BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

PAMALA R. HOLSINGER, OSB #892638 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov

pamala.holsinger@usdoj.gov 

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

AMMON BUNDY, et al., 

 Defendants, 

GARY HUNT, 

 Respondent. 

3:16-CR-00051-BR 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT HUNT’S 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW (#2077) 

 The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, Craig J. Gabriel, and 

Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby responds to Gary Hunt’s 

Memorandum of Law regarding jurisdictional issues (ECF No. 2077). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2079 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 6
Government’s Response to Respondent Hunt’s Memorandum of Law Page 2

I. Background 

 On February 16, 2017, this Court granted the government’s Motion for an Order to Show 

Cause (#1788) and issued an Order to Show Cause (#1901) to Hunt. In that Order the Court 

directed Hunt to appear either in person or by telephone at a show-cause hearing on March 10, 

2017, at 1:00 p.m. in the District Court for the District of Oregon. The Order also directed Hunt 

to file a memorandum no later than March 3, 2017, in response to the Order to Show Cause. 

On March 10, 2017, the Court convened the show-cause hearing. Hunt failed to appear for the 

hearing, did not file any memorandum as directed, and did not contact the Court. On March 10, 

2017, this Court issued a Sealed Order Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to 

Gary Hunt and Order Sealing Arrest Warrant (#2017, later unsealed by Order #2051). The 

Arrest Warrant was issued in order to bring Hunt before the Court for his failure to appear for the 

show-cause hearing and to adjudicate civil contempt proceedings for violation of the Court’s 

Protective Order (#342) and Supplement to Protective Order (#1692). 

 On March 31, 2017, United States Marshals arrested Respondent Gary Hunt in the 

Eastern District of California. Hunt appeared before the Magistrate and was detained pending 

forthwith transport to the District of Oregon. On April 6, 2017, this Court held a hearing on 

whether Hunt should continue to be detained given the delay in transport by U.S. Marshals. 

Hunt appeared by phone with four attorneys assisting, three in Oregon and one in California. 

This Court released Hunt on conditions that he appear in the District of Oregon on May 9, 2017, 

at 2:00 p.m. The Court indicated it would adjudicate Respondent Gary Hunt’s response to the 

Court’s Order (#1901) in two stages. The Court will first address Respondent Gary Hunt’s 

challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction. If the Court determines it has jurisdiction to continue to 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2079 Filed 05/01/17 Page 2 of 6
Government’s Response to Respondent Hunt’s Memorandum of Law Page 3

consider the merits of the government’s arguments in support of finding Hunt in contempt for 

violating the Protective Order, the Court will set an additional briefing schedule and another 

hearing will be set. 

II. Legal Argument 

 This Court has authority and jurisdiction over Respondent Gary Hunt to enforce its own 

orders. In his Memorandum of Law Respondent Gary Hunt relies on cases that discuss 

personal jurisdiction in ordinary civil cases. Those cases discussing in personam jurisdiction do 

not apply here. If the United States had instituted a tort or contract proceeding against Hunt, 

the cases would be relevant. Because this case involves a collateral civil contempt proceeding 

that arises from a distinct criminal case, jurisdiction is governed by Rule 4 and this Court’s 

inherent authority. The district court has authority to issue an arrest warrant for civil contempt 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1, and the U.S. Marshal has authority to execute that warrant under 28 

U.S.C. § 566. Moreover, commentary to Rule 4.1 states that contempt proceedings—both civil 

and criminal—“must be brought in the court that was allegedly defied by a contumacious act . . . 

even if the offensive conduct or inaction occurred outside the district.” 

 This Court’s authority to effectuate its own orders extends beyond the usual reach of this 

Court’s subpoena power to the entire country. For example, when a party transferred assets to a 

non-party in violation of a court order, the non-parties who resided outside of the district court’s 

jurisdiction (in Texas) were nevertheless subject to that court’s jurisdiction (in Mississippi); 

indeed, enforcement of the injunction “must occur in the issuing court’s jurisdiction because 

contempt is an affront to the court issuing the order.” Waffenschmidt v. McKay, 763 F.3d 711, 

721 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Static Control Components, Inc. v. Darkprint Imaging, 201 FRD 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2079 Filed 05/01/17 Page 3 of 6
Government’s Response to Respondent Hunt’s Memorandum of Law Page 4

431, 433-34 (M.D.N.C. 2001) (rejecting argument that to enforce discovery order, party had to 

file motion in non-party’s judicial district); Platinum Air Charters, LLC v. Aviation Ventures, 

Inc., No. 2:05-cv-01451-RCJ-LRL, 2007 WL 121674, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2007) (same). 

 The Orders being violated by Gary Hunt were issued by this Court in the District of 

Oregon and they are properly enforced by this Court in the District of Oregon. Myers v. United 

States, 264 U.S. 95, 101 (1924). The Supreme Court in Myers held that venue is only proper 

where the court rendered the decree sought to be enforced. Id. “By disobeying the order, 

plaintiff in error defied an authority which that tribunal was required to vindicate.” Id. at 104. 

The Court explained that contempt is technically neither civil nor criminal but “sui generis,” as it 

falls within “the power inherent in all courts to enforce obedience, something they must possess 

in order to properly perform their functions.” Id. at 103; see also United States v. Twentieth 

Century Fox Film Corp., 882 F.2d 656, 666 (2d Cir. 1989) (holding that district court in 

S.D.N.Y. properly exercised authority to impose contempt sanctions against employee who 

violated decree in Minnesota and Illinois); Steers v. United States, 297 F. 116, 118 (8th Cir. 

1924) (reversing district court that held contempt proceedings in a division different than the 

division that issued the injunction). 

 The Honorable Owen M. Panner here in the District of Oregon addressed a similar 

circumstance involving jurisdiction of a contemptor in In Re Alpha Telcom, Inc., CV 01-1283-

PA. That case involved an SEC action to enjoin the sale of unregistered securities. A witness 

(Ernest Bustos who purported to “intervene”) refused to produce documents in response to a 

court order. After repeated warnings from the court and opportunities to cure, the court entered 

a civil contempt order and directed the U.S. Marshal to arrest Bustos in the Western District of 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2079 Filed 05/01/17 Page 4 of 6
Government’s Response to Respondent Hunt’s Memorandum of Law Page 5

Texas, where Bustos lived. (See attached order dated July 1, 2009). The court relied on its 

“inherent powers, including the authority to protect the integrity” of its proceeding. Id. at 

Ex. A, 5. 

 Bustos attempted to challenge Judge Panner’s jurisdiction before the court in Texas and 

he was unsuccessful. In Re Bustos, No. SA–09–MC–704–XR, 2009 WL 2901181 (W.D. Tex. 

Sept. 1, 2009). The Texas court acknowledge that Judge Panner had jurisdiction, citing 18 

U.S.C. § 401(3). It questioned whether it had jurisdiction, and it refused to entertain any of 

Bustos’s arguments, deferring to the court in Oregon: “Accordingly, to the extent that this 

court has jurisdiction to entertain the pending motions, this Court defers and finds that these 

matters are more appropriately considered by the District Court of Oregon or the Ninth Circuit.” 

Id. at *1. 

 Thus, although Hunt claims that it would be more convenient and cost effective for him 

to litigate his contempt of this Court’s Orders in the Eastern District of California, it is 

questionable whether that court could do so, and highly improbable that it would do so. The 

Orders that Hunt has violated (and that he continues to violate) were issued by this Court to 

protect discovery exchanged between the parties. No court in the Eastern District of California 

will be familiar with the facts of the Bundy case, the reasons for this Court’s entry of a Protective 

Order, or the important interests sought to be protected by the Order. 

 Moreover, because discovery protected by this Court’s Protective Order was specially 

stamped, there is no question that the materials Hunt has posted are subject to the Protective 

Order. Regardless of how he obtained them or precisely who on the defense team he obtained 

them from, the fact remains that the materials he has posted on his website are the same materials 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2079 Filed 05/01/17 Page 5 of 6
Government’s Response to Respondent Hunt’s Memorandum of Law Page 6

the government produced to the defense under the terms of this Court’s Protective Order.1 And 

any question about the scope of the Court’s Protective Order and whether it applies to Hunt were 

laid to rest when this Court entered its Supplemental Order making that point plain. 

III. Conclusion 

 Rule 4 recognizes that this Court has the superior interest in seeking to enforce its own 

orders and that it is the only appropriate forum for doing so. Hunt can relieve himself of any 

cost or logistical burden by simply complying with the Court’s Orders. What he cannot and 

should not be permitted to do is defy this Court’s Orders and then claim he lives beyond the 

Court’s power. If he wishes to attack the legality of this Court’s Protective Order, he should 

have to make that challenge head-on just as any other media outlet would have to do to 

legitimately raise a public access claim. The Court should find that it has jurisdiction and set a 

briefing schedule for Hunt to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. 

 Respectfully submitted this 1st day of May 2017. 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Pamala R. Holsinger 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

PAMALA R. HOLSINGER, OSB #892638 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

 

1

 Although it is unclear how this argument addresses jurisdiction, Hunt’s argument that this 

Court cannot order him to remove the protected discovery materials from his website because the 

government has not identified the principal who gave him the documents, his theory fails. 

Provided the evidence establishes a violation of this Court’s Protective Order, the government 

need not prove the identity of the principal. See United States v. Clark, 980 F.2d 1143, 1146 

(8th Cir. 1992) (holding that government need not identify principal to sustain an aiding and 

abetting conviction). The document stamps appearing on Hunt’s website clearly reveal the 

unlawful source traces back to this Court’s Protective Order. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2079 Filed 05/01/17 Page 6 of 6