwork she needed, in the form of a Memorandum, to provide justification to issue such an Order.  I decided to act on the former.  I had said many things about Anna Brown in the past, few of them complimentary, but if she had turned to the right side, she was deserving of the benefit of the doubt.  Her actions, in the past, had been nigh onto dictatorial, and had no foundation in law or justice.

So, let’s look at her Order, and I will comment, as we go.  It is dated January 11, 2017.

This matter comes before the Court on the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order in which the government seeks to enjoin a third party, Gary Hunt, from further dissemination of discovery materials that are protected by the Court’s Protective Order (#342) issued March 24, 2016.

Through the Affidavits (#1681, #1690) of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker, the government asserts Hunt published excerpts from protected discovery materials on his website beginning on November 15, 2016, and continuing through the present. In particular, the government contends the postings on Hunt’s website identify some of the confidential human sources (CHSs) that the government used during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This information is not only protected by the Protective Order (#342), but the Court also found in its Order (#1453) issued October 18, 2016, that the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense and, in particular, that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs. Thus, the information in Hunt’s postings should not be publicly available.

Well, that is cute.  Have I not said, from the beginning, that I was not subject to the Protective Order?  Now, she says that the “information is protected by the Protective Order.”  That means that those subject to the Protective Order have an obligation to protect the information.  She is right in line with my thinking.  But, that will change a little later.

Then, she finds that “the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense.”  That information was relayed to the defense on October 18, about ten days before the jury returned the not guilty verdict.  She also stated, “that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs.”

So, let’s get real.  The government gave out redacted copies of the 1023 forms.  The defense could not call any witnesses who had been informants.  Obviously the information the government, and Judge Anna Brown, were willing to allow the defense to have was totally insufficient for them to prepare their defenses, especially with regard to possible exculpatory testimony those informants might have provided.  The Judge, well let’s just go with Brown, from this point on, disregarded the fact that two of the government’s informants testified.  Terri Linnell came forward voluntarily, against the wishes of the Prosecution, and testified for the defense. A diligent effort by the defense teams in tracking down Fabio Monoggio, another informant, whose testimony also was beneficial to the defense.  Both gave testimony, which may well have turned the tide on the jury’s verdict.  This testimony would have been denied the defense under the enforcement of the Protective Order and the subsequent statement on October 18.

This is absolutely contrary to the right protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which says that the accused has the right, “to be confronted by the witnesses against him“.  Now, some have claimed that informants, unless they testify, are not witness.  However, that is not what the Protective Order (March 24, 2016) says.  That Protective Order clearly states what the prohibitions are, to wit:

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.

Now, there are only two human objects in the Protective Order.  It applies to “witnesses” and “defendants”.  Well, I am not exposing defendants, so if the informants are not witnesses, then I am not in violation of the Protective Order.  Ergo, the informants are witnesses, so saith Brown.

Therefore, Brown has denied the constitutionally protected right of the defendants to confront those witnesses.

The record reflects FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano met Hunt, who resides in Los Molinos, California, on January 5, 2017, and personally served him with a cease-and-desist letter from the government that demanded Hunt remove all discovery materials from his website. Special Agent Catalano also provided Hunt with a copy of this Court’s Protective Order (#342). According to SA Walker, Hunt stated he did not intend to comply with the cease- and-desist letter and did not believe that the Protective Order applied to him. It appears Hunt has not removed the protected discovery materials from his website.

Now, SA Ronnie Walker is quite a character.  In the Affidavit upon which the government based the current Order, he uses a Facebook post to allege facts.  Well, the fact that something was said is not really a fact, unless what was said was really a statement of a fact (See Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”.)  Now, SA Walker does the same.  I have never spoken with SA Walker, so, how could SA Walker know that I “stated that [I] did not intend to comply with the cease and desist letter…”  At best, that is hearsay, and he probably heard it from Matthew Catalano.  However, unlike the Facebook comment in the Affidavit, which was attributed to a source, albeit the fact was not verified, Now, he states a fact, but provides no attribution.  And, Brown perpetuates that absolutely arbitrary method of creating facts out of thin air.  I doubt, seriously, that the defense could ever get away with such an outrageous approach to evidence.

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. The Protective Order (#342) states defense counsel may only provide copies of the discovery in this case to:

(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.

Here, clearly stated, is Brown’s argument to deny the names of the informants to the defense, “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individualsreferenced in discovery.”

This brings to mind a couple of things.  First, the Protective Order only addresses witnesses and defendants.  Now, we have “other individual” added to this list. And, I suppose, rewritten, without hesitation.  What gives?  What is the fact about who is protected, and who is not?

This leads us to the most significant of these very duplicitous statements that have been advanced by Brown.  If a risk of harm or intimidation really does exist, why did the government expose Mark McConnell as an informant back in September?  The government set the stage for exposing informants, and now they tell me that I cannot expose informants.  What sort of judicial double standard is this?  It reeks of hypocrisy and extinguishes  any concept of equal justice, under the law.

Protective Order (#342) at 1. The Protective Order requires any person who receives a copy of the discovery to “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.” Id. (emphasis added). Defense counsel are further required to “provide a copy of this Protective Order to any person above who receives copies of discovery.” Id.

The Court notes although the literal terms of the Protective Order do not apply to third parties who obtain protected materials from a source other than defense counsel, it is well-settled that the Court may, nonetheless, prohibit a third party from violating a court order when that third party “‘actively aid[s] and abet[s]’” a violation of such an order. Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1995)(quoting Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985)). Moreover, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce its orders within the jurisdiction of the United States. Reebok Int’l, 49 F.3d at 1391.

Well, that is what I have been saying, all along.  Thank you, Brown, for pointing out that the Protective Order does not apply to third parties.  Since that is what is written, I have pursued my efforts, in total compliance with what was written — by you, Judge Brown, I might add.  After all, we are a nation of laws, and we cannot be expected to live by house rules that can be changed at any time.  If it is not written, how can one understand what he can, or cannot, do?  I went into my efforts based upon what was written.  Now, you sort of say that, “well, I didn’t mean what I said (wrote), now, here is what I mean, but failed to say.”  It don’t work that way, Brown.

Now, as far as “it is well-settled“, let me suggest that it is only in your mind, and, further, that well-settled only came into existence in your mind when you realized that you screwed up.  Your dictatorial highness still has the obligation to be honest, forthright, and to take responsibility for your actions.  You are nothing more than a citizen of this country with a job that holds you to a higher standard than it holds me, as you work for the people.  You may think that you have a higher privilege; however, really, you have a higher responsibility, especially to the defendants.

Let’s jump in to a little history.  Back in the early 19th century, in a country, which lived under a government created by a new concept and a Constitution, it was rightfully stated that judges were the arbiters that the people could rely upon to keep the government within the government’s constitutional limits.  They were considered the protectors of the people’s rights.  Perhaps a bit more history and a little less arrogance might make you a decent judge.  However, as explained above, I have lost hope in you.

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.

Perhaps this should have been made clear in the first Protective Order.  I believe that the legal term is estoppel.  So, I had reliance from the wording of the Protective Order, and a pursued a course of action.  Subsequently, as my efforts yielded results, I began, in October, writing articles that contained the information developed from documents I had received.  There is no doubt that the US Attorney’s Office and most likely, nearly every judge and clerk in your courthouse, were aware of my articles, and I have that on good authority, should the need arise to establish the veracity of what I just said.

At the time, I received no notice from the Court or the US Attorney.  That absence of action from October to January can be described three ways: 1) Silence; 2) Acquiescence; 3) Estoppel.

To more fully understand the implications and ramifications of this inactivity and subsequent activity, you have proven my point by, at this late date, after understanding my challenge to the recent activities of the Court and the US Attorney’s Office, decide that you had screwed up, and now you have now decided to file “a Supplement to the Protective Order“.  Sorry, Brown, there are no “do‑overs”, you don’t even get a “participation award”.  The Framers of the Constitution foresaw that possibility when they forestalled both legislative and judicial tyranny by incorporating Article I, § 9, clause 3, into the Constitution.  And, if the legislative branch cannot enact ex post facto laws, then surely, a Court with limited jurisdiction has no less a prohibition.

Here is a rather interesting statement, “the Court may, nonetheless, prohibit a third party from violating a court order when that third party ‘actively aid[s] and abet[s]’.”  Now, I will have to refer the reader to my previous article, Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, where I addressed this whole matter of allegations of “aiding and abetting“.  This also extends to the cases cited in Brown’s Order.  As explained in the above linked article, the US Attorney simply grabbed stuff, threw it in, and hoped that nobody would pay attention to the fact that the cases cited do not lead to the conclusions that have been suggested.  Apparently, even Brown and her clerks, have fallen prey to the devious deception.  However, I didn’t, as I pulled all but the obscure District Court citations, and have seen that they have no relevance to the subject at hand.

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:

Once again, the words flow wantonly.  Aiding and abetting is a potential criminal charge, and, thusly, must be proven.  Merely writing those words does not make it true, and cannot provide justification to imply that such an act occurred in order to impose punishment as a result of an activity that has not been tried, only applied.  I’m going to toss out a phrase, where, there should be fair warning to the more astute players on the government’s side of the aisle.  That phrase, simply put, is “prior restraint”.

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. ¹

Here, we are getting some rather interesting insight.  Does She, or Doesn’t She?  And, I am not talking about hair coloring, rather, jurisdiction.  This will be discussed more, shortly.

5. In the event that the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source from which Hunt obtained the protected materials, the Court trusts the government will seek appropriate relief from the Court without delay.

Now, this appears to be a disguised attempt to intimidate me into providing the source of the information, because they really have nothing on me.  The Cease & Desist Letter had no effect; this Order has no effect, in my pursuit of bringing to the public, through the Freedom of the Press, their right to know the workings of their own government.  This might be an appropriate place to quote from John Adam:

“[W]e have nothing to expect from their justice but everything to hope from their fears.”

Adams to James Warren, July 17, 1774, “Papers of John Adams”

[Footnote]

1 Because the question is not presently before it, the Court does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings.

I have made my case before you, the public.  My case has not been lost on only you, since both the defense and the prosecution await my scribblings.  The former with anticipation, the latter with dread.  So, there can be little doubt that this sudden concession to the jurisdictional issue is a consequence of their dread.

Now, we can move to another aspect of my writings, that being as to whether the Protective Order extends to me, or stops at those named.  This is the ex post facto violation.  This is where the Court has now determined, at this late date, to incorporate, and I hate to say it, anybody and everybody that has read any of my articles and/or simply posted or shared them on Facebook. What follows is the Supplement to the Order:

BROWN, Judge.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2017.

Now is the time to refresh your memory to what John Adams said, and I will repeat at the end of this article.  We must decide not to be civilly disobedient, rather we need to stand strong and be civilly defiant — to challenge the presumed authority of the Court in their efforts to quash me, but, more importantly, to defend, at whatever cost, your absolute right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the Freedom the Press, and your right to know the workings of YOUR government.

“[W]e have nothing to expect from their justice but everything to hope from their fears.”

Adams to James Warren, July 17, 1774, “Papers of John Adams”

source

Gary Hunt - Outpost of Freedom - Freedom of Speech Defense Fund

"Truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light." George Washington[Letter to Charles M. Thruston, August 10, 1794]

Gary Hunt through his Website Series Burns Chronicles, has been instrumental in identifying embedded and common, Confidential Paid Informants, Related to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Adverse Possession in Early 2016.

01-11-2016, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, modified the Discovery Protective order and ordered Gary Hunt, to take down the Burns Chronicles series on Outpost-Of-Freedom.

Gary has made a commitment to stand against this Action and continue hosting the series as well as adding additional chapters.  

All money less processing expenses will go directly to Gary Hunt for use in this Legal Challenge.

One Time Donation

Monthly Contribution Can be Canceled at anytime.

Freedom of Speech - Gary Hunt Option 1 : $5.00 USD - monthly Option 2 : $10.00 USD - monthlyOption 3 : $15.00 USD - monthly Option 4 : $20.00 USD - monthly

Thank You Everyone For Your Support and Encouragement 

Doug Knowles | January 12, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Categories: Editorial, Maulher, News | URL: http://wp.me/p8bCbd-gO

Comment

Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”

Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings” by Doug Knowles

Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”

 

January 11, 2017, 1:42 pm 

Freedom of the Press #3
“Contemptuous Postings”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 11, 2017.

Well, even though there were many interruptions, I was working on a response to SA Ronnie Walker’s first Affidavit.  Then, on January 9, 2017, Judge Brown, in a Minute Order (See “Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You“), told the US Attorney that what they had filed with the Court was insufficient, and they had to go back and “do over”, to justify what they were asking the Court to do.

I will assume that they were up late, as they did make the deadline of providing a Memorandum, supported by an Affidavit, in Response to Judge Brown’s Order.  So, let’s look into the minds of these well-paid defenders of justice (just kidding).  We will deal with the Memorandum, though it will refer to, in one instance, the Affidavit.  There is no need to address the Affidavit.  It is simply a review of recent events with regard to this matter, but does provides a smidgen of hearsay supported by another smidgen of hearsay.  When one is desperate, one digs deep.

Now to the Memorandum; I will include all pertinent text, I will underline and address the more significant parts..

The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, Craig J. Gabriel, and Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby submits this supplemental memorandum in support of the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order.

On January 6, 2017, the government filed a Motion to Enforce Protective Order seeking an order from this Court enjoining third party Gary Hunt from further dissemination of discovery materials subject to this Court’s March 4, 2016, Protective Order. The Motion was supported by the Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker.  On January 9, 2017, this Court directed the government to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the following issues:

Well, I suppose they could be, at once, be paying attention and not paying attention.  The Cease and Desist letter stated, “dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material“.

To which I responded in “Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist“, when I wrote, “Holsinger has added a new twist by separating ‘dissemination’ from ‘publication of any excerpts’ with an ‘and’, making them separate and distinct elements.  However, the Order only addresses dissemination.”

So, we are back to dissemination.  Readers will recall that I have consistently stated that I was “excerpting, not disseminating“.  Of course, I first drew that distinction back on October 15, 2016, in “Burns Chronicles N^o 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“.  So, are there two elements, each different from the other, as in the Letter, or, only one element, as in the Protective Order?  Again, we must look at the letter of the law, and not what some government attorney wants it to be, at any given moment.

This is what Judge Brown has ordered the US Attorney to address.

1. The Court’s authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order and without advanced notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard;

2. The Court’s jurisdiction to compel an individual who is not present within the district of Oregon to respond to the government’s arguments raised in the Motion via an order to show cause or other form of order; and

3. Whether the Court should amend the existing Protective Order in any respect to address the issues raised in the government’s Motion.

Now, these three items were deficient in this latest attempt to intimidate me into acquiescing to their unlawful demands.  Thankfully, Judge Brown saw through their charade and held their feet to the fire.

Now, let’s be clear that I don’t disagree with the title of this next section.  I think that it is easily understood that any Court has the authority to enforce its own lawful orders.  As an example, Mexico has the right to enforce its own lawful orders, within its own jurisdiction.  Come to think of it, so does California.  Even the Ninth Circuit Court can enforce its own awful orders, within its jurisdiction.  Now, the Ninth Circuit, coincidently, includes both Oregon and California.  However, the Oregon District, while fully able to enforce its lawful orders within its own jurisdiction, it is not able to enforce in another jurisdiction, such as Mexico, or California.

Let’s see what the legal eagles in Portland have to say.

I. The Court Has Authority to Enforce Its Own Lawful Orders

This Court has authority to enjoin the actions of non-parties under the existing terms of the protective order when those non-parties aid and abet parties to violate the court’s order. See, e.g., Reebok Int’l Ltd v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1390 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that courts have authority and subject matter jurisdiction to punish contemptuous violations of its order, citing 18 U.S.C. § 401); Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 948 (9th Cir. 2014) (organization that aids and abets a party’s violation warrants contempt). This rule makes sense because it seeks to correct both direct and indirect or circuitous violations of this Court’s orders. To permit a party to publicly disseminate material subject to this Court’s Protective Order simply by transferring it to a non-party would violate the Order no less starkly than if the party posted the material on a public website himself.

From the “Background Facts”, in Reebok Int’l Ltd v. McLaughlin, we find:

Reebok International Limited brought suit against Byron McLaughlin for violations of the Lanham Act in allegedly counterfeiting Reebok footwear. Mr. McLaughlin controlled various corporations, including the Heatherdale Corporation. As a result of the lawsuit, Reebok obtained a temporary restraining order in the district court which enjoined “the defendants and their officers, servants, employees and agents and any persons in active concert or participation with them” from “transferring, disposing of, or secreting any money, stocks, or other assets of these defendants without prior approval of the court.”

Well, that does remind me of the constitutional authority granted under the Commerce Clause, and it is understandable that this clause would also extend to all of the federal jurisdictions of the United States.  But, heck, we are not talking about a constitutional law under the Commerce Clause; we are talking about a jurisdictional order within in a specific jurisdiction, to wit, District of Oregon.

So, let’s look at Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y.  Now, from the “Factual and Procedural Background” of that decision:

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, to which the United States, Japan, and 87 other nations are signatories, authorizes whale hunting when conducted in compliance with a research permit issued by a signatory. See Int’l Conv. for the Regulation of Whaling, art. VIII, § 1, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 U.N.T.S. 74.

Well, it is not Mexico, it is Japan.  And, it appears that the President and the Senate have the authority to treat (make treaties) with other nations, which is a constitutional grant that is binding on all signatory whalers.  However, it does not apply to whiners, only whalers.  So, I think they missed the mark, once again.

Now to that last point made in the Memorandum paragraph, above, I find it rather intriguing, though perhaps a bit circular in its application.  It says, “To permit a party to publicly disseminate material subject to this Court’s Protective Order simply by transferring it to a non-party would violate the Order no less starkly than if the party posted the material on a public website himself.”  What was just stated is on point to what I have said.  It is the person subject to the Order that would be guilty of transferring it to a non-party.  It says nothing about any guilt associated to the non-party.  This leaves us with the classic question, “Where’s Waldo?”  Surely, they do not think that I am Waldo, or they would have said so.

In addition, Hunt did receive advance notice of this Court’s Order and, as explained in Agent Walker’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (ECF No. 1681), Hunt recognized this Court’s Order but refused to follow it, incorrectly believing that it did notapply to him. The contemptuous postings, however, make clear that the material Hunt now holds is material subject to this Court’s Protective Order and that Hunt has disseminated that information in contravention of this Court’s Order. Hunt’s stated reason for “outing” the CHSs is so they can serve as defense witnesses at the next trial. The reasons undergirding this Court’s Protective Order—i.e., a need to protect the informants from harm—justifies immediate relief in the form of an injunction directing Hunt to remove all contemptuous postings immediately. In addition, the need for immediate relief is supported by Agent Walker’s supplemental affidavit filed in support of this supplemental memorandum, which suggests that Hunt’s contemptuous activities are ongoing. In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”

When they say, “In addition, Hunt did receive advance notice of this Court’s Order“, presumably, they really mean the Protective Order.  This case has generated many dozens of orders, so, perhaps a little specificity might be warranted.  After all, it is very apparent that a word and the meaning of that word, really does have a place in our language, and especially so, with regard to our laws and legal proceedings.

And, yes, I did have advance notice of the Protective Order.  Well, it wasn’t really notice; actually, I had obtained a copy, way back in March.  I read it.  I have reread it.  I have read it over and over.  And I still cannot seem to find where it applies to me.  Perhaps that is why the Honorable Judge Brown has placed that burden on the US Attorney, as per the Minute Order, which states, “1.  The Courts authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order and without advance notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard” (from above).  Well, there are two parts to that Order.  The first is to show “The Courts authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order“.  So, unless we can get that nasty little bugger out of the way, we need not even consider the second part, “without advance notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard”

Now, when the Order says, “to be heard“, I’m sure that the Order is referring to, before the Court.  Although, there can be little doubt that I am being heard, loud and clear, outside of the courtroom.  I trust, however, that the US Attorney is not attempting to suppress the Freedom of the Press and the right of the public to know is not being pushed to the wayside, in favor of government secrecy.  We haven’t even begun to discuss Roviaro, yet.

Then, the US Attorney asserts, “Hunt recognized this Court’s Order but refused to follow it, incorrectly believing that it did not apply to him.”  Now, that is rather interesting.  They suggest that I “recognized this Court’s Order“.  I’m not sure what they mean by recognized.  I recognize some people by their faces, others by their voices, and still others by their writing style.  I suppose if I was subject to “this Court’s” jurisdiction, and was placed on the stand, then handed a copy of the Protective Order, I would most assuredly and truthfully say that I recognized the Protective Order.  But, no one has handed me a copy and asked if I recognized it, so I don’t see the point.  However, perhaps the phraseology is a bit off, if they mean, did I read and understand what it said, I would have no problem saying, “Yes, I have read it, and, I understand that I am not listed in those to whom it is directed”.

Then, the US Attorney suggests that I was incorrect in believing that it didn’t apply to me.  Wait a minute.  Don’t put words in my mouth.  I know that it doesn’t apply to me.  Perhaps law schools are deficient in teaching grammar, but, hey, buddy, have no doubt that words, their meanings, and application, are well known and understood by me.  I do believe that it is a burden on the government to prove, not just state, such conjecture.

So, now we get to “The contemptuous postings“.  That is a rather subjective observation.  It seems that my readers have a completely different perspective on the nature of my postings.  So, we can simply write that off as either extreme bias, or, more colloquially, “butt-hurt”.

My next observation is based upon the statement that seems to suggest that my postings, “make clear that the material Hunt now holds is material subject to this Court’s Protective Order“.  I suppose that since I cited what was written on the documents, and explained, should any reader doubt the veracity regarding the content of the documents, that my statement gave the necessary legitimacy to the documents.  However, had I known that I would also be writing these articles, on this subject, I could have saved some ink, because the US Attorney has given far more credibility to the document than my humble statement ever could.

Next, we come to, “Hunt has disseminated“.  Damn, that is quite an obstacle.  Is it disseminated, or published, or disseminated and published.  Obfuscation is really a brainteaser.  However, I prefer what was really done, which is that I excerpted from the documents.

Moving right along, and probably boring the readers, as the colloquy is also beginning to bore me, we get into some rather interesting stuff.  As I made clear in “Burns Chronicles N^o 50 – Informants – What to do About Them #2‘, the US Attorney referred to Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (Gee, I get my turn to cite a case).  In Roviaro, the court ruled that since there was an extreme risk of great harm or death to the informants, the Court was justified in not releasing the names of the informants.  After all, buying heroin and then “narcing” can get you killed.  Drug dealers are well known for the predisposition to kill people, with either guns, knives, or bad drugs.  However, that is a somewhat ridiculous justification, especially after the Group 1 Portland trial, to continue to hold those who remain in jail on similar charges in Nevada, pending their trial.  After all, many of the defendants in Nevada were/are also defendants there, in Oregon.

Let’s just look at how the government perceives the risk to the informants.  On September 21, 2016, AUSA Gabriel, in questioning OSP officer Jeremiah Beckert, asked, “And did you have information about whether the driver [Mark McConnell] was cooperating with the Government?”  Beckert answered in the affirmative, and of their own volition, the government hung one of their informants out to face, what, serious bodily harm?  Death?  Well, that didn’t happen.  And, the government put this informant at risk. That very act disputes the government’s entire argument regarding the potential threat to any of the informants.

Next, in early October, Terri Linnell, who, according to the government’s professed position regarding risk to informants, voluntarily came forward, at great risk to life and limb, to testify for the defendants.

Then, on the last day of the trial, we have Fabio Monoggio, who managed to buy himself some body armor, for his “own protection” in a dangerous situation”, and at government expense, testified to the detriment of the government’s case.  Monoggio, because of his role, would be equally at risk with the previously outed McConnell, yet neither has had a hair on either head harmed.

Outside of the courtroom, however, there was a different story going on.  On October 15, 2016, yours truly exposed Allen Varner as an informant.  The next day, October 16, Dennis Dickenson was exposed as an informant.  Two months later, in December, Robert “Rob” Seaver, Thomas “Tom” S. Dyman, and Will Kullman, were exposed.  And, since the first exposure by the government and the remainder by me, not one hair, on one head, has been harmed.  Doesn’t that make Roviaro rather off point to the remaining defendants, in both states?  As they say, the proof is in the pudding.  And, this pudding has quite a story to tell.

Finally, nearly through with that rather boring paragraph, we finish with this gem:

In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”

Darn, I already said that I am being heard.  Let’s see what Autotech Tech, LP v. Integral Research & Dev. Corp. says.  Now, understand that this case is a bit confusing, though I will try to make it understandable.  It starts with a company called Integral Research & Development Corp. (IRDC).  It is a company wholly owned by the Belarusian government.  The next player is Digital Devices, Inc. (DDI).  Now, IRDC and DDI had an “Exclusive Sales Agreement”, a contract.  Next player, Autotech Technologies LP (ATLP).  In 1994, ATLP purchased from DDI the exclusive right to promote and sell IRDC’s products for resale or incorporation into products manufactured or sold in the United States; its authority was embodied in an “Exclusive Marketing Agreement.”  IRDC authorized the transfer of rights from DDI to ATLP through an “Acknowledgment and Modification of Agreement”.  Well, that is the foundation.  There were contracts, the contracts were agreed to.  In a subsequent dispute between ATLP and IRDC, IRDC challenged jurisdiction.  IRDC lost, but they lost because they had a contractual arrangement with ATLP.

Now, this case is cited under the “I.  The Court Has Authority to Enforce Its Own Lawful Orders” heading.  I don’t see where it fits into that subject, but in the above paragraph, the government says, “Whether Hunt should be subject to sanctions and/or held in civil or criminal contempt are matters that should be addressed after Hunt has an opportunity to be heard.”  So, maybe it has to deal with my right to be heard.  So, we can look to the only mention of the word heard, in the entire aforementioned Autotech case.

Before Integral can be barred either by law-of-the-case principles or something analogous to issue preclusion, it must have had a fair opportunity to be heard in the contempt proceeding.

I have no contractual arrangement with the Oregon District Court.  I have not asked “for a fair opportunity to be heard“.  However, it seems that to be heard is my prerogative, if I choose to exercise it.  Under the current circumstances, I see no reason in the world to step into the jurisdictional world of the Oregon District.

If it is possible for a journalist to be held in contempt of court for the mere act of excerpting segments of unclassified material from the discovery of a public trial, then this country is in a lot more trouble, and closer to a true police state, than I have ever imagined.

Sometimes, I wonder if these guys even read the cases they cite, or just jump on a case because they think it will sound impressive.

II. The Court Has Jurisdiction to Enforce Its Order Beyond the District of Oregon

This Court’s authority to effectuate its own orders extends beyond the usual reach of this Court’s subpoena power to the entire country. For example, when a party transferred assets to a non-party in violation of a court order, the non-parties who resided outside of the district court’s jurisdiction (in Texas) were nevertheless subject to that court’s jurisdiction (in Mississippi); indeed, enforcement of the injunction “must occur in the issuing court’s jurisdiction because contempt is an affront to the court issuing the order.” Waffenschmidt v. McKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Static Control Components, Inc. v. Darkprint Imaging, 201 F.R.D. 431, 433-34 (M.D.N.C. 2001) (rejecting argument that to enforce discovery order, party had to file motion in non-party’s judicial district); Platinum Air Charters, LLC v. Aviation Ventures, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-01451-RCJ-LRL, 2007 WL 121674 , *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2007) (same).

Now, we get into “subpoena power” and violation of a court order.  However, the order in this one is directed at the party subpoenaed, and, there is aiding and abetting the completion of that crime.  Let’s look at the first part of the decision in Waffenschmidt v. McKay.

Nonparties who reside outside the territorial jurisdictionof a district court may be subject to that court’sjurisdiction if, with actual notice of the court’s order,they actively aid and abet a party in violating that order.

So, just what is “aid and abet”?  Black’s Law Dictionary provides the answer:

Help, assist, or facilitate the commission of a crime, promote the accomplishment thereof, help in advancing or bringing it about, or encourage, counsel, or incite as to its commission.

Now, I have yet to see anything presented by the US Attorney that might even remotely bear a resemblance to that definition.  I was the recipient of some information.  I explained why it was not criminal to excerpt, as opposed to disseminate, and, my possession of the material was not criminal, as I was not among those listed who were subject to the Protective Order.

As to the next two cited decisions, they are both District Court decisions.  They are not stare decisis.  That means that they are not precedence.  There is no reliance on them by other courts.  So, it appears that the government has fallen into a belief that quantity beats quality, and they have just thrown those in so as to increase the quantity, but none of these cases bear any aspect of quality.

Now, before we get into the last of the three items, I think it worth mentioning, at least to the subject of giving out information that the Court has determined should not be given out, or vice versa, and, yes, they are on the side of the courtroom that is subject to Court Orders.  Let me provide some quotes from an Oregonian article, “Oregon standoff: Defense lawyer argues feds ‘wantonly disregarded’ terms of Facebook search warrant“.  This had to do with the government giving out irrelevant Facebook information that they were told to remove from Discovery, prior to dissemination.

“…the federal government “wantonly disregarded” the terms of the search warrant, and [Per Olson] accused government representatives of “hiding the ball.”  The warrant called for investigators to separate relevant from irrelevant Facebook account information, and then secure the irrelevant material. 

“It also shows an utter lack of respect for the process for the seizure and securing” of private Facebook communications,” Olson argued.  He argued that no one in the FBI took their responsibility seriously to safeguard this material.

“I’m just confounded how they ought to be allowed to do that,” Olson said.”  I hate to use the word lie, your Honor, but somebody did.”

The US Attorney has his own house to clean.

Finally:

III. The Court Should Expand the Protective Order

Finally, in the ordinary case, all parties comply with court orders. This has proven to be an extraordinary case; therefore, if this Court were to revisit the terms of its existing Protective Order, further language specifically addressing the Court’s intent to ensure compliance with its orders for both direct and indirect violations—wherever they may occur—would be appropriate.

Here, the government suggests that the Court extend its authority beyond its lawful reach, in both jurisdiction and persona.  I suppose that since judicial activism by higher courts, to make laws that were never intended by the Legislative Branch, has a new birth in lower courts.  Now, the US Attorney is suggesting not only that this Court can legislate, that it can do contrary to the case law submitted by the Prosecutor in the Memorandum.  Then, they apparently want to go one step further to enact an Order (law) to prohibit what I have done, not in violation of the existing Order, but will be guilty of if Judge Brown simply waves a wand and changes the wording of the existing Order, making me, ex post facto, in violation of the Order and subject to punishment, therefore.

source

Doug Knowles | January 11, 2017 at 3:03 pm | Categories: Maulher, News, Resources | URL: http://wp.me/p8bCbd-gn

Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist

Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist by Doug Knowles

Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist

January 8, 2017, 11:23 am 

Freedom of the Press #2
Cease and Desist

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 8, 2017

THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Perhaps it would help if we look at the initial step that the government took in attempting to suppress the First Amendment protected right, that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom… of the press“. Congress, being the only legislative body of the government (Article I, Section 1, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”), cannot, by that simple statement, delegate to any other branch of the government the authority to pass any law, rule, or policy that would be contrary to that protection afforded by the Constitution.

The first step, as explained in “Freedom of the Press – Part #1”, was a Letter, hand delivered by a FBI Special Agent. I read the Letter in his presence, and we discussed certain aspects of it. However, for the reader, it is necessary to understand just how the Justice Department (pardon my misnomer) threatened me, if I did not comply with their demands. (Bold text in the original.)

Dear Mr. Hunt:

Excerpts of material produced in discovery under a Court Protective Order in the above subject case, United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al., 3:16-CR-00051-BR, have been viewed on your website (http://outpost-of-freedom.com). Your possession of that material and any dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material violates the terms of the Court’s Protective Order (copy enclosed).

Consequently, you must immediately cease and desist publicly disseminating that material. You must also return all copies of that material to the United States and remove all protected material from the referenced website or any other website. To make arrangements to immediately return all material, electronic or otherwise, that is illegally in your possession, please contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation at (916) 746-7000 and ask to be directed to the Chico Resident Agency. Failure to immediately comply with this demand within twenty-four hours will necessitate that the United States seek a court order compelling your compliance.

The Letter was signed by Pamala R. Holsinger, Chief, Criminal Division, for Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice, District of Oregon.

Now, the Order states that the information is not to be “disseminated”. I understood the provision, and the documents were provided to me with the understanding that I would only “excerpt” from the documents. This was explained the first time I excerpted from the document, in “Burns Chronicles N^o 40 – Allen Varner (Wolf)“. I stated at that time:

“I will be referring to FBI documents that I have obtained.  They are marked, at the bottom left corner, “Dissemination Limited by Court Order”.  So, let me make this perfectly clear — I have no intention of “disseminating” the documents, nor am I bound by any “Court Order”.  I am writing about a Public Trial, which was held in September and October 2016.  Had I access to these documents during that trial, I would have written the same article that I am writing now.”

Now, is there a difference between excerpt and disseminate? From Merriam-Webster:

Disseminate:
1:  to spread abroad as though sowing seed.
2:  to disperse throughout

and,

Excerpt
1:  to select (a passage) for quoting:  extract
2:  to take or publish extracts from (as a book)

Disseminating the information that I received is something someone else did. I simply took excerpts, or extracts, from the documents. If laws, or edicts, are to be held to, they must be written. If the Court chose to use “disseminate”, when they meant, “excerpt”, they should have used “excerpt” instead of “disseminate”. But, more about that, later. If the Court can pick and choose, or change, a definition to suit whim, then we really are in trouble. So, while that difference may appear relatively insignificant, generally speaking, from the legal standpoint, there is a chasm between the two.

Holsinger attempts to pretend that this is the same thing. But when we look the wording of the Letter, it is apparent that there is an attempt to misrepresent the Court Order by stating, “dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material“. Holsinger has added a new twist by separating “dissemination” from “publication of any excerpts” with an “and”, making them separate and distinct elements. However, the Order only addresses dissemination.

Then, Holsinger states that “[My] possession of that material and any dissemination and publication of any excerpts of that material violates the terms of the Court’s Protective Order“. Obviously a conclusion that Holsinger has drawn, though that Order was not directed to me, rather, it was directed to other specific people. So, as I said in Burns Chronicles N^o 40, I am not bound by this Court Order. However, before we get to the attachment, there is one more point to address.

Holsinger further states that “[I] must also return all copies of that material to the United States and remove all protected material from the referenced website or any other website.” Yesterday, January 8, 2017, hundreds of people began sharing the articles on Facebook. Dozens of people have begun mirroring the Outpost of Freedom blog, especially the Burns Chronicles series. They have also begun sharing and mirroring this new series, “Freedom of the Press”.

Holsinger has attempted to impose on me the Herculean task of removing the referenced material from not only my website, but “any other website“.  Heck, I doubt that even the FBI could keep up with such a task. My supposed compliance would have little effect, as that that horse is already out of the barn.

I suppose that we could look at this in slightly different terms. We have all heard of civil disobedience. Well, I may, perhaps, be civilly disobedient, I am  not criminally disobedient, as Holsinger attempts to suggest. However, those who have to propagate the articles have taken a first step in civil defiance (See Burns Chronicles N^o 9 – Civil Defiance or Submission?). A much more definitive statement to the government is that, not just me, but We, will not comply.

Now, the Court Protective Order

Upon motion of the United States, the Court being advised as to the nature of this case, and good cause being shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that. pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1l) 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if there is specific discovery material that defense counsel believes should be an exception to this Protective Order, the parties shall confer before seeking guidance from this Court- The parties shall advise the Court by letter of any exceptions made to the Protective Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any materials subject to this Protective Order may be filed by a party under seal without prior approval of the Court.

The parties shall continue to confer regarding the efficacy of this Protective Order. Any outstanding issues between the parties related to this Protective Order shall be addressed by the Court at the status conference on June 15, 2016.

The Order states to whom the defense counsel may provide copies. I am not among those so designated. As proof, I was not given a copy of the Protective Order, though I had secured a copy back in March, when the Protective Order became a part of the court record.

In the next “Further Ordered”, we find there is a restriction placed upon those who are included in the designated recipients of the information. However, that Order does not extended its long arm of the Order to include me.

So, if we are a nation of laws, and if this edict is, in a sense, a law, then we must all, including the Court, be bound by the letter of the law.

Let me quote James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, from Federalist #62:

“Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

That is why laws are written. And, once written, they can be easily understood by all. It is not up to the Judge to decide what the law means. The law must be in the language of the land so that any who may be bound by it can understand exactly what the are bound to obey.

We will, in a subsequent article in this series, address why that limited “Protective Order” extends only to those identified within its text.

source

Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You by Doug Knowles

Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You

January 9, 2017, 2:12 pm 

Freedom of the Press – Update
A Grateful Thank You

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2017

Judge Anna Brown, in Portland, Oregon, has made a decision regarding the Justice Department’s efforts to shut down my writings. Before I give you what she has said, I want to thank you all for the incredible outpouring of support for what I have been doing. I have no doubt that Judge Brown has issued the following order realizing that the government, in Ammon Bundy, et al., has overstepped their bounds and has to, now, eat a little of that pie called humble.

The Minute Order filed, today, January 9, 2017, reads as follows:

“Order by Judge Anna J. Brown. The Court has reviewed the governments Motion to Enforce Protective Order and directs the government to file no later than Noon on Tuesday, 1/10/17 a supplemental memorandum that addresses the following issues: (1) The Courts authority to enjoin the actions of a third party under the existing terms of the Protective Order  and without advance notice to the third party and an opportunity for that third party to be heard; (2) the Courts jurisdiction to compel an individual who is not present within the District of Oregon to respond to the government’s arguments raised in this Motion via an order to show cause or other form of order; and (3) whether the Court should amend the existing Protective Order in any respect to address the issues raised in the government’s Motion.”

Briefly, the Court required the government to prove that I, Gary Hunt, come under the authority of the Court’s Protective Order regarding the Discovery material. Next, Judge Brown requires the government to prove that the Portland Distract Court has jurisdictional authority over someone not within that jurisdictional district. I am in California, the situs (def: the place to which, for purposes of legal jurisdiction or taxation, a property belongs.) of the alleged crime. Third, if the Court does decide to amend the Protective Order, they will have created an “ex post facto Order [law]”, which is prohibited by the Constitution. And, finally, she has given them until tomorrow, sort of like the 24 hours they gave me, to provide a memorandum justifying their efforts to add me to the list of those persecuted by the government in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge event.

Again, thanks to the thousands of patriots who joined this battle. Also, special thanks to Maxine Bernstein at the Oregonian/Oregon Live, for her article laying out the position of the government and mine. I have no doubt that her article and the subsequent Associated Press articles on the subject were a major factor in the government realizing that we are still a nation of laws, to which they, too, are bound.

With gratitude to all,

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
(Press, publishing in a blog format)

Doug Knowles | January 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm | Categories: Maulher, News | URL: http://wp.me/p8bCbd-f2

Doug Knowles | January 8, 2017 at 11:35 am | Categories: Bundy Ranch, Maulher, News, Resources | URL: http://wp.me/p8bCbd-eO