Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Morgan Spurlock to produce a film on the Malheur protest filmed by David Byars who was inside the reserve during the protest. This may explain the talent releases signed by some of the protesters. I am wondering if these guys will do the western property rights movement justice or if it will be filled with environmentalist propaganda.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...iot-doc-926767
Morgan Spurlock to Tackle Right-Wing "Patriot" Doc on Oregon Siege (Exclusive)
3:21 PM PDT 9/8/2016 by Tatiana Siegel
http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/fi...n_spurlock.jpgGetty Images
Morgan Spurlock
Directed by David Byars ('Self Storage'), the untitled film offers unfettered access into the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and subsequent siege that sparked international headlines.
Morgan Spurlock is set to tackle the so-called "Patriot" movement for an untitled documentary that he will produce for Spotlight financier First Look Media.
David Byars (Self Storage), who shot the film and is directing, went inside the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon during the siege that sparked international headlines.
The doc is said to offer unfettered access to the armed protest led by Ammon Bundy, the son of the defiant leader of the anti-federal lands movement Cliven Bundy. With an insider’s view of a new breed of American ideologues, the film delves into the dramatic rise and inner workings of the movement and gives audiences an unprecedented first-hand look into the occupiers’ beliefs by living amongst them and giving them a voice.
Oscar winner Spurlock (Super Size Me) is producing via his Warrior Poets production company, with Impact Partners (Queen of Versailles) also on board as producers.
Emmy nominee Jeremy Chilnick (What Would Jesus Buy?, The Third Wave) also is producing alongside David Holbrooke (The Diplomat).
"From the first moment I saw the raw footage David captured in Oregon, I knew I had to make this movie,” said Spurlock. “Audiences will be blown away. It's so timely and beyond powerful."
Added Impact Partners' Dan Cogan: “Ammon and Cliven Bundy, heroes of the Patriot movement, have zoomed from the radical fringe to the mainstream with lightning speed. If you want to understand American politics and American life today, you need to understand where they and their movement are coming from. With astonishing access and a great storyteller’s eye for detail, David Byars brings you into the heart of their world in eye-popping fashion. I cannot wait for the world to see this film.”
The doc will look at the incendiary combination of disaffection, government mistrust and an affinity for guns and vigilante justice that is synonymous with the movement. It also references the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, whose views often dovetail with those espoused by movement members. Byars captures the story of the right-wing and libertarian extremist rebellion, with exclusive access into the Oregon compound for the occupation.
The project extends First Look’s support of innovative political documentary filmmaking as seen in AJ Schnack's election docuseries NomiNation, a portrait of America’s political process, and Laura Poitras’ new Julian Assange film Risk.
Impact Partners is a well-respected brand in the documentary space, having produced Danfung Dennis’ Oscar-nominated Hell and Back Again and Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s Detropia.
“David Byars captured something truly exceptional in Oregon, a clear-eyed vision of an America we hear a lot about but rarely see up close,” said Adam Pincus, executive vp of programming and content for First Look. “He’s managed to make a complicated, controversial story utterly human, and that’s something we’re thrilled to be a part of.”
Spurlock is repped by CAA and The Arlook Group
Comments
Edit: Oregon Live http://www.oregonlive.com/tv/2016/09..._chronicl.html
Quote:
The documentary is described as also examining the so-called "Patriot movement," as personified by Ammon Bundy, and his father, Cliven Bundy, and "the incendiary combination of disaffection, government mistrust and an affinity for guns and vigilante justice that is synonymous with the movement."According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film also touches on Donald Trump, his views and where they intersect with Bundy's sympathizers.
You can read more of OregonLive's complete coverage of the Oregon standoff here.
-- Kristi Turnquist
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Malheur Protest Trial: Jury Selection – Part 2
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C399Malheur Protest Trial: Jury Selection – Part 2
by Shari Dovale
The proceedings continued as they had all week. More jurors were brought in and they were questioned on the following points. Whether or not they can serve for an expected 9 weeks of trial, 4 days per week. How they feel about the 1st amendment, and whether they feel it has any limits. How they feel about they 2nd amendment, whether or not they are intimidated by someone carrying guns, and whether or not they own guns.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=209%2C300Arrested for passing out brochures on Jury Nullification in front of the Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland. Photo: Redoubt NewsThe potential jurors were also asked their opinions on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). If they have been affiliated with the church, friends or family affiliated, or if they have particular feelings on the Mormon church and it’s teachings.
Additionally, Judge Brown went so far as to elicit promises form all potential jurors that they will vote according to the law, and not how they feel about the law. This means that she is attempting to control the conscience of these jurors and not allow them to utilize their rights to jury nullification.
She discussed, again, that jury nullification is “just not right,” she said. It doesn’t matter how you feel about a law, you must follow it whether you agree with it or not because they took an OATH to do so.
It is very significant that jurors are being told that they must follow their oath, when many elected officials make a point of not following their own oaths. Jury nullification is being shut down in this country. That is what is not right.
Any potential juror that does not jump to this bandwagon is dismissed “for cause” and not allowed to serve.
There were few supporters in the courtroom today, but their presence made a big difference to the defendants in the Malheur Protest Trial. Smiles grew when faces were recognized, yet the US Marshall Service was quick to shut down any familiarity with defendants They called it “communicating” with defendants, just by gesturing or waving. Strictly prohibited.
I do wonder if Judge Anna J. Brown is extra hard on the visitor gallery because it is easier for the government if they shut down any semblance of transparency. The harder she can be on the visitors, the easier it is to get folks to quit showing up to court.
That benefits the government case, and simultaneously hurts the defendants This can be accomplished fairly easily by the Judge in charge, mostly through how difficult she makes it on the visitors.
The visitors are reasonable people. They are attending the trial for a variety of reasons, such as:
- Support for a particular side
- Learning about the law and the process of the courts
- Reporting for news outlets, for those that cannot attend.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C187The court observers understand that they must be quiet and non-disruptive. I have yet to see anyone removed from the courtroom. However, Judge Brown has not allowed anyone to even bring in a water bottle. This is significant on several levels.
Judge Brown did make an issue of pouring herself a glass of water and talking about how noisy it can be in the microphones. She has made sure the jurors have water, etc, as well as the attorneys and defendants. That is all good, but, the visitors can get dry throats and disrupt the proceedings by coughing, etc. I myself have done that. It is understandable to deny open cups that could be spilled, but sealed and clear water bottles should not be an issue.
This also goes to the problem she has in allowing breaks during the day. Yesterday, she did not allow a bathroom break for 3 ½ hours and never allowed a lunch break. This seems to have been addressed for the jurors today, as she had cookies and chocolate set out for them during breaks. The attorneys also had snacks available at their tables, though I am sure they were not provided by the court.
It is not unreasonable to offer a few small concessions to the visitors gallery, as I am sure it will not be abused. It would go a long way to improving her image in the public eye.
Tomorrow should bring the jury selection process to an end. Opening arguments are scheduled for Tuesday morning, September 13th. The Marshall Service, or more accurately DHS, is expecting a larger turnout of defense supporters, and are preparing for this accordingly. We will be there to let you know how it is handled.
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/08/ma...l-jury-part-2/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Comments on Spurlock's upcoming documentary from "Cliven Bundy's Army" facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
The chances of anyone other getting a fair trial in a federal court today are slim and none.
Elias Alias: Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged
https://www.oathkeepers.org/wp-conte...-800x500_c.jpg
Jury selection/rejection began today, Wednesday, September 07, 2016, in Portland, Oregon, for the Bundy trial. I am not surprised to read accounts of the judge’s bias against jury nullification. The Oregonian/OregonLive websiteposted an article which quotes a few of judge Anna J. Brown’s opinions about protecting the government’s assumed power to railroad defendants. <active link: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta..._for_ammo.html >
A passage from the article:
“Jury selection is something of a misnomer,” said Jeffrey T. Frederick, director of jury research services for the National Legal Research Group. “It really is jury rejection.” That’s because the practice is meant as a filter, to keep unqualified people from sitting in judgment, he said.
Further down the article we read:
Potential jurors will almost certainly face questions on their opinions about federal control of public land, militias, law enforcement, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and whether they believe a person exercising their First or Second Amendment rights must observe lawful limitations on those rights.
That judge has had ample opportunity to learn the truth regarding jury nullification. Her refusal to see that truth robs her soul of dignity and makes of her a robotic agent of government force, indifferent to the spirit of the Constitution, ignorant of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of “Unalienable Rights”, and repugnant to every principle of individual freedom. She is a willing agent of what we old hippies used to call “The Establishment” or “The System“.
Recall, another judge has already ruled that the Bunkerville, Nevada, trials will be shrouded in secrecy. See my article of July 25, 2016, on that —
My God! The Judge Wants Total Secrecy In Bundy Trial!
https://www.oathkeepers.org/my-god-t...n-bundy-trial/
So judge Brown is not the only one willing to defend government’s sins. But she is tying up the hands of justice in her own way by her denial of Jurors’ rights to judge of the law as well as of the facts of the case.
We are looking directly into the face of governmental tyranny unabashedly displaying itself with cold cruelty in a theatrical abomination of the very purpose of “justice”. The infrastructure of power now has its own evil momentum and will lay to waste any dissent, in order to protect the gigantic fraud which the mechanism of government has asserted through “code” and “statute”, through “color of law” and “rules of the court”. States’ Rights be damned; Jury Nullification be damned; it’s full steam ahead for the soul-less, ego-driven hunger of authoritarian power dressed appropriately in the black robes of darkness and death.
Readers may wonder why I speak this way about our corrupt court system, and some may feel that I’m condemning all judges. I am not condemning all judges, just most of them. I am happy to show an example of a true judge who sat on the Washington State Supreme Court and honored his Oath. I’ve written about the man, and his message of jury nullification, many years ago. It is right hereon the Oath Keepers website. I would encourage any reader who has not read that article to pause here and do so now. And someone needs to show the article to Judge Brown. The opening of that article —
In a small but powerful booklet which was copyrighted in 1996, former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe gives an accounting of the origin and establishment of our present-day jury powers. I would like to share with you some passages from his essay entitled:
“Jury Nullification: Empowering The Jury As The Fourth Branch Of Government”
~
Quoting former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe:
“Of all the great trials in history tried at Old Bailey in London only one is commemorated by a plaque. Located near Courtroom Number Five it reads:
“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury. Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others, who refused to give a verdict against them although they were locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the court which established the Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their conviction.”
“The case commemorated is Bushell’s Case, 6 Howell’s State Trials 999 (1670). This case is a good beginning for tracing the roots of a legal doctrine known as jury nullification.” (End quoted passage by Justice William Goodloe, ret.)
Justice Goodloe’s article builds from there, giving context, founders’ commentary on the subject, court cases concluded favorably on jury nullification, and, as his intelligence shown through brilliantly, his booklet shows the proper place for common sense and moral uprightness in the American court system. So the question remains — why do not all judges care enough about their duties, and their Oaths, to educate themselves about our rights as embodied in jury nullification? This judge Brown is positioning herself as the antithesis of what our court system is supposed to be. Here are some passages from the bottom of the OregonLive article linked above.
The judge also said she intends to question each juror on whether they were handed a flier outside court about jury nullification, and to instruct them that they must follow the law even if they disagree with it. Judge Brown said deputy U.S. marshals indicated there may be people outside court distributing such fliers.
Ryan Bundy and Ammon Bundy’s lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the judge’s proposed instructions to prospective jurors. Ryan Bundy argued that they will “rob a juror” of the right to serve as a “check and balance” on the federal government’s power.
Mumford asked that the judge not suggest that any of the defendants were responsible for such fliers.
“A jury’s place is to be able to use their common sense, their intellect, their conscience, whether the law is proper or not proper,” Ryan Bundy argued.
Judge Brown dismissed his objection.
“It’s overruled,” she responded.
Jurors take oaths, the judge said, and she plans to advise them to “follow the law whether they agree with it or not.”
“I’m not going to say they have the option,” the judge said.
So there we have it. Damn what’s right. Damn the people. Damn the purpose of the law in the first place; and damn moral duty to our fellow man. Damn everything when the authority of Statism might be threatened by the truth.
The cowboys never shot at a cop, never killed an agent, never shot at anyone. Instead, they merely made a conscientious stand to raise the question in public about who Constitutionally is authorized to manage public lands within the boundaries of a State in this Union. They are correct, and the Federal government is wrong. The American Lands Council has that information, < here>
One of the phrases in my culture when I was growing up was — “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” My question today is why do most judges insist on remaining ignorant of the highest uncontested law of the land? It must be something like a fervent and worshipful passion for that un-named religion called “Statism”, the philosophy of worshiping authority over all else in the name of Statism; the theology of which was encapsulated accurately by one Adolf Hitler, who
put it this way [1]:
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual…”
That is a classic example of Statism, and that is exactly the mindset of modern judges who deny a jury’s right and duty to nullify according to their consciences in any criminal case.
https://www.oathkeepers.org/wp-conte...y_Nebraska.jpg
There is a wonderful article at the Fully Informed Jury Association website which plainly shows why We The People, when confronted with this sort of corruption coming from a damned judge, are morally justified in outright lying to the prosecuting attorneys and the judge during Voir Dire (the process of screening jurors with, by, and for bias favoring the government). Read it here —
http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_surviving_voir_dire.pdf
Salute!
Elias Alias, editor
See also: “Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking It To Leviathan”, co-authored by Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, and Don Doig, co-founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association > HERE <
1 – Page 13 in The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff; copyright 1982 by Leonard Peikoff; published by the Penguin Group, Penguin Putnam, Inc., 275 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014; foreword by Ayn Rand; no ISBN in my paperback copy; Library of Congress number: 83-60247.
https://www.oathkeepers.org/elias-al...lready-rigged/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Glass
what does the word "contrary" mean?
On what basis is it claimed to be contrary?
Does it mean, against the law? If so, which law?
Does it mean illegal?
Is US vs Dougherty a legitimate citation?
Is the wearer of the shirt a "party" or is the Judge being dishonest in his interpretation of the Court's Trial Conduct Order (#1113)
Does the Court's Trial Conduct Order (#1113) apply to all courts, some other particular court or this particular court?
Does Judge Brown preside over an article III court?
Has the Judge acted Ultra Vires by making these threats?
Glass, she says "its contrary to law" but doen't tell us which law.
Judge Anna Brown Gives Fashion Advice to Medenbach
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=657%2C381Judge Anna Brown Gives Fashion Advice to Medenbach
by Aubrie Bosworth
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=159%2C192
Kenneth Medenbach is one of the defendants in the Malheur Protest Trial. He is being charged along with the other six (Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shanna Cox, Neil Wampler, Jeff Banta, and David Fry) with the charge of “Conspiracy to impede federal employees of the U.S.” Mr. Medenbach is also being charged with “Theft of federal property” (a ford pickup truck).
Today in court, Medenbach asked to be excused from court for health issues for the rest of the day and tomorrow for a doctors appointment. Judge Anna J. Brown said he had to wave his right to be present in court for today and tomorrow (September 9th) and made sure he understood that his attorney would be speaking on his behalf. Kenneth replayed with “This (the court case) can not kill me, these issues can kill me” so he agreed to wave his right to be present for the two days and left court, but he will be back for court on Tuesday the 13th of September.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=213%2C185
Yesterday the 7th Mr. Medenbach wore a shirt about the Bill of Rights in the court room. Today (8th) Judge Anna J. Brown asked Kenneth’s attorney if his client had his offensive shirt issue taken care of.
Anna J. Brown said in a message “I’ve already made clear on the record that “jury-nullification” argument is contrary to law and may not be presented to jurors.”
The back of Kenneth’s shirt quotes saying “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge…”
The words “U.S Constitution” is on one shirtsleeve and the words “Bill of Rights” on the other.
She told him “Do not wear this shirt again.”
Seems to me she is almost afraid of jury-nullification and the jurors knowing about it.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C131
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/08/ju...ice-medenbach/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Deb Jordan gives her official statement why the charges against Santilli were dropped.
http://youtu.be/eXRLG2NFgGo
https://youtu.be/eXRLG2NFgGo
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Santilli to invoke 5th amendment and not testify for defense. On Redoubt News fedbook, no other information
Redoubt News
1 hr ·
Pete Santilli to invoke 5th amendment and not testify for defense.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Court update from Retoubt News team
Quote:
Arriving in Portland *UPDATED* Day 4http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C360On the way to Portland. Photo Credit: Aubrie Bosworth, Redoubt News
Arriving in Protland for the Bundy Trial
By Shari Dovale and Aubrie Bosworth
Day 4 – Aubrie
Sep 8th 2016
We were really rushed this morning but after the last few days of barley getting sleep who can blame us right? We made it in time to get inside the court room through which was great!
Going without coffee until almost six this evening sucked and gave me a big headache but giving up coffee for the day to get inside on time and see the smiles on the defendants faces was well worth it.
Once again we sat through another jury selection. I can not wait until they decide on the 20 they want to keep as the jury. Judge Brown once again played the “I’m your best friend” kind of thing with the jurors, But when it comes to the defendants she is very short with them.
Today Anna J. Brown made the comment “I’m not a judge of people and the truthfulness of what they are saying.”
Not a judge…Wow! That’s good to know! Lol
A very long day, can not wait for the jury to be picked! The same questions are asked over and over and I believe Anna likes to hear herself speak, to a point.
God is defiantly still in control and is looking out for us!
Getting a little less stressful to be in traffic here in Portland but it is still very terrible, City driving is WAY different compared to country driving.
Day 3 – Aubrie
Sep 7th 2016
Was an early morning for us, got to the courthouse a little early and made our way through the security. The mentality of the guards downstairs was kind of light and friendly (for lack of a better word). The guards upstairs, outside of courtroom 9A were a little more rough and borderline rude.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=292%2C300
Shawna Cox
Talked with Shanna Cox as we waited for the courtroom to open its doors. She looked good said she could use a little more sleep but was doing good. It was good to see her again and to hear her ask how i was doing as she hugged me warmed my heart. Also talked with Neil Wampler he was doing good and of course had a smile on his face as he greeted us and talked. Neil said that he wanted us to forward his “most heart felt thanks” to all the people that support them and those who send prayers.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=221%2C300
Neil Wampler
Sitting through the jury selection is a very tedious and long process. I can’t say I’m looking forward to sitting through it again and with only one bathroom break and no lunch? Yeah not the most enjoyable thing on earth that is for sure.
Not really liking judge Brown very much. At first it was almost like, do I dare say, she was sucking up to the jury? She spent a lot of time talking to them saying thing like “It (the 1st amendment) protects even offensive speech” and. “It warms my heart that people will step up when they are needed.”
She laughed and smiled with the jury a lot and seemed like she was trying to help and make them understand parts of the constitution and that the people had constitutional rights but then later on in the trial Brown made the comment “When talking about the 1st amendment or the 2nd amendment, they are not absolute.”
All seven of the defendants looked tired but the three still being held Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and David Fry looked a little more taxed. Despite this I still caught a smile on all seven faces.
To see some of my mentors again and to have them greet me with a smile made sitting through part of the jury selection worth it.
Day 2 – Aubrie
Sep,6th,2016
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=236%2C246
On the Hatfield Federal Courthouse building. Photo Credit: Aubrie Boswoth, Redoubt News
Our
last “slow” day before we go to the trial. Trying to enjoy the day the best I can but honestly my nerves are a little shaken up, whether it is because we’re in a city a bit too big for this country girl, or it’s just the excitement of seeing the men I consider mentors again after six months. So far things are working out, God is watching over us and I am blessed to have Shari to remind me that it is all in his hands and I wouldn’t want it any other way.
This will be the first federal trial I’ve been to that is this big. It will be a big learning experience for me. I already have learned so much in the last few days. Shari is an amazing mentor and I’m learning so much from her.
News about Pete Santilli came in, I am eager to see how his situation plays out. Patriots are calling it “a big win!” for him.
I hope this kind of news keeps on coming!
God knows the patriots need hope.
Day 1 – Shari
God is certainly calling the shots in Portland! Some things should have gone horribly wrong today, but everything is working out fine, just as He planned it.
We have made it here, are checked in for the night and have tomorrow’s schedule pretty well laid out.
I am not a big fan of Portland. After all, we had a heck of a time finding dinner! Nearly every place we checked was CLOSED for Labor day. How many food service places do that?
Finally found a Taco Bell that was opened. Wow, Four Mexican meals in 4 days. This is gonna kill me. LOL
The bridges here are many, often, and very tall! Some of them are kinda scary for this girl. But, my sidekick is very encouraging. I am blessed to have her with me.
We are looking forward to covering all the Patriots here in Occupied Territory. There should be plenty to see and tell you about.
They have put the word out that the trial could take up to 3 months. However, they have really scaled back what will be allowed. We all know how much some of these legal-beagles like to talk, so it is anybody’s guess as to how long it will take.
They are limiting the number of courtroom observers to 25, so it will be difficult to get in most days, but we will make every effort. If we can get inside at least one day early on, just so they know we are here, it will be a good thing.
It is difficult sometimes to remember that God is in Control, but that is what we hold on to.
Look for updates on this post, as well as special articles from me, and my hot-shot cub reporter, Aubrie. We are both here to bring you the truth of these events!
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C145
A beautiful day for traveling. Photo Credit: Aubrie Bosworth, Redoubt News
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/08/ar...d-bundy-trial/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
"The only thing that makes a conspiracy illegal is an unlawful purpose or objective." Todd Macfarlane
http://rangefire.us/2016/09/09/anato...dd-macfarlane/
Anatomy of a Conspiracy — Legal Reality Check — by Todd Macfarlane
The only thing that makes a conspiracy illegal is an unlawful purpose or objective.
Bearing the whole judicial transparency issue in mind, in this piece I’m going to follow-up on some previous thoughts.
In one of my previous columns, I had mentioned that with the degree of
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x223.jpg
electronic surveillance that is going on in these cases, the federal government had supposedly employed a “taint team” or a “filter team” as it has also been referred to, to ensure that prosecutors did not have access to privileged or otherwise improper information, like attorney/client communications, resulting from the extraordinary degree of electronic monitoring which is occurring in these cases. But this week, unsurprisingly, it became clear that the filter team apparently hasn’t been doing its job, which resulted in objections to evidence the Government had improperly disclosed and sought to include at trial.
Judge Brown requested the Government to explain how and why this had happened, but after an assistant U.S. Attorney, an FBI agent, and several paralegals all testified about the filtering process and what they had done, and attempted to satisfactorily explain what happened, Judge Brown found that information they were seeking to introduce as evidence exceeded the scope of the Government’s “Facebook Search Warrant.”
In the end Judge Brown requested further explanations, and it is still unclear what the net effect of all this will be. But it is an interesting development, particularly in light of the fact that so much of the Government’s case is built on social media evidence.
The next issue I want to discuss is the Adverse Possession defense that has been asserted by Ammon Bundy’s attorneys. In a nutshell, according to Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute:“Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it, so long as certain common law requirements (open, notorious, hostile possession) are met, and the adverse possessor is in possession for a sufficient period of time.”
As I mentioned in a previous piece, Judge Robert Jones summarily rejected that argument, and quickly stated that an adverse possession claim cannot be asserted against the Federal Government. Therefore, according to his ruling, Bundys would not even be allowed to present evidence regarding the Adverse Possession theory at trial. Without taking time to thoroughly research Judge Jones’ assertion at the time, it struck me that he was a little too hasty in his rejection of that theory.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x300.jpg
Since then, however, Ammon Bundy’s attorneys have requested reconsideration of that decision, and Bundy’s former attorney, Mike Arnold, has written an interesting and thought-provoking article about the adverse possession theory, and Judge Jones’ treatment of it, despite specific federal statutes acknowledging application of the theory under certain circumstances.
While many have said that they do not believe that Ammon Bundy could mount a legitimate and successful affirmative Adverse Possession claim at the Refuge, to a large extent, they are missing the point. The point is, in a criminal case like this one, Adverse Possession is not being asserted as some kind of affirmative claim theory, but is being asserted as a defense – a defense seeking to provide evidence of an alternative purpose, intent and state of mind.
Let me explain how this works.
The Malheur Refuge Defendants have been charged with conspiracy to impede a federal officer. Conspiracy charges are all about intent. The reality is, a conspiracy is nothing more than an agreement. Almost all surprise birthday parties, for example, result from a http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x239.jpg
conspiracy to have a surprise party. People are conspiring continually, to do all kinds of perfectly legal things. Have you ever conspired to pull a prank or to play a practical joke? Men and women often conspire to conceive children – or to simply engage in acts that can lead to conception of children. It is entirely possible to conspire to do good, perfectly legal things. It happens all the time. Lawmakers are continually conspiring to pass legislation. Each and every plea deal entered into by any of the defendants in the Oregon Standoff cases was the result of a conspiracy by the prosecutors and defense attorneys – for the defendant(s) in question to enter into a plea agreement, rather than go to trial.
While the word “conspiracy” seems to have negative connotations, such connotations are generally unfounded and misguided. The only thing that makes a conspiracy illegal, immoral, or unethical, is the purpose or intent of the agreement. Illegal conspiracy is all about illegal purpose, intent and state of mind. The only thing that makes conspiracy illegal is an unlawful purpose or objective.
In the Malheur Refuge cases, the primary charge is Conspiracy to Impede a Federal Officer. This means that in order to prove its case, the Government must show that the Defendants specifically intended to impede federal officers, and that at least some of them must have entered into an express agreement to do so. Arguments have been made that the conspiracy statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. That is a legal issue that will probably have to be resolved on appeal. In the meantime, let’s assume, at least for purposes of this discussion, that the statute is valid.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x210.jpg
And this is where the Adverse Possession defense enters into the picture. As with many agreements and so-called conspiracies, there can be more than one purpose. Ammon Bundy’s attorneys are seeking to present evidence and arguments that the primary purpose or objective of the Malheur Occupation, and any associated “conspiratorial agreement(s)”, were actually to stake an Adverse Possession claim at the Refuge. They assert that there is plenty of evidence to support this position. Whether such an attempt was well-founded and/or would have ultimately been successful is not even the question when the theory is raised as a defense. The question is what was their purpose and intent? Was it to impede federal officers, or was it to stake an Adverse Possession claim? Or was it both?
The Government has the burden of proof. In order to prove its case, the Government must satisfy its burden of showing that there was a conspiratorial agreement between the parties, and that at least one of the express or primary purposes of that agreement was to impede federal officers. If there was another primary purpose (such as Adverse Possession), it will not be enough to simply claim or even show that impeding federal officers was a corollary, unintended consequence of their otherwise arguably lawful conspiracies and actions.
Now we’re getting down to the real nub of this issue. From what I understand, Judge Jones ruled that the Defendants can’t even assert an Adverse Possession defense or present any evidence to support it. For some time, I have been threatening to write a piece about the fox guarding the henhouse in the federal court system. And this particular issue is a good example of what I’m talking about. If the trial court will not even allow the Defendants to assert this legal theory as a defense, this could be viewed as a very legitimate example of arguable fox guarding the henhouse in this case.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x177.jpg
Experience demonstrates that this is an issue worth exploring. Several years ago in a high profile Utah federal case with some similarities, San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman was likewise charged with conspiracy — to operate a motor vehicle in a closed area on BLM land. He was charged with both conspiracy to engage in such trespass, and actually doing so. Hypothetically, even if he hadn’t actually engaged in such alleged trespass, he could have still been charged with, and convicted of, conspiracy — if it could be proven that is what he intended to do, and that he entered into a conspiratorial agreement to do so – whether carried out or not.
According to a variety of sources, the resulting Lyman prosecution itself was likewise the result of conspiracy and collusion between the Federal Government and a variety of Environmental Advocacy Groups. Unfortunately, the full extent of that collusion did not fully come to light until after the trial was already over, after which Utah District Court Judge Robert Shelby was recused from further involvement in the case, prior to sentencing, based on his close personal relationship with some of the head figures in the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, who were actively involved in the whole collusion to prosecute Lyman.
But that’s not the end of the story. After Judge Shelby was recused, the case bounced around half the Utah Federal District Court bench, with one judge after another recused, based on close connections to either environmental interests or the BLM. In the end four judges ended up being recused. Finally, the case came to rest with Chief Judge David Nuffer. Although Judge Nuffer apparently didn’t feel compelled to recuse himself (and it is unclear if the issue was even raised with respect to him), Nuffer’s previous law firm, Snow, Nuffer, Engstrom & Drake, likewise had very close ties to environmental advocacy groups, particularly including the Grand Canyon Trust. Nuffer’s fellow founding attorney/partner, Steven Snow, had served on the board of trustees of the Grand Canyon Trust, including at least one stint as chairman of the board, before stepping down when he was asked to serve as a “general authority” for the LDS Church.
Bringing the fox/henhouse issue full circle, at the very least it appears that Oregon federal judges are predisposed to reject the Adverse Possession theory without even allowing it to be presented at trial. That is a question of law that is highly appealable for legal correctness, with no deference to the trial court’s decision.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...e-Scales-1.jpg
On that basis, if that happens, I’m going to make a prediction right now: If the trial court refuses to even allow evidence and arguments regarding the Adverse Possession defense to be presented at trial, my prediction is the case is already headed for an appeal. And my further prediction is that decision would be reversed on appeal, with the case remanded back to the trial court for a new trial, allowing admission of the Adverse Possession defense and supporting evidence.
Rumor has it that the Department of Justice has allocated a full hundred million dollars to try these cases. Who knows how much the appeal(s) will cost? And what about a retrial? Those are the kinds of questions people begin to ask when they start trying to read the tea leaves, and the writing on the wall.
Once again, if all this leaves you scratching your head, you’re not the only one.
Re-posted from NEWSBUD / BFP.
RANGE / RANGEFIRE — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback
About the author:
Todd Macfarlane, Newsbud-BFP Legal Analyst & Author, is an attorney, rancher, writer, political activist, conservationist and commentator. Although he is comfortable wearing several different hats, beyond faith, family and grass-fed livestock ranching, his primary interests include natural law, property rights, western land-use, political policy, and what he often refers to as the “so-called justice system.”
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
I've been on two juries where we used jury nullification. The judge also instructed us that we had to find them guilty if the law was broken. We didn't pay any attention to that bullshit and found the defendants not guilty anyway. Pissed off the judge and states attorney. The judge polled the jury and made each and every one of us say "not guilty" while they watched us like hawks. They weren't happy about our decision.
The jurors just need to keep quiet about jury nullification and do what's right when the time comes.
