On October 5, 2018 The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press Released information regarding a FOIA Request they submitted in conjunction with their law suit regarding undercover impersonation of members of the media. The Federal Bureau Of Investigations released a portion of the record requested by the RCFP outlining the agencies guidelines for impersonating members of the news media which reveal that the practice requires high level approval from the Justice Department and the FBI. During the Bundy Ranch Trials it was revealed that a fake documentary crew garnered interviews with several of the Defendants in the three cases where they asked the protestors inflammatory questions about the Bureau Of Land Management who played a pivotal roll in the Stand Off, offering interviewees liquor and candy to excess, ultimately capturing interviews by those they had intoxicated which resulted in what is equivalent to life sentences for two of the defendants. The article released by RCFP references the phony film crew, Longbow Productions and specific others who obtained this high government approval, it states in part:
"Newly public Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents outline for the first time the specifics of the agency's guidelines for impersonating members of the news media in undercover activities and operations. The records detail, among other things, that such activities require high-level approval from within the FBI and Justice Department. The FBI released the guidelines after the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit when the agency failed to respond to a request for records about its impersonation of documentary filmmakers, specifically. Additionally, records recently released in connection with a separate FOIA lawsuit filed by the Reporters Committee show that the FBI has engaged in the impersonation of documentary filmmakers on a number of occasions, though questions remain as to just how frequently the FBI relies on this tactic.
The FBI has engaged in the undercover impersonation of members of the news media for decades, but controversy surrounding the practice was amplified in 2015 after it was revealed that the agency created a fake news article attributed to the Associated Press (AP) during the course of its June 2007 investigation of a student suspected of sending bomb threats to his high school outside Seattle, Washington. The revelation sparked an outcry from the press and public, including inquiries from high-ranking members of Congress who expressed concern that the impersonation of journalists undermines the credibility and independence of those reporting on matters of significant public importance.
In defense of the practice, then-FBI Director James Comey submitted a letter to the editor to The New York Times acknowledging the tactic and stating that the FBI's impersonation of an AP journalist in the Seattle investigation "was proper and appropriate[.]" The controversy also led the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General to investigate the FBI's use of media impersonation in the Seattle investigation. In September 2016, the office issued a formal report noting that the FBI had prepared new guidelines setting forth "approval levels for sensitive circumstances specifically in situations in which [FBI] employees represent, pose, or claim to be members of the news media or a documentary film crew."
The guidelines obtained by the Reporters Committee detail that approval process: The relevant FBI field office must submit an application to the Undercover Review Committee at FBI headquarters and it must be approved by the FBI Deputy Director after consultation with the Deputy Attorney General. The guidelines do not provide any criteria the FBI Deputy Director and/or the Deputy Attorney General must consider when approving these undercover activities.
The guidelines also define an "undercover activity" as any investigative activity involving the use of an assumed identity by an undercover employee, and an "undercover operation" as one that involves a "series of related undercover activities" — defined as five or more substantive contacts by an undercover employee with the individuals under investigation — over a period of time.
Though the FBI has repeatedly disclosed that its agents have impersonated members of the news media to further their investigations, important questions remain about how often this practice is used. Reporters Committee attorneys are currently involved in two matters seeking more information about the FBI's use of media impersonation.
The Reporters Committee scored an important victory late last year when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the FBI had failed to sufficiently search for records responsive to FOIA requests made by the Reporters Committee and the AP. The case is currently on remand to the district court, where the FBI has produced records that make clear that the FBI has engaged in the impersonation of members of the news media — including documentary filmmakers — in criminal investigations on multiple occasions. In released emails, FBI employees question whether the agency's new policies regarding impersonation of members of the news media "apply only to future [undercover operations], or apply retroactively to ongoing [undercover operations] that have already been approved with the documentary film crew scenario?" Similarly, another released email notes the existence of "a number of communications to HQ components and the field in 2016 regarding the use of 'documentary' and similar type scenarios in undercover operations."
Most recently, the Reporters Committee sued the Justice Department and the FBI after the agencies failed to respond to a FOIA request for records related to the FBI's impersonation of documentary filmmakers. The Reporters Committee filed the FOIA request after it was revealed in court that FBI agents posed as filmmakers in order to interview suspects as part of its investigation into a 2014 armed standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and supporters of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, and used "professional credentials, websites and business cards" to lend their fake documentary film company — Longbow Productions — the appearance of authenticity.
In response to part of that FOIA request, the FBI has asserted what is known as a "Glomar" response, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records related to other instances in which it has impersonated documentary filmmakers during the course of its investigations. In support of its argument, in a recent filing the FBI went so far as to argue that disclosing these records "would allow criminals to judge whether they should completely avoid any contacts with documentary film crews, rendering the investigative technique ineffective."
In response, the Reporters Committee argued that this is precisely the reason why disclosure of information regarding FBI media impersonation is so important: this tactic has a chilling effect on journalists and documentary filmmakers, and sources are less likely to speak candidly to members of the news media if they think that the journalist is an agent of the government. Further, the Reporters Committee argues that the FBI cannot issue a Glomar response in this case because its practice of media impersonation is already well-known to the public and the FBI has already officially acknowledged the existence of these records — two standards the court will consider in evaluating whether the FBI's Glomar response to part of the FOIA request was appropriate.
Along with the legal arguments in the case, the Reporters Committee submitted signed affidavits from two documentary filmmakers — David Byars and Abby Ellis — who explained how the FBI's use of media impersonation has made it more difficult for them to do their jobs.
In particular, Ellis believes that "the FBI's impersonation of a documentary film crew could have put [her] in danger," and that "the FBI's use of that tactic continues to jeopardize [her] safety, and the safety of other, real investigative filmmakers."
The FBI has until Oct. 12 to respond to the Reporters Committee’s arguments".
This case is evidence that the program to propagandize the people is WELL underway and does not protect the American People's right to a free press! As Reporters Committee For A Free Press states, this covert program is making it difficult for documentary film makers and reporters alike to obtain access to the people to report "the news" because it has made the American People fearful of entrapment and prosecution. This is only one of many cases, and it is my opinion that not only was it employed in the Bundy Ranch case but also in the Malhuer Refuge event in Burns Oregon, Harney County, in one case in particular with whom I will call the master of ceremonies, although not the only instance.
The American People deserve to have their right to a free press protected, not exploited to their detriment. We must be vigilant to expose these government lies and manipulations whenever, and wherever found.
What I refer to as "The Roundup" of Patriots in the American West, started with Schuyler Barbeau. This is part of his story. From the writings of Gary Hunt, the article "Barbeau-Qued In Seattle. The details are as follows...
Schuyler Barbeau On Stage With Cliven Bundy Bundy Ranch Stand Off April 2014
In the late morning of December 6, 2015, Schuyler Barbeau had been helping Allen Aenk by rescuing service dogs as a business service run from the Aenk family Ranch, in Stevens County, Washington some 280 miles away from where the following events begin to unfold.
At the Weigh Station
After dealing with the dogs, Schuyler wanted to stop to collect some money owed him by Oliver Murphy. Murphy texted Schuyler to meet him at a weigh station at Interstate 90 on Washington Highway 18 (between Preston and Snoqualmie). When they arrived at the weigh station, Oliver’s car was there, but Oliver was nowhere to be seen. So, they parked next to Oliver’s car and Allen got out of the car, cell phone in hand to call his wife and to take the dog to the Dog Walk.
Before he could complete his intended tasks, he saw between 10 and 12 battle dressed people encircle him and the car. He was told to lie down on the ground. He complied, though he questioned why he and Allen were being treated this way. They then handcuffed Allen, and since Schuyler was on the other side of the car, he didn’t really see what happened to him. Allen did note that he saw FBI, US Marshalls, and Coast Guard, though there were no apparent BATF agents on the scene. But, we’ll get to the charges shortly.
The agents were going through his car, but they had no warrant with them, they simply stated that they did have one (There was a warrant to search the car at the premises – the ranch, but nothing identifying the car specifically).
They then moved Allen away from the car and began asking questions about Schuyler, but Allen told them to ask Schuyler, not him.
After they had searched the car, one of the agents, acting rather rudely and assertively, asked Allen to sign a “Receipt for Property Seized”, which Allen refused to sign, and Special Agent Kera O’Reilly affirmed that Allen refused. However, he was provided a copy, it shows the following items seized from the car:
— Green “Bad Inc” Vest with visible firearms magazine with unknown contents inside pockets, bags, etc
— Grey “Universal” bag with yellow straps, with green sunglasses on strap and unknown contents
— FNH VSA pistol (FNX-45 Tactical Serial # FX3U025994) w/ [intelligible]
1 round loose, 15 in magazine full metal jacket 45 cal
— Cellular telephone, Android platform,
Droid Turbo, w/ other box (grey w/ yellow outline)
Allen was not allowed to verify some of those seized item, in particular, the “Grey Universal bag with yellow straps”, so the feds can do anything they want with the contents. It was Special Agent O’Reilly who, rather rudely, refused Allen’s request to review the contents.
Just so we know who the rather rude agent that dealt with Allen is, she was Kera Wulbert, and may have been Kera Wulbert Wagner, prior to that. Around 2013, she married Brendan Gerard O’Reilly (age 46) and quitclaimed her house at 2914 S Hill Street, Seattle, to herself and her new husband.
The other Special Agent was Matthew Acker, who acted courteously, as we should be able to expect our public servants to act toward us. These two agents were, apparently, assigned to Allen, while we can suppose that the rest of the jackboots were needed to assure that Schuyler didn't take over the surrounding forces, though we will have to get that information from him, when he is removed from sequestration and allowed visitors and phone calls.
The Criminal Complaint
Though we have no proof of the existence of an Arrest Warrant being issued prior to the arrest, we do have the Criminal Complaint that resulted in the arrest, as well as the Search Warrant.
The only Count in the Complaint says that Schuyler “knowingly possessed a firearm which was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, as required by law, namely, a particular black, semiautomatic AR-15 5.56 mm caliber assault rifle with a 10.5 inch barrel and holographic sight, a rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length”, for which the government wants a $200 tax (refer to Title 26, US Code, §§5861(d) and 5845(a)(3) as the violations). Title 26 is the tax code, so they are assuming that Schuyler owes a tax, and that he failed to pay it. Can you imagine how much it cost the government to persecute Schuyler, as opposed to, say sending him a bill?
So, we know and understand that a Class III license holder has, by obtaining the license, agreed to do certain things. Among them would be to verify that if he sold such an item, alleged to be illegal in the Complaint, he would have to run a background check, provide the necessary paperwork to the purchaser, submit the paperwork, and fulfill all of the duties that the regulations require of him. But, that is because he contracted, by obtaining the license, with the government to perform those tasks required by those regulations. This would include 18 USC (criminal) and 26 US Code (tax), and perhaps others. But, it is only the licensee (which only applies to land, the IRS is making a stretch here), that has agreed to abide by those regulations.
However, the Second Amendment has confirmed our right to bear arms, without infringement. This leaves the government, with only limited jurisdiction, via the Commerce Clause (interstate commerce) and the taxing authority, as the means of the government to try to circumvent the limits imposed upon the government by the Constitution. However, if someone hasn’t contracted with the government, they, as well as the government, should be bound only by the Constitution. Schuyler’s right to possess that firearm is sacred; there is no justification for the government to attempt to, by force of arms, pay a tax on that right — regardless of what the government thinks. And, it is his right to do so that we, the People, need to “support and defend”.
Back to the Complaint. Special Agent Michael Baldino executed the Complaint. He is a member of the Seattle Division’s Domestic Terrorism Squad of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). Those are the guys that let Muslims kill people in California, while they mess with Americans that are intent on defending America against those Muslim terrorists, and BLM wannabes.
In paragraph 5 (page 3/6) we see that a Confidential Human Source (CHS) provided information (snitched) to the FBI about Schuyler. The Complaint is a substitute for the constitutionally required affidavit, and a poor substitute, at that. An affidavit is sworn as to personal knowledge, and is not supposed to give any validity to hearsay. However, since Baldino didn’t “swear” to the document, well, he can say anything that he wants.
Back to the CHS. It has been confirmed that the CHS in the Complaint is none other than Oliver Murphy. Yes, that is the one that baited Schuyler and Allen to the Weigh Station, but it doesn’t end there. Before we proceed, perhaps we ought to look at Mr. Murphy. His father, Patrick Murphy, was Snohomish County Sheriff. He was appointed to that position in 1995, when then Sheriff Jim Scharf stepped down to become the Everett Police Chief. Patrick Murphy, however, didn’t stay long. He was charged with four counts of felony possession of prescription medication. Patrick died in 2006, so maybe Oliver wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps and become recognized in “law enforcement”. At any rate, Oliver was in from the beginning to the end of Schuyler’s ordeal.
Hear Schuyler Barbeau Tell Of His Entrapment In This Video
Paragraph 7 (Complaint) tells us that CHS was invited to the trailer that Schuyler was staying in at the Aenk’s ranch, on October 19, 2015. The Aenk’s have confirmed that it was Oliver Murphy that stayed with Schuyler, on that date. There is only one CHS (if there are more than one, they would be numbered in the Complaint), so it is Murphy in every instance in the Complaint.
Next, we have Baldino going to Facebook to see what “dirt” he could get on Schuyler. He found photographs where Schuyler acknowledged that he owned a “short-barreled rifle” (SBR), which would be the Rainier Arms UltraMatch. So, when Schuyler suggested that he wanted to sell it. Murphy, being such a nice guy, let Schuyler know that he had found a buyer for the SBR.
On November 22, Schuyler dropped the SBR off at Murphy’s “residence”. So now, Murphy possess the SBR, but he has not been charged, and, according to the available information, he is not law enforcement, nor is he exempt from any regulation that might be imposed, legally, or not, on Schuyler. But, Murphy was never charged with a crime, but, that is the nature of a police state, isn’t it?
Schuyler has given up the SBR, Murphy gives it to the FBI, but nobody has paid Schuyler for the purchase the SBR. That sounds awfully like what is commonly referred to as theft, fraud, swindle, or some other real crime that has an injured party, namely Schuyler. But, in this modern world where it is always somebody else’s fault, the only one that didn’t hurt anybody by stealing property was Schuyler. So, he was charged.
It was probably to collect the money that Murphy was supposed to have collected do to the sale of the SBR, for that was the enticement for Schuyler and Allen to go to the Weigh Station.
Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch
About the same time that those events were occurring at the Weigh Station across the state in Springdale, Carrie Aenk (Allen's Wife) was facing her own ordeal. The following is based upon an interview and documents that have been provided.
Thirty to 35 people showed up in 7 or 8 vehicles. Carrie, when she saw them driving in, tried to call Allen. There was no answer. however, the Agents used a battering ram on the back door of the house. They also released some of the dogs from their kennel. These thugs go the extra mile in creating complete chaos!
The search warrant is marked with an “X" in the daytime 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.” (Page 1 of pdf). It says nothing about “no knock”, so it must be served in a civil manner. A battering ram at the back door of the house hardly satisfies that expectation, but, then, when you give thugs a license, they can do as they please — the Constitution notwithstanding.
I think we need to note here that the Search Warrant among other things, states that “I find that the affidavit(s), or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property.” However, no affidavit, or recorded testimony, has been provided. And, if we were to assume that the Criminal Complaint somehow satisfies that requirement, then even more curious is the fact that the Search Warrant brings in charges that were not included in the Complaint, or anywhere else in any of the currently existing court documents.
As far as the Warrant, it gives permission to search for the person or property described in “Attachment A”. “Attachment A” says, “This warrant authorizes the search of Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau for any cellular phones. This warrant authorizes the search of any such phones for the items described in “Attachment B”. Then, it remarks that Schuyler resides in a trailer on the property. So, the Warrant only allows them to search Schuyler for any phones, and then to search any phones for items in “Attachment B”. So, to make this clear, Schuyler can be searched for phones. Presumably, if phones are found, those phones can be searched for the items identified in “Attachment B”. There doesn’t appear to be any authority to search beyond that limitation. So, let’s look at "Attachment B" to see just what might be found in the phones.
“Attachment B” begins with, “Items to Be Seized from the Phone Described in "Attachment A.” Before we continue with "Attachment B", let’s reflect on what they just said. The items to be seized are to be seized from the phone. I know that the concept of seizing items from a phone is difficult to digest, unless, of course, you are a government agent. I still have a problem understanding how items can be seized from them. But, let’s continue and see just what those federal agents can “seize” from a phone.
Continuing in Attachment B, “All documents and items reflecting evidence and/or fruits of the commission of the crimes of (a) unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5861(d) and 5845(a)(3); (b) possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o), including:”, then it goes on to list, not items, rather, telephone serial numbers; sent, received, and missed calls; stored contact information; and, any stored photographs or Facebook posts –that might show something illegal. This will establish Oliver Murphy as the "lynch-pin".
This brings to mind an important part of the Constitution, you know, where they itemized some of the inherent rights of the People, not "granted" by government, rather, prohibitions against the government violating them. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
So, if information stored on a cell phone (since it can’t be the items that were to be seized) is simply a modern substitute for “papers and effects”, then it requires that the probable cause must be supported by “Oath or affirmation”. Unfortunately, the government failed to provide such.
The Complaint was for a tax violation, only, and being singularly concerned with that SBR. If we assume that the “affirmation” (that is really stretching our language to an extreme), to the extent of that affirmation must be limited to the SBR and Title 26 (taxes). So, where the hell does “possession of stolen federal property” and “possession of a machine gun” come into the picture? Do they just make this crap up while sitting around the water cooler? Also, consider Judge Thomas O. Rice; does he even read what he signs? And, all of these idiots, even the judge, probably make over $100,000 a year — on our dime. It seems more like the Mafia than a government.
Just to throw a little confusion into the mix, both of these attachments mentioned above bear the case number directly below the title. There are two more attachment “A”s, but neither of them have a case number, so they are either sloppy, or they inserted these from some other source, or they could care less about the identification of legal documents. Take your pick, but when you are dealing with incompetence, it can only be a wild guess.
Given the limits of what could be searched for, let’s look at what they found “on the phone”:
1) Plastic bag with .223 ammo
2) Seven (7) 223 magazine
3) Verizon bill, ID cards, record book
4) Motorola mobile phone, model XT 912
5) Nylon bag with camping tool, tape (?)
6) Plastic box with gun parts
7) Large plastic bag with gun parts
It is hard to believe that any of those items, except No. 4, could satisfy the conditions of the warrant!
However, the act of the service of this Warrant, after the battering ram entry, gets even more interesting. After they entered the house, they flash-banged every room they entered. Carrie counted at least eight of them in the house. That’s right, they threw flash-bang grenades into each room, in order to clear it, perhaps, from evil spirits, since it would be difficult to otherwise understand the necessity of causing intentional damage, including gaping holes in walls, windows blown out, not to mention the back door that was battered open, and one helluva mess to prove that the government has come to “help you”. If there is an assumption being made here that the government will perform restitution for the damage they caused, especially if the charges are dropped against Schuyler, then you are sadly mistaken.
While this “search” (and destroy mission) was going on, Carrie was held handcuffed for about an hour and a half, and she was not allowed to contact her attorney! They also held a gun on Carrie throughout this entire ordeal! Perhaps there is reason for concern when there is just one pissed off woman, and only 30 to 35 armed men to keep her under control.
While searching the rest of the premises, they used at least ten more flash bangs, some of them apparently only to scare the dogs, which resulted in laughter by some of the agents, who apparently were enjoying themselves immensely while terrorizing Carrie. I will conclude by stating that this is, by far, the most egregious abuse of presumed governmental authority that I have seen since my visit to Waco, back in 1993.
Perhaps it is time to reflect on whether we are truly a self-governed nation, or have become subject to a government far more despotic that that one cast off by the Founders, over 239 years ago. And, to reflect upon our obligation, as that “Posterity” identified in the Preamble to the Constitution, to assure that this once great nation returns to its intended object, for our own Posterity.
Update-
September 9, 2017
Schuyler Barbeau-
There are two Federal charges, including possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a machine gun. Schuyler Barbeau Sentenced to 27 Months in Prison
Schuyler Barbeau plead guilty to two Federal charges, including possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a machine gun, on June 6th. Each count could carry up to a maximum of 10 years in Prison plus hefty fines. Judge Robert Jones waived the fines and ordered minimum fees of $100.00 per count.
Today, Barbeau was given 27 months for the two counts, plus three years of probation. He has also lost his rights to possess firearms.
Barbeau has been incarcerated since December 2015. If he were to serve the entire sentence he would not be released prior to March 2018, another 6 months. However, he is eligible for early release, totaling 108 days. This means that he is expected to return home before Christmas.
What was most interesting about this hearing was that, though the charges were strictly firearm related, the sentencing recommendations revolved around the First Amendment.
The prosecution repeatedly cited Barbeau’s social media postings in their recommendations of 72 months incarceration. They also took issue with Barbeau’s “anti-government” associates, and even referenced the Bundy’s, the Bunkerville Standoff, and the Malheur Refuge Protest.
Noting the hefty allegations from the prosecution, Judge Jones was even moved to ask the prosecution if their recommendations for incarceration were based on the actions of others? The prosecution quickly backed away from that theory, yet did not withdraw their comments.
The prosecution spent a bit of time discussing Barbeau’s fascination with the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution. They seemed to think that this was a detriment to Barbeau’s character, and offered it as evidence against him.
Based on the statements from the prosecution, the court found that a threat of force and intimidation did exist from Barbeau and weighted this evidence heavily in the sentence.
However, in spite of the prosecution’s rhetoric, Judge Jones found that Barbeau was misguided in his understanding of the Second Amendment. He seemed to have some sympathy for Schuyler and feels that he is remorseful and repentant of his misdeeds.
Update-
Schuyler Barbeau will be released Monday November 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. His Mother is planning a party for him after his release, which may take some time since he will be required to do a lot of paperwork etc. I will post details if I can find them. Welcome Home Schuyler!
