Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Update on Gary Hunt Jurisdiction Hearing

"There is enough information to prove intent BUT I AM NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENT YET."

Update on Gary Hunt Jurisdiction Hearing
Gary Hunt (photo credit: Redoubt News)

Update on Gary Hunt Jurisdiction Hearing

*Editor’s Note: There was a hearing today at the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland Oregon, in front of Judge Anna Brown. The hearing was to determine jurisdiction over Gary Hunt, a journalist from California, who has published information on paid Federal Informants in the Malheur Protest trial. The following is a summary from one of today’s court observers.

by Jenn Cannon

Today’s update on the ‘Gary Hunt’ jurisdiction hearing, is there’s really no update!
At first Judge Anna Brown states we are there to first address jurisdiction and second to develop a base for knowingly aiding and abetting.

She stated… (Quotes I did catch)

“What happens in a courtroom IS public and those things ARE reportable.”  (someone get that memo to Navarro as she silenced the court reporters in Nevada #dueprocess)
“If he knows there is a protection order and he is still reporting then he is inserting himself in this case.”
“He was informing the defense team for their defense.”
“The fact Mr. Hunt did not receive the information from one of the defendants does not matter.”
“Did Mr Hunt do something to aid and abet? Not about who he got the information from.”
“There is enough information to prove intent BUT I AM NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENT YET.”
“There has never been a request of the court to modify these orders so the orders do exist.”

The motion to move the case to California was dismissed as she feels there is enough evidence to have this case in Oregon.

Judge Brown has put the burden of proof back on the almighty governments lap. She stated, “Hopefully the government can address”

-contempt of court and jurisdiction
-wants memorandum seeking only that he knowingly or intentionally aided and abetted
-summary of facts and admissible evidence and show by physical evidence
-ethicacy
-specify what additional evidence to jurisdiction
– asking prosecution what sanction or sanctions they are asking for, making a point that he has already spent 7 days in jail.

Dates set today. Government has until June 12th, then Gary Hunt has until July 21st for response. Government will then have until August 4th to reply. Brown said she wants to have this all done by September 12th.
So to sum it up
* no jurisdiction was decided *
Government needs to be more specific.
Denied motion to move case to California.
Gary is pleased he will be able to address jurisdiction and the 1st amendment at the same time.

#notguilty

(Visited 486 times, 1 visits today)

1 Comment on Update on Gary Hunt Jurisdiction Hearing

  1. The disconnect between Gary’s position and what Brown is saying is light years away:
    1. Brown is ignoring completely the NY Times case involving the Pentagon Papers dealing with subject matter far more sensitive and still the feedom of the press prevailed.
    2. There is no intent proven. Gary never said it was his intent to help the defense. He said that the defense may have been aided as a by product, not because he intended for it to be aided. Abetting is overtly encouraging someone to commit a crime, zero evidence that Gary was abetting someone to commit a crime.
    3. And, before anything else, govt must prove jurisdiction. This couldn’t be more well settled and clear, the Oregon District does not have jurisdiction. To get jurisdiction the Oregon court must show that he was served while in Ore or that he had minimum contacts. Neither apply
    4. Brown is more experienced than Navarro but she is not any more just than Navarro. Please don’t give her any credit for being fair. The fact that she said that there is enough to prove intent betrays her extreme bias in favor of the government (her team of federal employees).

Comments are closed.