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 o.... 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 12th, 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 S... (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.
So, the current government Reply endeavors to regurgitate some of the same arguments that the government has relied upon, through the course of this ordeal. For example, they have, from the beginning, relied upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), when they state, “The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established.” Where they fail in Roviaro, is that the protection is afforded by allowing the government to protect the identity of the informant. In the words of the Roviaro decision, “What is usually referred to as the informer’s privilege is, in reality, the Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons…” What it does not do is to extend any criminal liability to those that disclose an informant’s identity. It simply gives the government the right to try to protect the identity.
In the current matter, that was done to the extent that the law allows, the Protective Order that sanctioned those who were given certain information from disclosing that information. It is only that person, whether a defendant, defendant’s counsel, or even government employee, was subject to the Court’s order not to divulge the identity of the informants.
The government did so even prior to the Discovery being given to the defendants, when they redacted what they believed to be any information that would tend to expose the informants. The informant’s names were redacted as were many hundreds of words that the government felt would identify the informants. The government keeping that information away from the defendants (the identification of informants) was their exercise of the protection of the informants, as per Roviaro.
The government continues to persist in stating, rightfully, “this Court had the authority to issue the orders and that it continues to have the authority to enforce the orders.” However, they have yet to address the relevant aspect of jurisdiction. To put this in context, if a judge in Mexico issues an order, he has such authority. He also has the right to enforce that order. However, does he have the jurisdiction to first, apply that order to someone not within his jurisdiction? And, second, the authority to enforce the order against someone not within his jurisdiction?
The government wants to spin the context of what I said into a confession that is very, very far from my belief and honest admission as to the authority of the judge.
As the government continues, they make this rather curious assertion:
“When Hunt complains that this Court’s orders “prohibit” him from publishing “certain investigative pieces,” his factual premise is simply inaccurate. Second, the justification for the original Protective Order continues because there is an ongoing need to protect cooperating witnesses regardless of the status of the trial.”
So, let’s break this down. I have never complained about anything, except the fact that I was arrested by the government, similar to this current contempt situation, wrongfully applying a statute that did not apply to me, resulting in my spending a week in the Sacramento County Jail. It would have been substantially longer had not Judge Brown seen through the deceitful tactic of the government in attempting to punish me, by simply lying to have a warrant issued for my arrest. See Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?
Then, the government shysters endeavored to make a point:
“We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case — or even the informants — we only want him to observe this Court’s Order, which means that he cannot publish the discovery material subject to the Court’s Order.”
How nice of them to say that they don’t have a problem with me writing “about the case — or even the informants.” How gracious. However, these shysters are supposed to present facts. My reputation as a journalist (not a blogger) is based on presenting facts. Let’s suppose that I wrote about the informants, but failed to justify my conclusions without facts to back up those conclusions. Well, then, I might just be a blogger. However, as facts are a requisite in our judicial system, they are also a matter of principle to a good journalist. To make accusations without presenting the facts makes a mockery of journalism, as it would of the judicial system.
Besides, such accusations are prolific in the patriot community. They tend to lack any substance and are often made over a simple disagreement between two people. Should some rely upon simply my word that so and so is an informant, the informant would simply accuse the accuser of being an informant. And, the louder voice would probably prevail. Surely, the government shysters would love to see an expansion of the “he said; she said” sort of rhetoric in the community.
As we continue through the Reply, we find this rather subjective statement of ‘facts’:
“[T]he government’s interests far outweigh any First Amendment interest Hunt may assert. First, we need to protect our confidential sources for all of the valid reasons identified in Roviaro. Second, the Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Orders. Without enforcement, Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.”
Now, the first point has already been addressed, with regard to the government’s right to endeavor to protect their sources — which they did by denying the defendants the right to call the witnesses against them (6th Amendment). Second, the Court wrote the Protective Order and subjected those identified as subject to that Protective Order. Daniel Ellsberg was the criminal in the “Pentagon Papers”. The New York Times was not. Finally, and the most laughable, is that the government feels that the exchange of discovery might be undermined. Well, there is little doubt that the shysters want to keep as many secrets as they can from the defense. However, in an effort to attempt to maintain their unscrupulous cadre of spies among us, they would willingly subvert the Constitution.
In a subsequent reference to Roviaro, the government states:
“The Supreme Court recognized that preserving informants’ confidentiality served important purposes: ‘the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation.’ “
In light of what we have heard from the related case going on in Las Vegas, Nevada, the government refers to the informants as “employees”. Here, they are referred to as “citizens”. It appears that the government has become rather expert at a word game that allows them to redefine a purpose one serves, though the nature of the person remains. If a “citizen” comes forward to provide evidence of criminal activity, that person is simply a good citizen. However, as has become clear with the knowledge that the informants were paid by the government to spy on the people, well, that is not quite the typical image of a good citizen. However, In Nevada, they have gone one step further with the admission that they are “employees”. And, as we all know, when you are an employee, you do what the boss tells you to do. Whether those instructions extend to illegal activity, or simply stop at a means of circumventing Miranda, is left to the judgment of the reader.
Next, in a rather interesting manipulation of language, the government states:
“As stated in the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt, this Court reviewed unredacted FBI reports of thirteen CHSs that the defense sought to identify and found that there was not any information that was relevant and helpful to the defense. The Court properly denied their motion. (ECF No. 1453). The discovery regarding the CHSs should not be released publicly simply because three of the CHSs were identified at trial. The protection of the CHS information should not end because the trial is over. The threats to the confidential sources, especially the twelve CHSs who were not identified at either trial in this case, remain real. In addition, disclosure of FBI 1023s could negatively affect ongoing investigations.”
So, they claim that “this Court reviewed unredacted FBI reports of thirteen CHSs that the defense sought to identify and found that there was not any information that was relevant and helpful to the defense.” However, that is not the reality of what happened. The defense, because of substantial redactions, could find nothing that might benefit their clients. However, one informant came forward and provided testimony that was not included in the redacted reports. Another informant was sought out and found that his testimony probably had a substantial bearing on the outcome of the first trial. It is quite certain that some of the redacted material may have been exculpatory (tending to demonstrate innocence), and that other testimony of circumstances not in the redacted reports could serve to provide insight to the jury.
The government hides behind two assertions of the need for secrecy (police state mentality). First is that there may be harm perpetrated on the informants, if they are exposed. It has been almost a year since the informants were exposed, yet not one hair has been harmed.
The second assertion, and by far the most problematic, is the “ongoing investigations” claim. It is an admission, not that they are after bank robbers, drug dealers, murderers, or foreign subversives. In such circumstances, it might be appropriate to install informants, as the crimes mentioned are crimes that involve injury to a party, or even our government. However, when political ideologies are not within the perceived authority of the government, though are fully founded upon the document and principles that created that government, they are nothing less than politically motivated. We can understand, whether we agree, or not, that political parties will spy on each other. They are organizations, though the people the government wants to spy on are simply politically motivated individuals, that realize that the government has assumed more authority than was ever granted by the Constitution. How else can this be explained, except to understand that the government is making a concerted effort to undermine the Constitution? And, they will enlist criminals to spy on patriots, and then try to make criminals out of those patriots.
The government then claims that if the protective order is not enforced, as they wish it to be enforced, that the “discovery orders would be toothless“. Well, heck, this is simply a fabrication. The Court’s Protective Order gave the court, the Shysters, and the FBI, the authority to enforce it against those who violated the Protective Order. If I entrust you with some information, and you have, by receiving that information, agreed to terms set out from the beginning, you may violate that agreement — those terms. The person that receives that information is not bound by the agreement any more than you would be if you received some money in change from a purchase that had been stolen in a bank robbery.
The government came back with a six count Indictment against twenty-six people, in less than a month. They allege that these people committed crimes, though they don’t allege that those who supported them committed crimes.
In the past eight months, the government cannot find the person who committed the crime (the dissemination of the protected information, so they feel compelled to find someone guilty of bringing out the truth. However, well, I guess a scapegoat is good enough when you do not have informants doing your work for you.
Now, you have read all of the way to this point, and you may be wondering just why the title to this article is “The Big Guns”. After failing to have the Court find me in contempt, after all of this time, perhaps somebody’s reputation as a shyster is at risk. In desperation, to bolster what has already been presented in the matter, and not contested, they are calling in the Big Guns. Those guns being FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano, whom I have met on several occasions, to testify to facts already admitted. Catalano is out of Sacramento, California, so I suppose he is getting a paid vacation to Portland, Oregon. I hope that he enjoys his trip, and look forward to seeing an agent that I have respected, since we first met.
The other “gun” is FBI Special Agent Jason Kruger, from Portland. Kruger is a sort of a replacement gun. The first Special Agent in Portland was Ronnie Walker. However, Walker violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically:
Rule 49.1. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court
(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, a financial-account number, or the home address of an individual, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only;
(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual’s birth;
(3) the minor’s initials;
(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number; and
(5) the city and state of the home address.
FBI Special Agent Walker filed an Affidavit in this contempt matter. Twice, he included my home address, city, and state in the affidavit. However, it was the Shysters that should have redacted the document before it was put in the publicly available record, as per Rule 49.1.
This was brought out in Freedom of the Press #8 – “Qualified Press Privilege”, on February 21, 2017. The next affidavit filed in the matter was on March 9, 2017. However Kruger had already replaced Walker. We can only surmise that since Walker was assigned to dog me, that he was replaced and a scapegoat for the failure of the shysters to redact the “forbidden information”. However, we find nothing in the record that indicates that the real criminal, the person who filed the unredacted affidavit, Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorney, has been held accountable in her gross violation of specific Rules, adopted by the Court to afford protection to any individual whose name might appear in Court records. Yes, this is the same the government was so concerned about the protection of their paid informants, but not anybody else.
This does tend toward “do as I say, not as I do”. However, a citizen has no recourse (immunity), and the government is exempt from any responsibility, whether intentional or negligent.
At any rate, what we have is a government that has turned against its citizen and afforded itself the immunity that used to belong only to the King (The King can do no wrong.). Unlike those who shot civilians in the Boston Massacre, we find no government agents standing trial for the people to determine innocence or guilt, such as the Oregon State Police and the FBI HRT members involved in the murder of LaVoy Finicum. Why should they concern themselves with such a minor transgression as a violation of the Court’s Rules, where the party responsible has not even been sanctioned, at least publicly, and continues in her pursuit of misguided ‘justice’ against journalism