Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gavin Seim's video regarding Judge Anna Brown revoking Ryan Bundy's right to defend himself.
https://www.facebook.com/callmegav/v...type=2&theater
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Thom Davis and his lady Rene Powers sum it very well.
The Cowboy and the Lady
19 mins ·
Thinking about how all the defendants in the Oregon case are facing conspiracy to impede federal agents, we offer this;
"Well not being able to discuss the key elements of the ownership and control of the lands sure stacks the evidence for the prosecution. Can't conspire to take over FEDERAL land when the facts could prove it never was, and in thinking that alone they did not conspire to stop agents from doing their job, they can't conspire to do that when their frame of mind is that there are no federal agents there. In their mind it seems it would be they were on land owned by the people, so if there was intent to stop the agents from work they'd have to believe there were federal agents working there....and there weren't by the way, the prosecution asked for the recognition of them to be changed to such for this case."
THERE WAS NO FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP IN THEIR MINDS! SO NO INTENT TO STOP ANY FEDERAL JOB OR EMPLOYEES! (Emphasis - mine)
edit: so, we see how the federal courts get a 98% conviction rate
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
so, we see how the federal courts get a 98% conviction rate
When you change the rules of the game at any time you can win almost every time.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Thom Davis and Rene Powers, Harney County rancher
The Cowboy and the Lady
3 hrs ·
An eviction was the civil procedure that was what would have been used at malheur refuge....why? Because when one is given keys and gates open etc. It is tenancy folks. There is a reason they were only ASKED to leave, it was because they were not trespassing, they were tenants needing a civil eviction process? We are told the land is held privately, not by the feds...owner's would have to come forth for the eviction process, right?
THERE IS A REASON THE ADMINISTRATOR (AKA JUDGE) WON'T ALLOW DISCUSSIONS OF LAND OWNERSHIP. THINK FOR HECKS SAKE ABOUT THIS!
LikeComment
Chronological
Sherri Miracle, Jeffrey L Carroll, Chad Hurtley and 20 others like this.
23 shares
Comments
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...fae87e6d110a4c
Ralph Blinde good grounds for appeal?
2 · 2 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...a100c226e8291d
Jim Cox Too many people just accept what "the government" tells them. I pray all of my friends pay at least a little attention to posts I make rather than write me off as a right wing terrorist as the .GOV would have them believe I am. Children especially need to read the Constitution (which is in cursive which I hear is not on the lists of things they need to learn in school any longer). We all need to read it and understand it. We all need to know what jury nullification is. We all need to stand up against what is happening to our Republic.
2 · 1 hr
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...3380ab6d4d5754
Cathie Howell This sets them to appeal their case.
1 hr
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...789bbcc2104d88
Sara Lantz Kersh
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Court Proceedings Update August 25
Trial Truths 08/25/15 Judge Anna Brown U.S. District Court, Portland, Oregon
Posted on August 26, 2016
by The Oath with Chastity
TRIAL TRUTHS Part 3 By: The Oath https://www.facebook.com/WithChastity
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Court opened with the issuance of Ryan Bundy’s subpoena for the governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, to appear in court to give testimony and be cross-examined. An attorney representing the governor was present and argued the Motion to Quash the subpoena, based on her busy schedule, executive privilege, and that her testimony would be irrelevant.
The government would want to keep Kate Brown out of the courtroom to keep her from answering questions on direct. R. Bundy via standby counsel raised the argument that the BLM and the refuge management had already sent the employees home, so how could there be a threat? There is a distinction here that MUST be kept in mind, and the judge has emphasized it over and over again; the public is going to have to wrap their head around the concept, and that is the following:
THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY IS COMPLETED AT THE AGREEMENT! An actual follow-up act need NEVER have occurred. It is purely and singularly the act of agreeing to the criminal behavior that is the trigger.
https://theoathwithchastity.files.wo...e13.jpeg?w=748
While R. Bundy tried to raise the following points:
· Refuge employees were dissuaded from going back to work by public sentiment
· The government ordered the employees to go home
· The government even rented satellite locations for the employees to work from
The judge again reiterated, it is the act of AGREEING to impede their return to work that is the element that proves the crime. This is a very low threshold to establish guilt and is a bad law. One point that needs to be stressed in a criminal case is the mens rea—the mental state. What was the mental position of the defendants when they allegedly agreed? Proving mental state is the burden of the government and it is very difficult to establish, unless there is a confession. This has not been stressed enough, but is absolutely a factor. There are required elements in order for an action or behavior to be considered “criminal.” If this were not the case, every time someone facetiously said, “I’m going to kill you,” we’d ALL be guilty of criminal conduct.
The question that should be raised is, what constitutes an agreement? Is it a nod, a verbal acceptance, a wink, a handshake? This has not been explored yet in these pretrial conferences. Further legal research will be required to see if there is a definition and standard of “agreement” already defined by either statute or case law.
Pete Santilli’s attorney, Tom Coan raised the issue that the level of the evidence presented to the jury needed to be raised from, “preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), to strictissimi juris—a much more stringent convincing of guilt. Strictissimi juris is defined as:
●Strictissimi juris (strictissimi), meaning “[o]f the strictest right or law,” 6 has long been invoked in American courts 7 but never truly understood. Defense counsel have, for example, used it in a number of ways with no apparent, principled pattern. 8 And it is difficult to determine the rate at which courts invoke strictissimi sua sponte–or its function when it is applied 9–though there is nothing preventing them from doing so.
The final items discussed for this half day in court were a few reminders of the judge as follows:
1. True threats are not protected speech.
2. State of mind (again, mens rea) is pertinent to the utterance.
3. The jury cannot criminalize protected speech, even if they find it objectionable.
Court will be continued on Monday; the judge will be taking Friday to decide matters under advisement (this is legalese for, I’ll review it in my chambers and consult more information if need be.)
Stay tuned…
Freedom Is Never Free. ~Author Unknown
Share this:
Tagged BundyRanch, OregonStandoff, patriot, the oath Post navigation
Trial Truths 08/24/15 Judge Anna Brown U.S. District Court, Portland, Oregon
Leave a Reply
Search for: Social
https://theoathwithchastity.wordpres...rtland-oregon/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Trial Truths Special Edition. Judge Anna Brown will have to address the jury on Jury Nulification
TRIAL TRUTHS ● SPECIAL EDITION JUDGE ANNA J. BROWN U.S. DISTRICT COURT, PORTLAND
Posted on August 26, 2016
by The Oath with Chastity
TRIAL TRUTH● SPECIAL EDITION JUDGE ANNA J. BROWN U.S. DISTRICT COURT, PORTLAND By: The Oath
https://www.facebook.com/WithChastity/ August 26, 2016
Pretrial conferences continued yesterday and the topic that a lot of people have been waiting to hear came up—JURY NULLIFICATION.
https://theoathwithchastity.files.wo...e14.jpeg?w=748
Judge Brown has now stated, on the record, that she is going to have to address jury nullification with the men and women that are eventually selected as the jurors in this case. She acknowledged that there have been pamphlets and social media propagation of the concept of nullification. What she did not say is how she is going to instruct the jury in this process. Nullification IS a legal conclusion at the end of a trial where all facts of evidence and testimony have had the opportunity to be examined thoroughly. While it has been speculated that she will instruct the jury to disregard, or possibly disqualify a potential juror if they are knowledgeable of nullification, this is merely wild speculation and sensationalism. It is not illegal to conclude with this verdict, and the judge will most likely place special emphasis on the pros and cons of nullification.
After three days of observation, Judge Brown has been very fair about applying the rule of law and not displaying her own biases. She is a very professional and competent referee. She has been equally stern with both the government and the defense. She is limiting the conversations to what verifiable law is, utilizing both case precedence as well as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Any other observations that one may have read about is sensationalism and simply not true; a hazard one runs into when receiving commentary from someone without any legal training.
When a jury acquits with the verdict of “nullify,” they are essentially saying, while you may have proved your case with testimony and exhibits Federal Government, we disagree with the law and we are not going to enforce it. With this verdict, a defendant may not be tried again for the same crime, as the double jeopardy rule would now apply.
For a more comprehensive understanding click here:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ification.html
—
Freedom Is Never Free. ~Author Unknown
Share this:
Post navigation
Trial Truths 08/25/15 Judge Anna Brown U.S. District Court, Portland, Oregon
Leave a Reply
Search for: Social
https://theoathwithchastity.wordpres...ourt-portland/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gavin Seim is reporting the Malheur trial will not allow cameras or video but the trila will be live streamed to Harney County for the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service "victims" to watch.
https://vimeo.com/180354871
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns...upation-trial/
Judge Approves Harney County Video Feed Of Refuge Trial
by Conrad Wilson Follow OPB | Aug. 25, 2016 4:24 p.m. | Updated: Aug. 26, 2016 6:23 a.m. | Portland
http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_l..._AP_mvd3lg.jpg
