Freedom of the Press 10 – Not Served, Again
by Gary Hunt
February 27, 2017
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.
Now, as required, he reported to Portland that it had been delivered (note, I didn’t say served), and the Certificate of Service was duly recorded in the Ammon Bundy, et al, trial docket, that afternoon. The text of that Certificate of Service reads as follows:
Pursuant to this Court’s February 16, 2017, Order (ECF No. 1900) the government certifies that on February 24, 2017, FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano met with third party Gary Hunt and personally served Hunt with a copy of the Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 1901). Agent Catalano had previously sent the Order to Hunt by FedEx. Hunt acknowledged that he had already seen and read the Order. Hunt stated that the Order included a time for him to respond to the Order, which he understood to be for civil contempt. 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 Cause, he stated that he was refusing service of the Order.
Now, they did get it right when they stated that I had refused service, though they pointed out that I had taken the Order to Show Cause. I simply want to set the record straight with my notes, taken shortly after the meeting:
Meeting with FBI SA Catalano on February 24, 2017, at about 10:30 am in Los Molinos, California.
I asked Catalano if he wanted to hand it to me so that I could hand it back to him. He laughed.
I acknowledged that I had already read it. He told me that I had an option to call the Court and get a defense attorney. I explained that to do so would constitute an appearance and subject me to jurisdiction. I told him that her Protective Order couldn’t reach me.
I then told Catalano that Judge Brown needs to read Numbers 7, 8, and 9, of the Freedom of the Press series. I asked him if he had read them yet. he said no. (In our phone conversation of the 22nd I suggested, since he was supposed to be assigned to me, that he should read those three before we met.) He said that he had passed the word for her to read them. I assured him that I knew that he was reporting, faithfully, to FBI SA Ronnie Walker, as he was putting my responses in his Affidavits.
Next, I told Catalano that I didn’t believe that she had any right to reach down here (California) or to extend that Protective Order to reach me. I explained that the Supplemental Protective Order presumed to extend its reach to the entire world, if anybody passed my articles on, and would be subject to the Protective Order. Then, I asked if what she was doing to me was selective enforcement.
I told him that she couldn’t change the rules (Supplemental Protective Order) in the middle of the game. I asked him that when he made his report to please include my statements. He said he would pass it on.
He said that he had already passed it on (meaning the jurisdiction and Protective Order portions). I told him that I knew that he had, but that this was Round 3. He asked me if this was going to be the last round. I told him that I didn’t know, that it was up to them (Brown and the shysters). That when they realized that they didn’t have jurisdiction and they can’t do a damned thing, that they especially needed to look at my “Prior Restraint” article. It was their problem, not mine.
He seemed somewhat concerned, so I told him that it was not an inconvenience to come down here to talk with him, that I liked him. He told me that he appreciated that because it made his life easier.
Then, I told him that I still refuse the Order and held the paperwork out to him. I told him that if he didn’t want to take it back, I would take it. (though I didn’t explain, I didn’t want to just drop it on the ground and be charged with littering.) Then, he made the point that I had it. I explained that I was taking it because he didn’t want to take it back, though I told him that I still refused it.
It was important that I made some points, since the government has already entered my writings of both the “Burns Chronicles” and the “Freedom of the Press” series into the record. In so doing, that record is a part of any judicial review of the efforts to hold me in Contempt of Court. Since you can’t introduce just a page of a book, you must enter the entire book, so, too with the series, as they are interdependent on other articles within those series.
Perhaps an understanding of the Paper Chase that I refer to is in order, for those who don’t realize that there are two sides to any legal proceedings. We are all aware of the Perry Mason side, the courtroom drama that takes place. There are daily reports from a number of sources that, through video or written articles, provide observations of that aspect.
On the other side, there is the Paper Chase. Those are the motions, responses to motion, orders, and other legal necessities that go on behind the public scene, and in the case of the Portland and Nevada trials, have been going on since January 2016. Each document, and often statements from the bench, are entered in chronological order and assigned a number. Generally, the Criminal Complaint and Indictment are within the first few entries. They were referred to by their docket number, though in this electronic age where documents can be filed electronically, they are often referred to with “ECF” (Electronic Case Filing) number, as in the text, above, though both methods use the same number.
As you can see in the text of the Certificate of Service, it was the nineteen-hundred and forty-sixth entry in that docket. So, there is much that goes on behind the scenes that most are not aware of, though much of my writing is to bring to light those dealings, as injustice is as likely to occur there, perhaps more so, than it does during the trial.