Culper’s Latest Sitrep

I’ve noticed some of the “Wish I was” crowd out there berating those who have said we won’t allow any more “Free Waco’s”, then using the LaVoy Finicum shooting as their excuse to say what we’ve said is nothing but talk. Of course the biggest crap talkers keep saying they’ll do something, aaaaand never do (even when they’re relatively nearby), and they’re always saying you should get “Off the porch”, which is something they know nothing about except in their imagination. The range of an excuse is zero meters asshole (and you’ve given plenty of them). By all means, show us how it’s done (oh that’s right, you don’t know how it’s “Done”, do you?) First off killing one man, although tragic, is not “Going Waco”. This quote is in the body of Sam’s report, and I think it is apropos.

“The stated mission of the Pacific Patriots Network and Oath Keepers has been to prevent another Waco scenario, where federal agents mass murder American citizens during an assault on a compound.  That mission has so far been accomplished.” 

I agree that “Going Waco” is a mass murder of American citizens, not one brave man being placed in a bad situation, and he is killed because he went for a weapon, or was murdered trying to give up. Should something be done about the Finicum Death/Murder? Yes. The first thing is to wait and see what evidence comes out (audio for one) to show what actually happened, instead of the BS conjecture that is floating around, like the shit I mentioned in this post. If you don’t have that kind of patience, you are missing a crucial part of your preparedness skills. 


Malheur SITREP – 1900L 29 JAN 16

Situation Report (SITREP) – 1900L 29 JAN 16

by Sam Culper

What follows is my personal account of following the situation of late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, including talks with sources on the ground and on conference calls with Sergeant Major Joseph Santoro (U.S.A., Ret.), Stewart Rhodes, State Representative Matthew Shea (R-WA), Jason Van Tatenhove, and others.  Much of the following information has been poorly covered by the media or not reported at all.

– After the felony stop, Sergeant Major Joseph Santoro (U.S.A., Ret.), who has been on the ground in Burns for approximately three weeks, began communicating with FBI contacts. A top priority for SGM Santoro, acting in coordination with Pacific Patriots Network, Oath Keepers National, Stewart Rhodes, State Representative Matthew Shea (R-WA) from the Coalition of Western States (C.O.W.S.) and a Coalition representative at the Refuge, was to work with the FBI in order to give enough time for women and children at the Refuge to leave. He repeatedly expressed his concern that an FBI action on the compound would result in further loss of life, including the potential for harm to women and children. SGM Santoro convinced his FBI contacts to delay any action on the Refuge, while a C.O.W.S. representative at the Refuge worked to get the women and children packed up to leave. Through numerous phone calls and face to face coaxing, a majority of the occupiers agreed to leave. Additionally, a YouTube video posted by David Fry early Thursday morning confirms that conditions at the Refuge were ‘chaotic’ as occupiers packed up to leave as quickly as possible.

– The stated mission of the Pacific Patriots Network and Oath Keepers has been to prevent another Waco scenario, where federal agents mass murder American citizens during an assault on a compound.  That mission has so far been accomplished.

– According to sources at the Refuge, there weren’t enough vehicles to transport everyone who wanted to leave the Refuge. SGM Santoro relayed that to the FBI, and the FBI contacts instructed those without a vehicle to drive a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) vehicle parked at the Refuge into Burns and park it at a location where it would later be picked up by BLM officials.

– According to sources at the Refuge, Jason Patrick, who decided to stay, became angry that most occupiers were leaving, and refused to move a vehicle so that they could leave the Refuge Headquarters. Those leaving were forced to drive through private property in order get back to a highway, where they began their trip back into Burns, and then home.

– At approximately 0200L on the morning of 27 January, sources in contact with the FBI claimed that the remaining occupiers were given until 0400L to vacate, implying that action might be taken to remove them if they stayed past the deadline. At 0400L, no action was taken, and as of 1900L on Friday, 29 January, no direct action has been taken at the Refuge.

– On Wednesday afternoon, Duane Ehmer, the cowboy who infamously rode his horse while hoisting an American flag, was arrested by the FBI.

– On Wednesday evening, negotiations with Jason Patrick were finally successful and he agreed to leave the refuge. According to sources familiar with the story, the FBI told Jason Patrick that he was free to leave. After walking seven miles out of the Refuge to the FBI checkpoint to be picked up and carried into Burns by PPN personnel, he was arrested by law enforcement at 1910L due to an outstanding warrant. (Analyst Comment: Jason Patrick was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. Being one of the more ardent protesters at the Refuge, the FBI likely considered him to be one of the top instigators, especially after he decided to stay as most others left.  Still, according to sources, the FBI told Jason Patrick that he was free to go, after which Jason decided to leave only to be arrested by law enforcement and taken into federal custody.  Because the FBI said Jason was free to leave and have not made good on their promise to him, the FBI has further tarnished their credibility with the occupiers, the Pacific Patriots Network, and the people of Harney County.  Furthermore, this event may be another reason why the remaining four occupiers have not taken up FBI offers to vacate.)

The following portion of the SITREP covers unfolding events at the Malehur National Wildlife Refuge and in the vicinity of (IVO) Burns, OR over the past 24 hours.

– As of 1800L on Thursday, 29 January, four protesters remain at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  David Fry, the author of the YouTube channel DefendYourBase has been uploading videos and intermittently live-streaming the occupation since early Wednesday morning.  Despite calls from Ammon Bundy to leave the Refuge, which were iterated through his attorneys, David Fry recently stated that he was going to remain “to the end.”

– Sources familiar with the ongoing situation say that FBI agents have been in contact with Fry since Wednesday, attempting to negotiate their departure.  At one point, multiple occupiers had negotiated to walk away, however, they later decided to remain.  Fry is also speaking with media by cell phone on their continued occupation.

– There are efforts underway to organize large gatherings in Burns and Eugene, Oregon to protest the killing of LaVoy Finicum in front of the governor’s office and another building.  Follow the Pacific Patriots Network for additional and up to date information.



American by BIRTH, Infidel by CHOICE


6 thoughts on “Culper’s Latest Sitrep

  1. Lets also remember that stopping a insane/Waco type action also stops (hopefully) a insane Oklahoma type reaction.That said,am thinking we are going to see lots of insanity in our near future from all sides,be glad and very happy to be wrong.

  2. I would say that the so called arm chair warriors/keyboard commandos actually doing a lot of good,in the sense of sites like this/others dedicated to alt energy/health care and trauma care when hospitals down/real economic news/survival skills to practice/let folks make wiser and informed monied/life. decisions/heck,the list is endless.

    I personally try and get folks to prep on the food end I know,do not sell it through fear but peace of mind which can be a fine line(and I get them to get what they would use anyhow)but use examples of natural disasters in past/this along with water storage and basic gardening at least gives them a starting chance in natural/man made disaster.I have also introduced people to shooting,they still interested guide them to qualified instructors/programs like Appleseed ect.,I am not a qualified instructor beyond basic firearm safety(most important in my book).I try and get folks I know to fix things themselves with a little help,anything to make them more self sufficient,saves money and instils confidence to try other things they never thought they could do,this worked well for me as introduced new skills.This is something millions of folks do for others,and am sure a lot more going on unseen that most never know about unless directly involved.

    I am sure there is a time to fight,when others in harms way and at that point will fight to best of ability if only reasonable choice(and possibly die),am in no rush to get there though as that will be one of the hardest decisions in my life.

  3. There are some things I don’t understand about Sam Culper’s posts lately, and about the text of this sitrep in particular, and by extension I guess that means I do not understand JCD’s point of this post, either. Let me state clearly, that when I said “I don’t understand,” I mean that I honestly don’t understand. I am being genuine, honest. I’m not trying to find an angle to hit someone’s reputation or discredit someone, etc. I don’t even know any of you people. I do not know enough about Sam’s or JCD’s or anyone else’s character to want to defend OR assail it. I will explain in a second what it is that I don’t understand, but first let me establish some info about me: I am a paid subscriber to Sam’s Forward Observer magazine and I enthusiastically read the entries on the FO magazine website and on Sam’s Guerrilla America blog. I have bought and read his books. I am going to be a paid subscriber to his new FO website endeavor. I also read the MDT blog, Max’s blog and forums, WRSA, and a bunch of others from which I learn a lot, but about which I am always reading carefully, critically, to try to sift out the parts that are contaminated by profit-interest, cult-leader interest, etc. I take what I need and leave the rest, so to speak. I’m not LEO or military/ex-military. I’m just a regular guy, conservative American worried about the unrelenting march of big government that is crushing our liberties. Like the lady said in the White Rose post, Im probably the guy who will silently and without recognition do the hundreds of small things that benefit the cause and not be the guy out front on the battlefield taking the incoming bullets or drone strikes. Other than paying for my subscription to Sam’s FO Magazine, I have not paid a dime to anyone in this movement for training, information, donations, products, etc (except, I did buy both of john Mosby’s books). I say that to point out that I have no invested interest in being part of anyone’s echo chamber or part of anyone’s character hit squad except of course that if anything, I have an invested interest in defending Sam, which is not my purpose here today at all.

    So, here’s what I do not understand: Sam said, and JCD highlighted, “The stated mission of the Pacific Patriots Network and Oath Keepers has been to prevent another Waco scenario, where federal agents mass murder American citizens during an assault on a compound. ” What does that mission even mean? How were they going to prevent anything? I really don’t get it. Did the PPN and OK mean any of the following?
    -“If you (government, FBI, sheriffs, state police) attack the refuge compound, we will be there shooting at you and trying to use our armed force to stop you from carrying out your attack.”
    -“If you (government, FBI, sheriffs, state police) attack the refuge compound, we will be there to record the whole thing with cameras and tell the world what you did.”
    -“If you (government, FBI, sheriffs, state police) attack the refuge compound, we will be there as you try to leave, and will shoot at you and retaliate by fighting you, just like the on-going attacks on the British army units as they returned to Boston from Concord.”
    -“If you (government, FBI, sheriffs, state police) attack the refuge compound, we will be retaliating later at a time and place of our choosing which will possibly include your house. In other words, when you least expect it, expect it.”
    -“If you (government, FBI, sheriffs, state police) attack the refuge compound, we will be really mad.”

    So, seriously, what did that “stated mission” even mean? And how can anyone conclude their mission was accomplished if we do not even know what they meant by their mission statement anyway? Seems to me that many internet readers/posters have concluded that PPN and OK did not actually accomplish their mission since Mr Finicum was murdered and they did nothing to prevent it (which, maybe happened because maybe preventing one man from being killed was not at all what they meant by their mission statement, which leads back to my question: What did they mean?). Maybe the masses of internet readers/posters misunderstand the mission that PPN and OK was there to do. I would not say that I even MISunderstand their mission, because, really, I do not understand it at all. I don’t even understand it well enough to misunderstand it. And, therefore, what I conclude (subject to change if I can achieve some understanding of their mission) is that actually the ones doing all the talking from the porch are the PPN and OK and not the guys spread out across the porches of America reading the internet and throwing out their critical two-cents. I read to learn. Hopefully I can learn from your reply to me.

    My personal opinion is that there was nothing that anyone could do, including PPN and OK, to prevent what happened, particularly unless some people were literally willing to go to a shooting war right then and there with the government forces. Overwatch, scouts, rear-guard, larger convoy, more people, etc would not have stopped any of what happened except maybe more people would have been killed. I’m not being critical of the PPN and OK for not taking some sort of action. I am being critical of them for talking tough when really there was nothing they could actually do, but then again, I do not really understand what their “talk” (i.e., their mission) meant in the first place.


    • Weston, I believe I understand what you’re asking and my answer is this. The PPN and OK’s said this “The stated mission of the Pacific Patriots Network and Oath Keepers has been to prevent another Waco scenario, where federal agents mass murder American citizens during an assault on a compound. ” A “Waco scenario” to me would simply be the Feds going into that compound and killing or trying to kill everyone. Nothing more, nothing less. I have stated that I won’t stand by and do nothing if another “Waco” happens, but I was also not foolish enough to talk shit about what I would do and when I would do it if that scenario occurred. There are those out there that are saying Finicum being killed/murdered is a “Waco”, and those of us that said “No more Waco’s” need to get off the porch. I disagree, and find it amusing that those saying these things are usually known for trying to goad people into stepping off the porch, but have never done anything themselves when things have happened similar ( a man being killed/murdered) to this (and they have). “where federal agents mass murder American citizens during an assault on a compound” A pile of bloody cowboy hats would trigger a “No more Waco’s” response, period, and that’s why I posted that paragraph/mission statement. I have stated what my “Waco” would be, and there is nothing about it that is unclear. If they had killed a number of those at the barricade situation in DC, or gone in and wiped out a number of those at Bundy ranch, the same rule would have applied. As to what the mission of OK’ers is, you can ask them. I’m not a member (I was and dropped it after the Watertown incident). My forward to Sam’s Sitrep is just some thoughts on what I’ve seen play out in the last few days. The trip to the meeting was like everything else these guys did, unplanned or poorly planned. As far as PPN or OK’ers being part of that trip, ask them. I do not know the “why” of it. As far as Sam’s posts are concerned. I believe like Sam that Victoria’s eyewitness account is skewed, and after hearing Cox’s account, which is almost verbatim of what Victoria said (and she’d obviously had a chance to hear that, because she told the interviewer that she had seen the fed video). There are some glaring contradiction in her story, but what she did do was verify that Mark (and said he was the snitch) had talked to them after the incident (which he had stated, but which I was wondering how he had done that, I thought they had been separated) while in the transport van. Too many are making judgments and decisions without all the facts, and it sounds more like fifth graders making up excuses for not eating their vegetables, than adults waiting for the means to make sound a judgement after the facts are in. I hope this cleared it up some.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s