Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

Because Ammon Bundy has refused to cooperate with the prison's policy of mandatory strip/ body cavity searches he has been subjected to inhumane treatment. Shawna Cox and Richard Mack have somewhat opposing points of view yet agree on other points.

Liberty Roundtable Interview With Shawna Cox


COX SAID IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE VIDEO THAT RYAN NEVER HAD PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE GUARD.

June 8, 2017 Constitution, Nevada 3

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...Banner-JPG.jpg

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ox-640x381.jpg
Shawna Cox, July 29, 2016 (Photo: St. George News)

Liberty Roundtable Interview With Shawna Cox

“Although Shawnna and Mack have different viewpoints, we clearly agree that the Bundy’s and their supporters should be treated with dignity and respect and certainly should not be in Prison!
We look forward to working together to make a valiant stand in defense of our sacred rights of Due Process and speedy trials. In unity we recognize There Is No Liberty With Innocents in Prison!
Please support our efforts at http://www.TheFreedomCoalition.com”
~ Sam Bushman, Liberty Roundtable, to Redoubt News

by Loren Edward Pearce

On June 1, 2017, Sam Bushman, of Liberty Roundtable podcast show, invited Shawna Cox to give her side of the story to what she observed in watching 6 videos of the circumstances surrounding the shirt incident with Ammon and Ryan Bundy, eventually leading to both of them being condemned to a 3 foot by 3 foot shower stall and then culminating in being placed back into “the hole” or solitary confinement.

Listen to The Interview Here: Liberty Roundtable

I reported on Bushman’s earlier interview with Richard Mack and objected to how they made assumptions, comparisons and conclusions about Ammon Bundy’s behavior and integrity. With the Shawna Cox interview, I am pleased to report that Bushman was very fair with her, giving her all the time she needed to report things as she recalled and interpreted them.

SMELLS LIKE A SETUP
In Bushman’s interview with Cox, she noted at the 14:50 mark that there was a follow up, post incident interview with the security guard who had seized the shirt who claimed that Ryan had brushed his arm while trying to get the shirt back but that it was no big deal, he was not going to press charges. Cox said it was clear from the video that Ryan never had physical contact with the guard. He attempted to get the shirt, but it was out of reach and no contact was made. Cox said that the video shows the guard calmly walking away and throwing the shirt into a hamper and Ryan and Ammon returning to their bunks. It appeared that the incident was over and done with.

Some time goes by and the video shows 5 guards reappearing at the door of the pod. The first video ends and is replaced by a hand held video. What happens next has already been reported but what I would like to emphasize is that:

1. The first video confirms that neither Ryan nor Ammon ever had physical contact with the guard and,
2. That the guard himself acknowledged that it was not a big deal and was not thinking of pressing charges.

However, there appears to be an element of discrimination against Ammon for doing something that was commonly done for months. Why the sudden crackdown? Why was something that was a common practice, the hanging of shirts, now escalated to something requiring 13 hours (originally planned for 72 hours) of torture in a 3 foot by 3 foot shower stall? Did prison staff decide to teach Ammon and Ryan a lesson? Were they looking for a way to marginalize and weaken them by putting them back into solitary, thereby making their defense in trial that much more difficult?

THE QUARTER INCH SYNDROME
After spending 41 days in solitary, Ammon had been released to the general population and was resting on his bed minding his own business. Following the example of many other prisoners, he had placed a shirt to block the bright light so he could get some sleep in the night only to be rudely awakened by a guard objecting to his shirt. That incident quickly escalated to something that could have ultimately taken his life, had they completed the planned 72 hours of confinement in the 3 foot by 3 foot space.

This kind of rapid escalation from an insignificant, trivial matter to one that involves life or death is what I call the “quarter inch syndrome” in honor of Randy Weaver from Ruby Ridge . As some may recall, Randy Weaver sold a shotgun with a shortened barrel, quarter inch under legal requirements, to an undercover federal agent. The quarter inch eventually led to his remote property being overrun by 500 federal agents and related staff, ending in the deaths of his son, his wife and some federal agents.

Likewise, the hanging of a shirt from a bed to block light, rapidly escalated into the use of extreme, overwhelming, “shock and awe” type of force by government staff and resulted in extreme suffering to Ammon and to Ryan, and could have resulted in death had there not been intervention from the many calls to the prison and to the US Marshals service.

Something as trivial as a parking ticket, can result in death or lifetime disability, because something escalates to the misuse of government lethal force.

The “quarter inch syndrome” applies to what happened to the Hammonds who used a common practice of back burns that accidentally burned a little over an acre of government land, a tiny fraction of the 700 million acres the feds own, and escalated into a life threatening 5 year sentence for 73 year old Dwight Hammond.

The “quarter inch syndrome” applies to Joe Robertson and his fire ready stock ponds on his private property, it applies to Jerry DeLemus who came to Bunkerville the day after the protest under the overpass, where the government seized his desire to help his neighbor and avoid bloodshed and escalated it to one where he now must spend 87 months in prison.

The “quarter inch syndrome” applies to a truck full of people, including Shawna Cox, headed to John Day, armed with books and projectors to educate the people, and escalated to the death of a man, LaVoy Finicum, who had never had a speeding ticket in his life and in the cover up of the actions of special hostage FBI agents.

The “quarter inch syndrome” is at the root of what is wrong with big, centralized government. George Washington reportedly said, “Government is not reason nor is it eloquence, it is force.”

THE BULLY CREED
It has been said that the Golden Rule is, “he who has the gold makes the rules”. Likewise, the Golden Rule for the bully is, “he who is physically stronger, makes the rules” or even more simply put, “might makes right”.

Under this way of thinking, government, who has the bigger muscles, the bigger weapons and the most gold (resources), makes the rules and how they are applied. The government contract staff at the Nevada Southern Detention Center, suddenly decided that hanging shirts from beds were not permissible, and any resistance is met with superior force and disproportionate punishment that does not fit the crime.

The essence of the “quarter inch syndrome” is that the trivial or insignificant action is met with disproportionate force and punishment.

WHY DO BULLIES BULLY?
Whether the school bully, an abusive spouse or a government employee, the need to bully, to assert authority and to always win the argument, is motivated by many things:

1. Ego, the obsessive need to be right.
2. Insecurities. “I use government authority to get what I can’t have in my personal life”
3. Blind loyalty to a team or organization. “My country and my government is always right, and I occupy the moral high ground because it is sponsored by government”.
4. Training and brainwashing. “I learned to tackle hard in high school football and to put down resistance during military service. I apply that training in my correctional officer job.”
5. Money. “I have to pay my mortgage. I go along with other bullies because they are the bosses, and I can’t afford to lose my job.”
6. Psychopathic pleasure in having control and being able to dish out suffering to others without any consequences.
7. Skeletons in my closet. “I am leveraged by other bullies who will punish me with my own past indiscretions or mistakes if I don’t do what they say.”

STRAINING AT A GNAT AND SWALLOWING A CAMEL
One of the most disturbing human traits is what Jesus referred to as,
Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel! Matthew 23:24
The guards looked for ways to find a gnat by something so inconsequential as a shirt on a bed, but swallowed a camel by:

1. Lying to Ammon and Ryan about simply wanting to talk to him in the hall.
2. Ignoring the past pattern and practice of hanging shirts from beds and zeroing in on Ammon
3. Throwing Ammon into a 3 foot by 3 foot shower stall for an intended 72 hours.
4. Using brute force to strip him naked in front of other female guards.
5. Throwing him back into solitary.

AND THE BIGGEST CAMEL OF ALL, ACTUALLY A GODZILLA, AMMON (AND OTHER DEFENDANTS) HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY, IN FACT, HE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED BY A JURY AND SHOULD NOT BE IN PRISON TO START WITH!

Judge Gloria Navarro, strains at a gnat, trying to find evidence of dangerousness and flight risk in people famous for their Christ like charity while swallowing the camel in denying a 500 year old right to bail, that pretrial detainees are subject to all the horrors of prison as punished convicts and that the right to a speedy trial no longer exists.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 75
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  75
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

Because of the mistreatment of Ammon Bundy and and the resulting stand by some in the patriot community made at the Southern Nevada Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada against prisoner abuse, then flying the flag upside down on Memorial Day there is division in the movement.

Gary Hunt, Outpost of Feedom, sees this as being trouble for the initial objective, public land policy, and the plight of the Hammond's and Cliven Bundy.

The Cause – What To Do?

https://i2.wp.com/outpost-of-freedom...size=328%2C218

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2017

I have been writing about the Bundy Affair since April 12, 2014 and the Burns Chronicles since February 2, 2016. Both evolved out of a common grievance, Public Lands, and the rights that are inherent in them. There are other commonalities, such as some of the players involved in both events and the fact that both had left behind the concept of Civil Disobedience and had entered the realm of Civil Defiance. Those players, unlike most other patriots, had moved along “The Other (not so) Thin Line” to a point where their actions were intended to speak louder than their words.

The first event, in Nevada, the Bundy Affair, was an evolution from an event back in 1993 when Cliven Bundy, supported by hundreds of patriots who went to his ranch to side with him, defied the federal government and first stood for his right to continue both grazing and water permits necessary to continue his ranching business. Cliven Bundy’s right to his historical use of the public lands culminated on April 12, 2014, or so we thought, in the “Unrustling” of the cattle that had been rustled by agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

In 2015, in Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond had been “resentenced” for a “crime”, though they had already served their time. Their “crime” was the use of controlled burn and backfire to do what ranchers and the BLM have done for over a century. The first is to destroy unwanted vegetation, the second, to control an existing fire in order to protect property.This was not the beginning of their ordeal with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Their ordeal began almost a decade before Cliven Bundy’s first confrontation with an out of control federal government. The FWS had been trying to restrict the Hammond’s ranching by cutting of water supply, fencing public corridors, and requiring annual licensing for what were perpetual rights to Public Land Usage. “The Harassment of the Hammonds” dates back to October 1986.

For all intents, the Hammonds were tried, sentenced, served their time, and left prison as free men. The government waited until all of this was done before filing an appeal to the Appellate Court, contending that they should have been sentenced according to the Sentencing Guidelines. Funny, the word guidelines isn’t mandatory, simply a guide. But, more on that in a future article.

The resentencing of the Hammonds raised the indignation of some of those players from the Bundy Affair, and others who had, possibly a result of what they witnessed in April 2014, moved further along that “Thin Line”. Unable to convince the Hammonds that they should not turn themselves in for the additional 4+ years they would now have to serve, the objective changed to the FWS, the aggressors against the Hammonds.

There had been a planned demonstration in support of the Hammonds scheduled for January 2, 2016, just two days before they were to turn themselves over to the US Marshal Service to begin their second punishment for the first crime. This demonstration, like many others, was Civil Disobedience. However, behind the scenes, a plan of Civil Defiance had been hatched. It was left to those who either went to Burns, Oregon, before or after the January 2 event to decide just how far along that “Thin Line” they had moved. Unfortunately, many who claim that they are “fed up with the Feds” are not fully committed to action. Instead, they chose to act big and criticize what was acted out by those who were more committed and chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), an FWS facility about thirty miles south of Burns, and the adversary of the Hammonds rights for three decades.

For nearly a month, the Civil Defiance brought attention to the country, and the world, that the historical rights of Public Land usage were being trampled upon by the government. The government, possibly absent any legal standing to deal with the occupation of the MNWR, chose to ambush a two vehicle, eight-person convoy going to a public event in John Day, Grant County, north of Burns.

Lying to the Oregon State Police (OSP), the FBI claimed that they were making a “felony stop” (legally, to stop the completion of a felony) and/or to serve an arrest warrant. The warrant, however, was not issued until after seven were arrested and one murdered, while in transit to the event in John Day.

Rather ironically, in the subsequent trial of the leadership of the occupation, they were found Not Guilty. However, in the second trial, that of mostly followers, they were found guilty of both the felony charges and the additional misdemeanor charges the government brought to assure that they could get at least a few convictions, after spending millions of taxpayer’s dollars going after those who had brought attention to those egregious misdeeds of government.

Even after the arrests and murder, there were four others who would not “give up the ship”; Sandy and Sean Anderson, David Fry, and Jeff Banta. These “Final Four” remained on the Refuge for another 11 days, until they chose to peacefully surrender.

We can look to those who were indicted in Oregon, along with others who came to support the effort by remaining at the Refuge during the month long incident. They, most assuredly, have moved long that “Thin Line”.

Unfortunately, the government also had nine paid informants as participants between January 2 and January 26 (date of the murder of LaVoy Finicum), and six paid informants that reported from outside of the MNWR. Those informants have crossed a line, not moved along the “Thin Line”.

Shortly after the arrests were made, the government, with all of their paramilitary forces, decided that it was now safe to move on many of the active players in the Bundy Affair of nearly two years prior. Cliven had flown to Oregon to see his sons, Ammon and Ryan. He was arrested shortly after he got off the airplane — nice and safe, since they knew he didn’t have a weapon. But, heck, I don’t think Cliven Bundy ever carried a weapon back in 2014.

The Indictment and subsequence Superseding Indictment listed a number of those who were under Indictment in Oregon. The government was intent on quashing the First Amendment Right to Redress of Grievance, opting to circumvent the Constitution by using statutory and administrative law, with no reference to the defendant’s constitutionally protected rights.

So, at this point, we have three identifiable issues. First, Cliven Bundy and his rights; Second, Dwight and Steven Hammond and their rights; and, Third, the proper use of the Public Lands.

What people have rallied behind is the proper use of Public Land, as intended by the Founders and applied properly for over two centuries. Both the Bundy and Hammond situations have made them the “poster children” people for the Public Lands movement.

The trials in Portland (MNWR occupation) are over. The trials of those indicted in Nevada have begun, though with a very shaky (for the government) start. The first trial included six defendants and was identified as “Tier 3”. Tier 3 was those who had been identified as having possessed firearms (pesky Second Amendment) during the Unrustling on April 12, 2014. In a rather interesting “verdict”, only two of the defendants, Greg Burleson (a previously paid government informant) who was convicted on 8 counts of the Indictment, and Todd Engel, convicted of 2 counts.

Rather interestingly, at one point, the jury found all of the defendants Not Guilty of the two primary charges (Counts 1 & 2), and neither Burleson nor Engel was found guilty of those counts. However, the jury struck the Not Guilty checkmarks on the Verdict sheet. The Court then determined that the two found guilty need not stand trial, again, however, the remaining four defendants will stand trial, again (double jeopardy?) on charges that the jury had previously found them not guilty of. The government, apparently, hope that they can impanel a new jury that will buy the government line and find them guilty.

Interestingly, the trial was determined to be a “Mistrial” by Judge Navarro, though the guilty verdicts are still applicable. It appears that it was only a two-thirds “mistrial”, since only the remaining four defendants will stand trial, again, beginning July 10, 2017. Surprisingly, a single trial can be divided into two trials, one bringing convictions, the other to endeavor to bring more convictions.

So, what does this have to do with “What To Do?” Well, there are two parts to that answer. First, which has been alluded to already is just where one is along that Thin Line. Some are simply in the learning stage. That is the stage that everyone has gone through — some recently, others decades ago. Longevity is not a factor in that progression. Some learn faster, others find themselves in circumstances that accelerate the progression. Often, means are a factor. If one has a meager income versus expenses, then he will ‘invest’ where best suits his mental progression along that line. Others may have obligations that keep them from being able to participate in some aspects. There are some that will respond to the call, when the severity of a situation achieves a sort of boiling point — the need to commit, for the sake of others, comes when that point is reached. Still others may be at a point along the Thin Line where they are not willing to invest any more time than simply continuing to learn what they can, from the comfort of their own home. Similarly, others may see, let’s say, a demonstration, as unproductive — they are saving their resources for an event that they anticipate will warrant them dropping everything to respond. They perceive that Civil Disobedience is unproductive and refuse to participate — even though those that do practice such disobedience do bring attention to the objective, increasing public knowledge of an event. None of these should be faulted, for as one might not agree with another, it is quite likely that the other does not agree with the one.

The aspect of participation now being put side, let’s move on to the Cause. We will use the current situation, as described above, as the Cause. Public Land, Cliven Bundy, and the Hammonds. That’s it! That is where the investment, whichever level, is deemed appropriate for the individual, with respect for the Cause.

Suppose someone decides to extend the Cause to include other aspects. Again, using the current circumstances, suppose some decide to include prisoner abuse in the Cause objective. Does that mean that everyone should subscribe to this new entry into the field? Recently, the focus was shifted from those standing or awaiting trial in Nevada to prisoner abuse. Heck prisoner abuse has been going on for decades, if not centuries. Is there anybody that does not realize that regardless of what it is now, it used to be bread, water, and hard labor, or worse? Granted, many suffer such abuse, even before trial. I wrote about Kevin Massey’s pre-conviction treatment in the Camp Lone Star series. However, the focus has always been on the subject of the charges against Massey.

Now, I don’t want to demean those who are concerned with prisoner abuse. There is no doubt that many of us may be subjected to such abuse, as we progress along that Thin Line. Expect it, but keep your focus on the more important goals. It is more important to focus on the Public Land policies (and, we have seen some fruit come from the efforts of those who will stand, or have stood, trial). It is important to focus on the trial — the judicial abuse — far more than it is to focus on prisoner abuse though I don’t doubt that some things have changed at the Southern Nevada Detention Center in Pahrump, because of the efforts of a few. Unfortunately, that redirection to prisoner abuse is focused on two people, Ammon and Ryan Bundy. What of the other defendants? What of Cliven, Dwight, and Steven? What of Public Land policy? They seem to have been abandoned by those who became the most vocal in Nevada.

Even worse were some recent events in Las Vegas. It was on Memorial Day weekend. Las Vegas has a rather high veteran population, as does any city with a VA hospital. An inverted flag (yes, under the given circumstances, it offended me, too — see “Memorial Day 2017“) was flown at a busy intersection. A veteran, possibly at least partially intoxicated, but still a veteran who served his country, as he saw fit when he did serve, chose to educate those with the inverted flag. However, they were not willing to listen and, perhaps, become educated in what veterans feel. Instead, they determined that the veteran was a coward for fighting for his country, and was trying to steal their flag — though even when he was told he could take it, he chose not to take (or steal) it.

Unfortunately, the Bundy name was brought up during this confrontation. So, the veteran chose to associate the Bundys with the inverted flag. That makes it quite difficult to gain a sympathetic ear to the Cause, even though that Cause seems to have excluded the original and common purpose. Now, it focuses on one man, and there are legitimate questions as to the veracity to some of what has been presented as the true circumstances that led to the focus on the two individuals (Ammon and Ryan Bundy).

When was the last time that the common Cause uttered Cliven Bundy, Dwight Hammond, Steven Hammond, Pubic Land policy? What happened to the other defendants in Nevada and those convicted in Oregon? What happened to the focus that brought thousands together in their respective support to the Cause? Have these all been abandoned?

Some of those who have been staunch supporters of the elements of the Cause objected to what happened on Memorial Day weekend. They are accused of creating division. There are near relentless attacks on those who have steadfastly supported the original Cause, many from as early as April 2014. Though until that weekend, had uttered no objection to those who chose to add the prisoner abuse issue to the agenda.

Unfortunately, now we see the consequences of merging an additional purpose, to the detriment of the original Cause. Like an old battle flag, the Cause has become tattered and worn — and, perhaps, lost in the turmoil that the new battle brought to the game.

Larry Klayman, Freedom Watch reveals his new cases against Berkley and Comey and disects the Bundy Prosecution with Bob Barr

http://youtu.be/mamdRKMIJVI

https://youtu.be/mamdRKMIJVI

The prosecution filed a motion cherry picking events they want addmisable as evidence by the defence. They are afraid of an aquital. Mrs.B Stacy posted her video explaining what the motion entails. Being half deaf I have a hard time hearing her videos.

http://youtu.be/C7g_ZSyhxUI

https://youtu.be/C7g_ZSyhxUI

Andrea Olson-Parker talks about head Persecutor Steve Mhyre's latest motion in limine.

The motion is to many pages to cop/paste, it can be found on Deborah Jordan's facebook:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...04&__tn__=%2As


http://youtu.be/uBSfOS8hhOQ

https://youtu.be/uBSfOS8hhOQ

It Matters How You Stand ~ government's motion

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 2064 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 – 23

The United States, by and through the undersigned, respectfully moves in limine to preclude the defendants from 1) addressing in voir dire, opening statement, or closing argument, and/or 2) adducing or eliciting during direct or cross-examination, any information or argument that the defendants broadly characterize as “state of mind” evidence which, as shown below, amounts to nothing more than irrelevant personal opinions and beliefs about the BLM, BLM agents, and agent conduct. More specifically, the government seeks to preclude evidence, information, commentary, beliefs or opinions about the following:

• April 6, 2014, officer encounters with civilians during the arrest of Dave Bundy, including any testimony concerning, or video/audio depicting, that event;

• April 9, 2014, officer encounters with civilians during the convoy block, including any testimony concerning, or video/audio recordings depicting officer encounters with Ammon Bundy or Margaret Houston;

• Third-party/lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations, including operations on April 12, 2014;

• References to the opinion/public statement of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM impoundment operations;

• References to First Amendment zones;

• References to Cliven Bundy’s grazing, water, or legacy rights on the public lands;

• References to infringements on First and Second Amendment rights; and

• References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses.

As shown in the supporting Memorandum, comment and argument about such matters is nothing more, at bottom, than an improper attempt at jury nullification—that is, seeking to persuade jurors to acquit (or, hang) based upon political beliefs or values rather than upon the evidence. During Trial 1, defendants repeatedly made such nullification arguments and presented nullification opinions and beliefs; they did so primarily through defendant Parker’s testimony, but also through cross-examination of government witnesses and closing arguments, by improperly characterizing BLM conduct during impoundment operations as abusive or overreaching. While such characterizations are untrue to begin with, what is more important is that the imagined issue of federal “overreaching,” or violations of treasured rights, is flatly irrelevant to any element of the offenses charged or any possible defenses.

This Motion thus seeks to preclude irrelevant beliefs, opinions and comments about officer conduct during impoundment operations on April 6 and 9. There is no evidence that any of the officers either exceeded their authority or used excessive force. To adduce evidence of these events, whether on direct or cross-examination or in closing argument, unfairly prejudices the government by placing it in a position of having to prove a negative; that is, to explain or prove that the officers did not act unlawfully or otherwise supposedly overreach their authority.

In support of this Motion, the government submits the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities and reiterates all arguments from its previous motions in limine. See ECF Nos. 1390 and 1799.

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 2064 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of

Brand Thornton, Ammon Bundy motion update and humiliation. Brand shares his thouhgts on the current situation ~ J Grady

http://youtu.be/IfwPmnxlgrY

https://youtu.be/IfwPmnxlgrY

Todd Engle traveled from Idaho to Bundy Ranch during the Bundy Protest in April 2014. The jury found him guilty of interstate travel to blah blah. Engle just turned 50, the recommended sentence is about 210 months, or the majority of the rest of his life in prison.

Engle arrived at the Bundy protest took a look, saw what was going on, took a picture and spent the rest of the time with the NHP. Judge Navarro denied him the right to defend himself after he mentioned Dan Love. His court appointed standby lawyer was ineffective in Engle's defence. Because he was denied due process of the law by the judge and prosecutors he must spend the next 20 years in jail basically just for being there.

People say the old bat Ginsberg should recuse herself for bias against Trump. Judge Navarro is clearly biased and manipulated by the wishes of Harry Reid. Yet she remains on the case.

Anthony Thomas Dephue

10 hrs ·

I visited with Todd Engel on Friday. His sentencing recommendation is 210 to 262 months... or roughly 18 to 22 years. Todd turns 50 in July. He is looking at going to prison for the rest of his life... for protesting.

We are working on getting a copy of the sentencing recommendation from his standby counsel and will provide a full breakdown of how they came up with this figure. In sentencing, you are given a baseline "score" which can then go up or down based on various criteria. The scale ranges from zero (0) to forty three (43). They gave Todd thirty seven (37). I am told that the baseline came from Section 1951 (Hobbs Act Extortion), but he was convicted of Section 1952 (Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion). Baseline: 18.

Enhancements:
+2 Threatening to injure or kidnap
+2 Obstruction of an investigation
+4 Monetary value of what Todd extorted: $1.5M
+5 Brandishing a weapon
+6 Assault on a prison official (we have no idea where this came from)
Total Score: 37 = 210 to 262 months.

We'll have a comprehensive breakdown as soon as we can get to the doc from his attorney.

What did Todd Engel do?

Traveled to Bundy Ranch, walked over to the bridge after someone said that protesters were going to be shot, took a photo, obeyed a command to disperse, and subsequently spent the duration of the event with NV Hwy Patrol.

It's all on aerial footage and dash cam video. NHP shook his hand and thanked him as he left.

For this... 18 to 22 years.

Tyranny is already law.

7 Likes12 Comments85 Shares

Deb Jordan says the Dimaya case is important in the Bundy defence, Supreme Court shoul hear Dimaya . . .

she is reposting Anthony Thomas Dephue. Having read a lot of Dephue's commentary and watched some of his videos I am inclined to think he may be an attorney. If not he is quite knowledgeable in these matters

Deb Jordan with Roger Roots and 20 others.

21 hrs ·
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO THE BUNDY CASE? - THE SCOTUS HAS RULED NOT TO RULE IN DIMAYAS ---
Here is why this is important to us: Anthony Thomas Dephue says:

Dimaya is huge. It's an immigration case out of CA where a permanent resident (but not citizen) committed two burglaries. The immigration statutes prescribe deportation when non-citizens commit "violent felonies". The 9th Circuit invalidated 18 USC 16(b), which is nearly identical to the language in the Armed Career Criminal Act (which deals with sentencing for prior convictions) found in 18 USC 924(e). Under ACCA you could be convicted of a third crime and the Court could then go back and decide if the other convictions fell under this broad, vague umbrella of "violent felony"; if the Court decided (very subjectively) that your prior convictions were in fact "violent", you would be subjected to absurd minimum sentences.

So here's the progression:
(1) In the Johnson case, SCOTUS strikes down 18 USC 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), which reads in part: "[...] or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another; and".
(2) Based on this, Dimaya appeals to the 9th Circuit saying that 18 USC 16(b) is materially the same as ACCA. The 9th Circuit agrees. The Government appeals through "Writ of Certiorari", or basically a request to have the case reviewed. In DImaya, the Government wants to retain the ability to deport non-citizens based on a highly subjective standard of review.

So why do we care about immigration? I would say that you learned the answer in Kindergarten. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We either have clear, concise, objective laws across the board or we accept a Government and Judiciary that wields immense power through their whims of opinion, the legality of which is bolstered by the subjectivity of some laws.

Tying it all together... 18 USC 924(c), which all Budy Ranch defendants are charged with (three separate times), has a residual clause that is nearly identical to ACCA and 16(b) (as used in immigration context).
We need SCOTUS to affirm the 9th Circuit in Dimaya to help pave the way for a review of how 924(c) is being applied across the entire judicial landscape. As Deb Jordan mentioned, people in Bundy Ranch not even in possession of firearms face the same absurd minimum sentence as those who did have firearms.
Those who did have firearms are being charged three separate times (as an enhancement) because the statute is vague enough to permit so.

The Government knows that 924(c):
(1) Ensures that you have less chance of pre-trial release because of the Bail Reform Act
(2) Ensures that a conviction will carry mandatory minimums that must be served consecutively
You have to take a long view here. A favorable outcome in Dimaya will open the door in the 9th Circuit (and in the District Courts therein) to initiate more challenges against 924(c).

There are two things that need to be reformed:
(1) The vague wording in 924(c) needs to be struck down.
(2) The practice of applying multiple 924(c)'s for the same incident needs to get reigned in.

Dimaya is a step in that direction.

Excerpt from article:
“The Court’s decision to punt this case to its next session was a missed opportunity to uphold the Constitution’s commitment to liberty and U.S. human rights treaty obligations that prohibit arbitrary detention,” Acer said in a statement. “It will leave many asylum seekers and immigrants locked up in U.S. immigration detention facilities for even longer periods of time. The decision allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to continue, in most parts of the country, to act as both jailer and judge in deciding whether to continue to hold an asylum seeker or migrant in a detention facility for longer than six months.”

https://external.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...CdcRyvyKyPP21I



Supreme Court Orders Re-argument in Two Immigration Cases
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered new arguments in two cases involving immigrants or foreigners, giving new Justice Neil Gorsuch a change to participate in the decisions.

COURTHOUSENEWS.COM

10 Likes3 Comments29 Shares

Share

The four defendents not convicted in the first Bundy Ranch hung jury trial have filed a motion to dismiss on the failure of the prosecution to supply all discovery.

Since the courts in the United States no longer operate on common law how is it they still use the 'stare decicis' common law practice of setting precedent?

Direct link to the motion: https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/...=5956330D&dl=1

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...9c&oe=59D7935C
The Oath

11 hrs ·

MOTION TO DISMISS-There are cases the set "precedent" so judges don't have to keep revisiting similar situations in the courtroom. They have been litigated and become more or less the "gold standard" to which courts adjudicate by, many of these decisions made during appeal processes. This is good and bad for defendants, as both parties can use these cases to further generate support for their position. This motion clearly shows precedent having been established and supports grounds for dismissal of the charges against the tier three defendants going to trial again on July 10th, 2017-Rick Lovelein, Scott Drexler, Eric Parker and Steven Stewart. The link provided takes you directly to this newly filed motion of June 27th, 2017. Updates will continue to be posted as known on The Oath. Teresa.

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/…/nevada-drexler-motion-to-dismiss-fo…