“Congress shall make no law respecting … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” -First Amendment of the united States Constitution
Journalist Gary Hunt has been arrested and is currently being held in Sacramento, California. He is facing extradition to Portland, Oregon, though at the time of his arrest there was no agreement to extradite him. He is facing charges of contempt of the judge in the Oregon Malheur Refuge case that involved the Bundy family and others last year.
Hunt operates Outpost-of-Freedom and had posted several articles, including information regarding informants at the refuge. He was arrested on Thursday by a court order from Judge Anna Brown because he did not appear in her court to explain why he should not be held in contempt for not removing the information of the informants in the case.
According to the court’s order, Judge Brown stated:
On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abettedthe 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:
Upon issuing the arrest warrant for Hunt on March 10, Brown wrote:
“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.”
No mention is made that being armed is a right protected under the Second Amendment and no mention is made that those in “law enforcement” were armed and actually had trained their weapons on American citizens who were simply protesting their tyrannical actions.
Mr. Hunt may also be facing charges of aiding and abetting defendants. On May 2, 2017, Hunt addressed such charges in a post titled “Freedom of the Press #11 – Aiding, but not Abetting.”
“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,” he wrote. “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,” he added. “Currently, the Court has an outstanding Order that I appear and show cause why I should not be held in contempt of court.”
Aiding and abetting is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition:
What is AID AND ABET?
In criminal law. That kind of connection with the commission of a crime which, at common law, rendered the person guilty as a principal in the second degree. It consisted in being present at the time and place, and doing some act to render aid to the actual perpetrator of the crime, though without taking a direct share in its commission. See 4 Bl. Comm. 34; Peo ple v. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 55 Pac. 5S1, 68 Am. St. Rep. 50; State v. Tally, 102 Ala. 25, 15 South. 722; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa, 113, 88 N. W. 196; State v. Cox, 65 Mo. 29, 33.
“The case law cited by the government shysters also includes criminal activity as a necessary element,” Hunt wrote. ” One of the reasons for the Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. United States (Pentagon Papers) was that there was no crime resulting from the disclosure of the classified documents. The Court then upheld, in rather strong terms, the right, even the responsibility, of the press to publish such information.”
“Key to that decision was an absence of aiding and abetting, since though the exposure of the information was in good faith and brought to light some misdeeds of government, the publication of that material was not criminal, nor did it lead to a criminal act,” Hunt continued. ” The person (Daniel Ellsberg) who violated his signed agreement not to disclose the information, committed the only criminal act. The New York Times aided and abetted no one.”
Hunt then went on to point out the failings of the court in the matter.
Using her judicial discretion (See Freedom of the Press #7 – “Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny), she has determined that there is no party that I aided, since that party is unnamed. She has also made the dissemination of materials a criminal act, though I, similar to the New York Times, am not subject to the Protective Order.
The government has not indicated whom I may have aided and abetted, nor have they indicated just what criminal act resulted from my publication of the prohibited material. So, let’s look and see just who might have been aided by what I have disclosed.
There can be little doubt that the defendants in the Ammon Bundy, et al., Group 2 trial, currently being heard in Portland, Oregon, have benefitted as a consequence of what I have published. They have subpoenaed, to the best of my knowledge, Will Kullman, and Allen Varner, to testify. So, they have been aided, though not abetted, by my articles.
Since the exposure, in the Group 1 trial, of Mark McConnell, as an informant paid by the government, the voluntary act of Terri Linnell, and the exposure of Fabio Minoggio, may all have played a role in the verdict; there can be little doubt that identities of the informants may provide exculpatory testimony, to the benefit of the defendants.
However, in that trial, the government shysters and the Judge determined that disclosure of the informants, or even unredacted informant reports (the reports were heavily redacted and gave no indication of the identity of the informants), would not be necessary, as there was no exculpatory purpose in releasing that information. The verdict clearly disputes the assertion.
Further, in the Group 1 trial, the defense was not allowed to mention the six informants that never visited the MNWR. They were only, during the discussion prior to the testimony of Minoggio, allowed to mention that there were nine informants who had visited the MNWR.
Now, in the Group 2 trial, the government has demonstrated some integrity clearly missing in the Group 1 trial. The government has admitted that there were 15 informants, and, that some of the informants were authorized to conduct criminal activity during their paid spying/infiltration of the MNWR occupation. The law requires this disclosure if there is exculpatory information. So, the Justice Department has abided by the law, perhaps due to my exposing of the informants. Simply put, they have been aided, though not abetted, by my articles.
It seems clear that Mr. Hunt was simply acting in the capacity of the press, which is protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, the real criminal actions here are those of the government by their violation of the Sixth Amendment.
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.
Anonymous witnesses are not true witnesses. How can anyone on the defense even verify they actually exist?
“I must mention another group of people that have been aided by my writings,” adds Hunt. “This group is the primary target of those efforts and the exposures that have come to light. As I have stated for over twenty years, I will write about the misdeeds of government. The government putting spies in our midst is, without a doubt, a misdeed of government. It is tantamount to the servant spying on the master. When that master’s intention is to hold the servant (government) accountable to the contract (Constitution), the servant is subject to the scrutiny to determine the extent of his misdeeds. So, too, is the government –as they have clearly demonstrated by being a bit more forthright in the Group 2 trial.”
Hunt concluded his post, “My intent to aid was directed at the people, my reading audience. The affect, however, did aid the defense as well as the prosecution. However, if there was any abetting, it would be more realistically described as “un-abetting”, if the government was acting criminally (along with the Judge) in hiding exculpatory evidence. Hence, they have been un-abetted in their criminal activity, by exposing in the Group 2 trial what should have been exposed in the Group 1 trial.”
Indeed, as Brand Thornton said back in December 2016, the judges in the Oregon, as well as the Bundy Ranch, trial have gone rogue and should be impeached.