Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
This is one of the articles linked by Shari Dovale in the preceding post. Donald Trump is not going to fix it, we need to fix it at home.
The biggest and most dangerous error people continue to make is refering to the public land as "Federal Land". The only
federal land is the District of Columbia and their enclaves.
This is the future the vultures have planned for us and is also the number one reason why the land ownership issue and the United States District Courts' (all 49 of them,,the Hawaii Court is an Article III court of limited jurisdiction) lack of constitutional authority to take jurisdiction inmthe states must be exposed. Without the courts (((they))) cannot advance their agenda. Also the public needs to be educated that Congress lacks power (Constitutional authority) to legislate in the states. Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, the guncontrol acts and other federal laws do not apply in the states. Only by dumbing down the population and usurping jurisdiction have they been able to achieve and continue this scam. Bundys and Trowbridge are shining a bright light on their evil ways. It is not just the western way of life under attack, it is all of America. Teach your kids at home what they won't learn in the skoolz
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/06/15/pu...ands-keep-out/
PUBLIC LANDS – KEEP OUT! by Representative Scott
EXPECT MORE RULES, FEES, RESTRICTIONS, MISMANAGEMENT AND ULTIMATELY, A FENCE AROUND YOUR PUBLIC LANDS.
June 15, 2016 BLM, EPA, government 1
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C402
PUBLIC LANDS – KEEP OUT!
WHAT IS THE REAL AGENDA FOR OUR PUBLIC LANDS?
Representative Heather Scott – District 1 – North Idaho
There is an obvious trend building even emotional liberals can’t deny. The western way of life is under full assault from our federal government and its multitude of federal agencies and policy pushers. Well known western ranchers like the Hammonds, Bundys, Hages and Joe Robertson, along thousands of unnamed ranching family members, are being forced to abandon this important American way of life. Why?? Federal bullies and their regulation quagmires. I'm
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=156%2C118
My question is, what is driving this trend and why?
After reading last week’s Redoubt News article about the U.S. Forest Service’s attempt to restrict a local gold club’s access to a mining claim, I decided to dig a little deeper into this growing problem. It didn’t take long to find three very disturbing documents that shed some light on the issue. These include:
- “EJ 2020-Action Agenda-Environmental Justice Strategic Plan (2016-2020)” EPA
- “Sustainable Development and its influence on Mining Operations on Federal Lands-A Conversation in Plain Language” from the BLM and the US Forest Service
- “Sustainable Development-Minerals Applications” from the BLM and the US Forest Service.
A review of these three documents provides clear confirmation of planned cooperation by US federal agencies with the United Nations in an implement many Agenda 21 proposals. One of the three reports ends by stating “we heartily endorse the Plan of Implementation signed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development”!
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=474%2C297
Globalist and socialists have perfected the art of word twisting. This is an attempt to change the public’s perception on many national and world issues. Understanding their “meaning” of words often provides the first red flags for liberty loving Americans. The term “Sustainable Development” has morphed into a whole litany of confusing meanings and agendas. The definition of the word “sustainable” to an American patriot can be far different than the meaning to a UN global environmentalist.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=193%2C152
Colin PowellThe root of the issue goes back to the United States’ participation in the “World Summit on Sustainable Development” in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002. At the Summit’s closing ceremonies, then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, adopted the “Plan of Implementation”. This plan addressed activities relating to mining, minerals, metals and resources and how they would be managed.
Since then, those “sustainability principles” have been trickling into federal rules, regulations, fees and policies. These policies are then pushed onto the states by agencies like the EPA, BLM and USDA. I believe it is no coincidence that the public and private western lands we are seeing ranchers being bullied off of, being “acquired”, or being highly regulated with fees and restrictions, are same ones where important mineral or water resources occur.
Our federal bureaucrats continue to fall in lock step with the UN global thinking. Their brochures are now boldly proclaiming they will “support efforts to address the environmental, economic, health and social impacts using partnerships at international levels among interested governments, intergovernmental organizations”. This continues to promote their “idea” sustainability. They have obviously forgotten they work for the American people-not the United Nations and its global members.
Redefining and promoting social engineering ideas like sustainability is not an enumerated power of the federal government! We need to say enough is enough. I believe until we start standing up as a sovereign state and making our own decisions, we will continue to be locked out of our public lands, forest fires will continue to burn billions of dollars in homes and renewable timber resources, and the American ranching way of life will further falter under withering federal pressures.
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=210%2C112
Remember: We get the government we allow!
If this makes your blood pressure soar, then please join me in this battle to save our western way of life and gain state ownership of our federal lands. Otherwise expect more rules, fees, restrictions, mismanagement and ultimately, a fence around your public lands.
I am in the fight for the long haul. Please join me and help me be a strong focused voice for North Idaho’s western values and for liberty loving citizens across the state.
Rep Heather Scott District 1
www.repheatherscott.com
208-920-3120
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
People are saying the government's case is falling apart at the loosely tacked seams. But, remember,
we have a very corrupt judge, Anna J. Brown who works for the same entity as the very corrupt prosecutors.
Today the boss of the bird refuge changed his testimony admitting yesterday's testimony was all HEARSAY.
Refuge Manager Changes Testimony On Witness Stand
KARGES WAS THE ONLY ONE TO TELL THE EMPLOYEES TO NOT GO TO WORK.
September 16, 2016 BLM, Constitution, DOJ, FBI, Featured
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=620%2C381
Refuge Manager Changes Testimony On Witness Stand
by Aubrie Bosworth and Shari Dovale
The manager of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge south of Burns, Oregon, testified in the Protest Trialbeing held in Portland, Oregon. Chad Karges took the stand on the second day of testimony, spending most of the day being questioned by the government and defense attorneys.
Karges told of how he was concerned for the safety of his 16 employees after seeing a caravan of cars pass his house after a rally on Saturday, January 2, 2016.
He instructed his employees to “not report to work until they were instructed” by him. However, he stated contradictory dates for these instructions.
He admitted to telling to 2 maintenance workers to leave the refuge and go home on December 31st, a full 2 days before the rally took place in Burns.
Though he first said that he learned of Bunkerville through internet stories, he admitted to reading ‘government reports’ after the incident in 2014, which held weight in his decision to empty the refuge of workers.
He attempted to say that his information came from rumors, or common knowledge, throughout the town of Burns. But, it seems to us that it would not be reasonable to empty a facility of workers based on rumors.
He told of how he went to the refuge on Friday, January 1st, to remove a laptop computer from his office for a meeting he was attending. He testified that all the doors were locked at the refuge, but on cross examination, it was revealed that he never personally checked any door other than his own office. He relied on what he believed to have been true, based on general behavior of the employees.
He also testified that when Linda Beck asked him if she could go to the refuge on Saturday, January 2nd, to retrieve paperwork from her office, Karges specifically told her not to go. He was concerned for her safety, even though no specific threats had been made by the protesters, and the rally had not even taken place at that time.
He was not concerned for his own safety, demonstrated by his personal visit on Friday, January 1st. But, based on rumors within the town, he became concerned for the safety of his employees.
He also testified that $400.00 had been taken from the safe, but later confirmed that he did not know of this personally. Again, he testified to what someone else had told him.
So, this man testified to quite a lot of hearsay, statements from others, and reports from a 2014 grazing rights incident, to not allow his 16 employees to go to the refuge. He was the only one to tell the employees to not go to work. The defendants never spoke to them and never kept them from working.
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/16/re...witness-stand/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Lorri Anderson has a collection of videos on this trial
https://plus.google.com/collection/IdjybB
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Another video report from Todd Macfarlane 9/16
https://www.periscope.tv/NewsBud_/1OdKrYZDXWqxX
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Todd Macfarlane video reporting from Portland 9/15
https://www.periscope.tv/w/1BRJjRrlWONJw
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Here is the article "Addressing JUDICIAL BIAS, The Elephant in the Room" Todd Macfarlane referred to in one of his videos. I believe Macfarlane goes to great lengths to present an unbiased opinion, quite the oposite of the Oregonian and the other main stream media.
Quote:
I’m not completely naïve and inexperienced when it comes to judges. I don’t claim to be the greatest or most experienced trial attorney in the world. I am content to be a rancher first and foremost (as well as a writer, and a wannabe media mogul), but I have been an attorney for 25 years, and have been associated with the legal profession (first as a paralegal – back before there even was such a thing) for over 30 years. I have practiced law in two states, and worked a year as a paralegal in upstate New York, before starting law school. I have been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. I have tried plenty of civil cases over the years. I have known plenty of judges, and I have basically been around the block. My only reason for saying all that is that I’m not sure that in 25 years I have ever seen any clearer case of blatant judicial bias.
Todd Macfarlane
http://rangefire.us/2016/09/17/addre...dd-macfarlane/
Addressing JUDICIAL BIAS and the Elephant in the Room — Legal Reality Check — by Todd Macfarlane
What If You’re Viewed as the Red-Headed Step Child?
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...nderella-1.jpg
Have you ever watched the movie Ever After starring Drew Barrymore? It depicts Barrymore in a Cinderella role, as the French maiden, Danielle de Barbarac, who is treated very poorly by her step-mother. But in real life, for most stepchildren, life is not a Cinderella story.
After spending a week observing the Oregon Standoff Trial, and burning the candle at both ends to make short video clip commentaries about developments in the trial, I’ve got to take a break and do some writing. There is something I’ve got to get off my chest. I’ve got to address the elephant in the room. I’ve talked about foxes guarding the hen house in federal court generally. At this point all those analogies apply to the Oregon Standoff Trial.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...ep-Child-1.jpg
When it comes to the contrast between how natural children are often treated by their parents versus step children, although there are clearly exceptions to that and every other rule, many people can relate to this analogy. Whether it has happened to them or not, they have often seen families and situations where there is a stark contrast between how the natural and step children are treated, with marked preferential treatment for a parent’s own natural children.
Let’s face it, Bundys are also viewed and treated as redheated stepchildren by their siblings — the vast majority of the American People. If there is a derogatory label or characterization that can be found, it has been used to describe them. They and their associates are viewed to be the “bad,” misbehaving problem children. I had one U.S Marshall at the Portland federal courthouse tell me just that — when problem children misbehave, you have to get out the belt to send a message to everyone else.
That’s why having judges who are able to act impartially is so critical to the fair and just operation of our judicial system. And as a general rule, many of them probably are. It isn’t easy. Judges are human beings. The have opinions. The have inherent natural biases. Sometimes they can set those aside. Sometimes they can’t.
At this point I’m just going to interject and say that Oregon Federal District Judge Anna Brown does not appear to be an exception to the general step-parent analogy – at least not in this case. Before going any further, however, I also want to say that I have come to like Judge Brown, as I have observed her over the
course of a week, as she presides over the Oregon Standoff Trial.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...na-Brown-1.jpg
I have come to the conclusion that she is a very competent and efficient jurist, fully capable of handling a complex case like this with multiple defendants and other challenges. But her preferences and biases are really starting to show.
I have a former law partner who is now a judge. I have previously made reference to him, his observations, and my most recent discussions with him, in several of my previous articles about the Oregon Standoff. Back when we worked together in the same law firm, when I was first a paralegal, then (following law school) an associate, and eventually a partner, I used to tell people that he was the best lawyer I had ever known – as long as you were on his front burner. Based on my observations of this trial thus far, I’m going to offer a similar caveat about Judge Brown – as long as you are not viewed as a step child – possibly a bastard step child – she is probably a pretty darn good jurist.
But what if you happen to be viewed as that red-headed step child?
I mentioned this dilemma clear back in early February – before LaVoy Finicum was even in the ground – my concerns about finding a judge who could be impartial about this case. When people are viewed – as Bundys are – as problem children, and public enemy number one to the Federal government, which has become painfully obvious in such a myriad of ways, including the extreme security measures on display during the trial, how are they ever going to get a fair treatment by the vast majority of federal court judges?
I’m not completely naïve and inexperienced when it comes to judges. I don’t claim to be the greatest or most experienced trial attorney in the world. I am content to be a rancher first and foremost (as well as a writer, and a wannabe media mogul), but I have been an attorney for 25 years, and have been associated with the legal profession (first as a paralegal – back before there even was such a thing) for over 30 years. I have practiced law in two states, and worked a year as a paralegal in upstate New York, before starting law school. I have been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. I have tried plenty of civil cases over the years. I have known plenty of judges, and I have basically been around the block. My only reason for saying all that is that I’m not sure that in 25 years I have ever seen any clearer case of blatant judicial bias.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x240.jpg
To sit back and watch, it doesn’t take long for it to become painfully obvious. It’s almost as if there has been some sort of explicit collusion between Judge Brown and the prosecution. She is extremely defensive when it comes to any questions that relate to federal property title ownership and jurisdiction. She has said that she is going to allow the Defendants to explore subject matter that will help explain their purpose, intent, and state of mind, but she isn’t practicing what she’s preaching. She won’t let them lay the foundation for presenting that evidence. The prosecution is on a hair trigger to object when it comes to that subject matter, and she often sustains their objections without even hearing the grounds for the objections. As a general rule she sustains their objections almost before the word “objection” is even out of their mouths.
The examination and testimony of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Manager Chad Karges provided a perfect example. On direction examination, the prosecution asked Karges about the government’s ownership of the land where the refuge headquarters is located, including title to that property. This is a hot topic, because, as it turns out, that land was not part of the original refuge set-aside by President Roosevelt in 1908. That particular land had been originally homesteaded in the late 1800s, and had been reacquired by the Federal government in at least two separate transactions in the 1930s and 40s, based on specific congressional acts.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...OLC-Deed-1.jpg
The prosecution opened the door to cross examination on that subject by questioning Karges about it. But when it came time for cross examination, both the prosecution and Judge Brown were on hair trigger to shut down that line of questioning. Obviously, they didn’t want Karges to have to attempt to do any explaining when it came to the issues of title ownership and jurisdiction. A quote from the Shakespeare play Hamlet, seems more than apropos regarding Judge Brown’s treatment of the Defendants’ inquiries in this regard: “methinks she doth protest too much.”
After just a week of trial it has become painfully obvious that Judge Brown considers the government and the prosecution in this case to be her preferred natural children in the whole equation, who are entitled to overzealous protection against the probing questions and inquiries of the Defendants.
And at this point, I’m going to once again renew my pitch for greater judicial transparency, through some mechanism of live-streaming of cases and court proceedings, which are already being recorded via a variety of electronic means. This would give others a better opportunity to see what I am talking about, as well as help remove the mystery that continues to enshroud the judicial system.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-292x300.jpg
In this case, that would be very helpful for several reasons. One thing that most people probably don’t know is that Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Marcus Mumford, has a speech impediment. He stutters. Sometimes more than others. But, unlike many lawyers, he is no silver-tongued devil. He has to work very hard at what he does. When he introduced himself to the jury, he joked that when you call his house you better not hang up too soon if you don’t hear someone speak, because he may still be trying to get the first word out of his mouth.
It may not be politically correct to even mention this, let alone talk about such things – just like it isn’t politically correct to mention, let alone discuss, Ryan Bundy’s facial deformities. But, along with Judge Brown’s obvious attitude towards the Defendants’ and their attorneys generally, this has all become part of the elephant in the room. Judge Brown’s whole body language, demeanor, and repeated rulings leave little doubt about her preferences and biases in the case. There’s that old saying “the record speaks for itself,” and the record is really starting to speak in this case. Judge Brown does not like this Defendants, and their attorneys, who they are, what they stand for, and the arguments they are attempting to make. That has all become rather painfully obvious.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-2-300x222.jpg
Consequently, it was no real surprise when, even at this stage, early in the trial, after months of legal wrangling, Ryan Bundy made a motion to recuse Judge Brown. That motion was then followed by a motion for a mistrial, based highly prejudicial, unsolicited answers from the Government’s witnesses on cross examination, that Attorney Mumford argued had been coached, and that although they should have known better, they had “laid in wait for the opportunity to blurt this information.” According to Mumford, a pattern was starting to become readily apparent. Although the motion was initially sealed, eventually Judge Brown heard arguments on the motion and ruled on it. Her decision not to grant the motion was no surprise, but her failure to admonish the government against any such future outbursts was. In the meantime, neither the motion to recuse, nor the motion for mistrial have done much to curry her favor. In other words, it appears that situation is going from bad to worse.
I’m convinced that Judge Brown is a capable, competent judge. But she’s still human. The case has progressed to the point that she can’t hide her distaste for the Defendants and what they stand for. Attorney Mumford’s inherent challenges are also starting to grate on her. It’s a darn good thing that a jury will be deciding the case. If this were a “bench trial” (tried to the judge without a jury), the defendants would be in serious trouble. There is little question that regardless of what the constitution may say, in Judge Brown’s own mind there is no presumption of innocence. Influenced by, among other things, the multiple plea agreements that have been entered into, and processed through her court, she has clearly already long since reached the conclusion in her own mind that at least some of the defendants are guilty. But with the governments one-size-fits-all approach that becomes a real challenge. In the meantime even though the jury will be deciding guilt or innocence, there are a myriad of legal and evidentiary rulings that must be made by a judge. And anyone who might find themselves in the shoes of the defendants in this case would want an impartial judge to be in the driver’s seat. Any defendant accused of anything would naturally want an impartial judge. It’s a tall order in this case, but it’s not too much to ask.
Something else to consider are Judge Brown’s statements that she has a lot of confidence in this particular jury. She said they have already demonstrated that they will follow all her directions very carefully. Exactly what that means remains to be seen.
I don’t know what the final outcome will be regarding this issue. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic. I have a friend who says that really most pessimists are just optimists with experience. As an experienced realist, I am concerned about the writing on the wall. But in conclusion I will make a couple suggestions to the defense: Cross examination is an opportunity to make hay with the government’s witnesses. Tight, leading questions are fully permissible, and will help get around many of the prosecution’s objections, as well as do a better job of making and emphasizing some important points. And as lead defense counsel in the case, Ammon Bundy’s attorneys need to start changing things up, and better utilizing their full team, with Attorney Morgan Philpot playing a more active role in cross examination – which is a prime opportunity to shed some much needed sunlight in this case. It is not yet clear if Judge Brown hates all the red-headed step children equally, so if there is one who might find favor in some regard, it is time to figure that out, and utilize that person to play a bigger role in helping to work through this.
By the time it’s over, this case is going to be a full-fledged adventure.
RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
I am posting Lazaro Ecenarro's opinion piece. He seems to make some interesting points. Whether or not they have any bearing on this case is questionable.
Lazaro Ecenarro
4 hrs
Under Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 803:
EXHIBITS
Directly and / or indirectly, does a “Conflict-of –Interest” exist; between Judge Anna J. Brown and Governor Kate Brown, as member’s of the OWLS (Oregon Woman Lawyers) ? If so, should Judge Brown have removed / recused and / or disqualified herself from ruling on Ryan Bundy’s subpoena for Gov. Brown ? If so, does this mean that Judge Brown ruling an “squashing” Ryan’s is “null and void” ?
Directly and / or indirectly; Does a “Conflict-of –Interest” exist between Judge Anna J. Brown, Judge Ann Aikens, Senator(s) Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, Representative Peter Defazio and others for the following reasons and limited too:
A. Members of the Federal BAR Association
B. Lewis and Clark Law School
SEE EXHIBIT: April 21, 2014: Oregon BENCHMARKS
NOTE: Judge Anna J. Brown was “appointed” by Bill Clinton; violated “Title of Nobility” as written within the “ORGANIC” 13th Amendment, Article 1 Section 9 and / or the Federalist Papers. Thus, She could be “conspiring” in the cover-up regarding land grabbing for Uranium One, Calico Resource, Malhuer Timber and / or the corporation(s).
NOTE: Governor Kate Brown is another “government official” that was “appointed”; when “Conflict-of-Interest” exist, corruption and / or fraud can exist, an FRAUD will always be FRAUD…
Summer 2010 OWLS Presents Career Development / Rainmaking Dinner for Young Lawyers
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/…/2010-Summer-AdvanceShee…
Winter 2011 by OWLS (Oregon Women Lawyers)
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/…/2011-Winter-AdvanceShee…
Summer 2011 The Lawyers’ Champaign for equal justice
http://cej-oregon.org/pdfF…/CEJ%20Annual%20Report%202011.pdf
Summer 2014 The Lawyers’ Champaign for equal justice
http://cej-oregon.org/…/CEJ%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014%2…
2014 kate-brown-calendar and phone call
http://media.oregonlive.com/polit…/…/kate-brown-calendar.pdf
April 21, 2014 Oregon BenchMark
https://usdchs.files.wordpress.com/…/02/benchmarks-draft-5.…
Fall 2015 by OWLS (Oregon Women Lawyers)
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/…/2015-Fall-AdvanceSheet.…
www.oregonwomenlawyers.org
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2015-Fall-AdvanceSheet.pdf
WWW.OREGONWOMENLAWYERS.ORG
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...1671573379051/
