Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Ryan Bundy questions witness about contolled burns . . . . Posted on Bundy Ranch Facebook
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...51706a6036dec4
Chandie Morse Bartell Love it- Asked by defendant Ryan Bundy, who is representing himself, if he ever had any prescribed burns burn more than the area intended, Theall said yes.
"Have you ever been prosecuted as a domestic terrorist for that?" Ryan Bundy followed up. The judge asked jurors to disregard the question after she sustained an objection from a prosecutor
6 · 11 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...c27b6ad2ca45df
Rose Phelps Heaven forbid that he brings some truth to the proceedings. That's what the Hammonds did and so Theall should be in prison too
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
A facebook video from Jason Patrick regarding todays proceeding; LaVoy's death was glossed over, Jason Patrick is visibly upset
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...3361456543396/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Its all about jurisdiction.
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1673#more-1673
Burns Chronicles No 29 – Public Lands – Part 2 – The Federal Government Has No Jurisdiction
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ed-300x283.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 2016
In a previous article, “It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, we looked at the constitutional aspect of jurisdiction. Many will simply ignore that aspect, since they believe that the government is not bound by the Constitution, anymore. So, we must wonder whether those who enacted laws, more recently, regarding jurisdiction, especially on lands that were obtained for certain purposes, were as doubtful of the intent of the Constitution.
The original buildings on the Refuge were built during the Great Depression under one of the various work programs intended to provide employment. The land that they were built on was acquired by the government on February 18, 1935. The remainder of the government-owned land in Section 35, as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was expanded, was acquired on November 22, 1948.
Shortly after the first parcel was acquired, on April 27, 1935, Congress enacted “AN ACT To provide for the protection of land resources against soil erosion, and for other purposes”, at 49 STAT 163. Those “other purposes did include uses anticipated “to preserve public lands and relieve unemployment“. That Act applied:
(a) On lands owned or controlled by the United States or any of its agencies, with the cooperation of the agency having jurisdiction thereof; and
(b) On any other lands, upon obtaining proper consent or the necessary rights or interests in such lands.
So, it was recognized that the federal government need not have jurisdiction, but more about why, later.
The benefits of the Act would be extended where local government would extend “reasonable safeguards for the enforcement of State and local laws imposing suitable permanent restrictions on the use of such lands…”
So, we see no effort to presume prior jurisdiction, to make all needful rules and regulations, as per Article IX, § 3, cl. 2, or to presume a necessity to require the State to cede the lands to the federal government, as per Article I, § 8, cl. 17, since there were no “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.
Then, on June 29, 1936, Congress went even further in abiding by the Constitution by clarifying their position on “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” (I:8:17), with “AN ACT To waive any exclusive jurisdiction over premises of resettlement or rural-rehabilitation projects…; and for other purposes”, at 49 STAT 2035.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acquisition by the United States of any real property heretofore or hereafter acquired for any resettlement project or any rural-rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes heretofore or hereafter constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the Resettlement Administration pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, or any other law, shall not be held to deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over such property, or to impair the civil rights under the local law of the tenants or inhabitants on such property ; and insofar as any such jurisdiction has been taken away from any such State or subdivision, or any such rights have been impaired, jurisdiction over any such property is hereby ceded back to such State or subdivision.
So, not only did they relinquish all “civil or criminal jurisdiction“, but they ceded back any jurisdiction that had been taken away from any State or subdivision. Now the record had been set straight, in accordance with the Constitution.
.
However, to reinforce that position, we can look to a much more recent statute at 40 US Code 3112. Title 40 is titled “Public Buildings, Property and Works”. § 3112 is titled “Federal Jurisdiction”. So, here is what the Statute says:
(a) Exclusive Jurisdiction Not Required. – It is not required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in land it acquires.
Well, that is certainly well established, by now.
(b) Acquisition and Acceptance of Jurisdiction. – When the head of a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government, or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent establishment, considers it desirable, that individual may accept or secure, from the State in which land or an interest in land that is under the immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control of the individual is situated, consent to, or cession of, any jurisdiction over the land or interest not previously obtained. The individual shall indicate acceptance of jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by filing a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated.
So, they can obtain jurisdiction, though if offered by the State, they still have to file a written notice of acceptance. In the current matter, the government has not proffered any evidence of anything beyond ownership, but more on this, below.
(c) Presumption. – It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.
And, that pretty much sums up the absence of federal jurisdiction in the current matter. Put simply, there is no federal jurisdiction at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the alleged scene of most of the alleged crimes.
But let’s look at what the government, rather gratuitously, provided in implying their right to pursue criminal charges that if true, as alleged, would be under the jurisdiction of the State or County, not the Federal District Court in Portland. The Government filed a “Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership of the MNWR Headquarters Area“. This Motion was supported by another filing, the “Declaration of Charles Houghten“, providing the documentation of Ownership.
However, Shawna Cox saw through this ploy. She did not dispute the Ownership of the land, though she filed her “Response to and Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area“. In her Motion, she stipulated as to federal ownership and asked the Court to take Judicial Notice that the land had not been ceded to the federal government.
So, it is back in the lap of the federal government to prove that they have jurisdiction over criminal matters at the MNWR, in Harney County, Oregon.
So, let’s do a count down on the Counts:
Count 1 – Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States – 18 U.S.C. § 372
This is the single charge that may have merit, though that will be the topic of an upcoming article, and it has to do with a law enacted during the Civil War and the definition of the terms used.
Count 2 – Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities – 18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)
This was discussed in “Firearms Not Allowed“, where the government’s own brochure accedes to State law.
Count 3 – Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence – 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(l)(A) and 2)
This was Dismissed, as there was no violence on which to base the charge.
Count 4 – Theft of Government Property – 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Medenbach)
Count 5 – Theft of Government Property – 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Ritzheimer & R. Bundy)
Count 6 – Depredation of Government Property – 18 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 2
These Counts (4, 5, &6) are purely jurisdictional, as was explained in “It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“. As demonstrated in that article, those who rubbed shoulders with the Founders realized that to have criminal jurisdiction, the land upon which the property was located and crime occurred had to have been ceded, along with jurisdiction, for it to be a federal crime.
So, at this point, with the exception of Count 1, Reason, Common Sense, and Justice dictate that the government is simply wasting tax dollars and has denied the Liberty, which they are supposed to protect, of all 26 of the Defendants.
How has this country come to the point that the federal government can run roughshod over the rights of the States, and more importantly, the rights of the People?
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Todd Macfarlane updates with Day 7
http://rangefire.us/2016/09/13/ongoi...ge-commentary/
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...ssession-1.jpg
ONGOING: OREGON STANDOFF TRIAL — COVERAGE & COMMENTARY
September 13, 2016 - Government/Politics, Oregon Standoff, Public Lands, Todd Macfarlane - Tagged: Bundy, federal government, Malheur, Oregon Standoff, Range, RANGEfire, trial - 16 comments
RANGEFIRE! is your source for “live” commentary and coverage of the Oregon Standoff Trial.
At RANGEFIRE! we recognize that there are multiple sides to every story. For contrasting perspectives, you can also For contrasting MSM perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB). We believe there needs to be an alternative voice to mainstream media commentary and coverage of these issues.
Working in combination with a consortium of alternative media outlets, including Newsbud/BFP, RANGE magazine, Free Range Report, Oregon Standoff News, Rural Route Radio, Loos Tales, and Redoubt News, etc., RANGEFIRE! will be providing coverage, and commentary, including some short video updates and deeper commentary regarding the OREGON STANDOFF TRIAL.
Note: We will be adding video clips and written coverage and commentary on an ongoing basis, so scroll down to find new clips and coverage segments as the trial progresses.
INTRODUCTION — GETTING STARTED
DAY 1 — Tuesday, September 13, 2016
OPENING STATEMENTS — the Defendants and their Attorneys
COURTROOM COLOR COMMENTARY
Todd Macfarlane's video commentary at link:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIQ...i9l0hWQ2MDrd_w
BACKGROUND COLOR — SECURITY & TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES
OPENING STATEMENTS — One Size Doesn’t Fit All
OPENING STATEMENTS — Public Lands Policy on Trial
OPENING STATEMENTS — It Was All About the Hammonds
DAY 2 — Wednesday, September 14, 2016
GOVERNMENT WITNESS TESTIMONY
HARNEY COUNTY SHERIFF DAVID WARD
BUTCH EATON & LT. BRIAN NEEDHAM
Defendant Ken Medenbach in a media interview outside the courthouse
DAY 3 — Thursday, September 15, 2016
NEWSBUD PERISCOPE INTERVIEW Regarding Trial Updates up to this point
BUTCH EATON CROSS EXAMINATION
CHAD KARGES EXAMINATION (Sorry About the Misspelling on the Videos)
DAY 4 — Friday, September 16, 2016
NEWSBUD PERISCOPE INTERVIEW re: Trial Updates
JEFF ROSE
FBI SOCIAL MEDIA WITNESSES
MOTION FOR MISTRIAL
BACKGROUND COLOR — Jeff Banta / Trent Loos
Defendant Jeff Banta eating lunch at the Portland Federal Courthouse
Note: Since we don’t have unlimited resources, RANGEFIRE editor, Todd Macfarlane, will not be able to report live from Portland during the entire trial. Based on other contacts and connections in Portland, however, we will be providing both written and video updates, even when Macfarlane is not on the ground at the trial. These reports will be based on – information, but will hopefully help interested parties follow developments in the case as it progresses.
DAY 5 — Monday, September 19, 2016.
Today, the government’s first witness was Linda Beck, a MNWR fish biologist, whose office Ammon Bundy used during the occupation. She testified about her duties at the refuge, and the government’s efforts to remove invasive carp fish from the shallow lakes. During both the government’s opening statement, and during Beck’s direct examination, it was stated that the Refuge had planned to bring in a commercial fishing enterprise during the month of January, to help remove the carp. This representation certainly raised eyebrows because the water would have been frozen, and it was difficult to understand how a commercial fishing effort would work under those conditions. On cross examination, however, Beck admitted that the commercial fishing effort was actually planned and scheduled for April. Beck also testified that despite the fact that she had not been at the refuge during the month of January, she continued to work and do her job, and was paid, just like all the other refuge employees were. She said that when she returned to the refuge her office was a big mess, and looked like it had been trashed, but on cross examination she admitted that she didn’t know who had made the mess, and couldn’t say that it might not have been the FBI that made the mess. One of the most important points of Beck’s testimony came when she was shown a photo of a whiteboard
in her office. http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-3-300x159.jpg
When the image of the Whiteboard was blown-up to see what it said, at the top of the board were the words “Adverse Possession,” with elements listed under that heading. Beck testified that neither she, nor any other refuge employees had written these things on the whiteboard.
Carla Burnside, the Refuge archeologist testified that the refuge headquarters had actually been built on top of an archeological site — back before it was unlawful to do that. She acknowledged that there are thousands of artifacts housed in a basement on the Refuge, that have never been displayed, and there is no current plan to display them.
Videos were shown of messages Ammon Bundy allegedly posted on social media, along with Blaine Cooper, Jon Ritzheimer and Jason Patrick. In Ritzheimer’s video, he says “we will never fire unless fired upon.” In Ammon Bundy’s video, after telling reporters that he had been in Harney County for two months working to try to do something to help Dwight and Steven Hammond, Ammon says “We feel we have exhausted all prudent measures and have been ignored.
”
Twenty-three year-old Nick Bleuler testified that when he arrived at the refuge on January 2nd, the day the occupation began, he encountered men with rifles. Bleuler said that he didn’t have a firearm, but went to the refuge to support the Hammonds, and to protest land grabs. He testified that he helped take down the FBI cameras installed at the Refuge, near the headquarters, which among other things, recorded all license plates coming and going at the refuge.
DAY 6 — Tueday, September 20, 2016
The Government is moving through its evidence fairly quickly, and has indicated that it will probably rest its case about next Monday or Tuesday, which means that the government will have put on its entire case in less than two weeks. Exactly what does that mean? More important than quantity is the quality of the government’s evidence. One of the reasons we are summarizing the evidence is so that you can judge for yourself whether the Government has presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy to impede and interfere with federal officers, and exactly who was a part of that conspiracy.
Today the Government presented evidence through Harney County Deputy, Lucas McLain, FBI Special Agent Ben Jones, FBI surveillance pilot Jeffrey Cleveland, and four MNWR employees, including Ryan Curtis, Jesse Wenick, Shane Theall and Edward Moulton.
The employees testified about their absence from the refuge during January and early February, based on instructions from their supervisors, and the condition they found the premises in when they returned. They testified that they found things “messy and rummaged through,” and about government vehicles and equipment that had been used by the Defendants. Once again, social media evidence, including Facebook and YouTube images and videos were used to document such usage, and the parties involved.
Deputy McLain testified about transporting the defendants, including Ammon Bundy, shortly after their initial arrest, before handing them off to the FBI for transportation to Portland. He said that he discovered Ammon had been talking on his cell phone.
Part of my role in this whole alternative media coverage equation is to provide commentary, so I’m going to provide more of that in this segment. Like I have mentioned in some of the longer pieces I have written about the trial, I have people ask me all the time why the Government is presenting some of the evidence it is — including the fact that Ammon talked on his cell phone after he was arrested. My answer is “I don’t know.” They ask me all the time, what, if anything, this kind of evidence does to support the Government’s case. And again, it eaves me scratching my head too. Is this the best evidence the Government has of an alleged conspiracy — the fact that Ammon Bundy would call his wife to tell her that he had been arrested? Or, that Victoria Sharp, who was also being transported (but has never been charged), and over the course of several hours of detention had repeatedly requested to be allowed to relieve herself, but had been denied, so eventually she had no choice but to urinate in the vehicle. Is this the best evidence they have? How does it help the Government’s case? Good question. I can only speculate that it is intended to show that they don’t follow orders well — when Victoria Sharp, who isn’t even a defendant in the case, is ordered to hold it indefinitely, she just didn’t play by the rules. Likewise, when Ammon Bundy and the others were ordered to be quiet, that whispering to his wife on his cell phone was a violation of that command. The government is trying to show that all of them are renegade rule-breakers who don’t do everything they’re told.
Deputy McLain testified that he and FBI Agent Ben Jones searched the defendants, and found $8000 cash in an envelope in Ammon’s jacket pocket, including a receipt showing that he had withdrawn it from his account the previous day (1/25) in Idaho. In his wallet they found receipts, dated 1/1/2016 from a BiMart in Nampa, Idaho, showing purchases of winter boots, Federal ammunition, and three cheap rifle scopes. But Ammon was not armed at the time, and no evidence has been presented that he was ever armed at the Refuge.
When Ammon’s attorney, Marcus Mumford, asked Agent Jones if there was anything illegal about withdrawing cash or buying ammunition or rifle scopes, he had to admit that there was not anything illegal about it. The insinuation was that Ammon intended to be at the Refuge for a long time..
On cross-examination, Ryan Bundy asked MNWR fire management officer, Shane Theall, if he had ever had any prescribed burns burn more than the area intended, to which he responded that he had. Ryan then asked him if he had ever been charged with arson terrorism for doing that, to which the government objected, and moved to strike the question. Ryan Bundy also asked FBI surveillance pilot Jeff Cleveland if he liked spying on his fellow Americans, to which the government again objected and moved to strike.
In their cross examinations of the witnesses, the defendants and their attorneys asked numerous questions to which the Government objected, with Judge Brown virtually always sustaining their objections. At several points Judge Brown admonished them that she was going to cut of any further cross-examination if they tried to probe any further. Although the Government is on the offensive, and has the burden of proof, if there is one way its case can be characterized, it is “defensive.” The government is very defensive about its own actions, and anything to do with its own motives — which Judge Brown has said are not on trial in this case.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x268.jpg
But the biggest development in the case today did not come in the Government’s case, through any of the witnesses it called, or any of the evidence it presented. The biggest news came via notice filed by Defendant Shawna Cox accusing the Government of coaching its witnesses on the witness stand. Cox filed an affidavit in support of her motion, signed by someone else observing the trial, stating that in addition to the prosecuting attorneys, the Government also has a team of people who come into the courtroom on an alternating basis and coach the witnesses through hand signals, etc. According to the affidavit, based on vantage points in the crowed court room, virtually the only people who can actually see what is going on are the witnesses and the judge. According to the affidavit, the team coaching Sheriff David Ward including FBI Special Agent in Charge, Greg Bretzing, and Oregon U.S. Attorney Billy Williams. Of course the government denied that anything akin to witness coaching was going on.
I am going to have to admit that Shawna Cox, who represents herself, has made some bizarre filings in this case, but this is one that I’m not going to have the same knee-jerk reaction to that many do and automatically reject it. The reason I’m not is based on my own experiences and observations. I’ve seen this sort of thing happen.
Almost exactly three years ago I was trying a six-day jury trial in federal court here in Utah. It was a civil rights case against a local county that I had inherited from one of my local attorney friends who had been killed in a car accident. Base on what I spend most of my time doing, I hadn’t tried a case in some time. At one point in the case I had one of the county commissioners on the stand for aabout a day and half. Because he was an adverse witness, I was able to use leading questions in my direct examination. He started out very smug and cavalier in his testimony. When court adjourned for the day after I had been examining this witness for several hours, one of the court observers told me that the county’s insurance defense attorney had been clearly coaching and signalling the witness during the examination, and the witness was continually looking to the attorney for cues. This person suggested that I position myself http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x277.jpgbetween the witness and his attorney to help prevent that from happening. The next morning I too noticed that the witness was always looking to his attorney for signals and direction. Unlike the Oregon Standoff trial where the attorney remain seated to conduct their examinations, in most trials attorneys are allowed to stand and even roam as they ask questions. In that case I was careful to place myself so that I would obstruct the witness’s view of his attorney. Big beads of sweat started to form on his brow. He really started to squirm, and his attorney objected to my location in the courtroom, to which the judge said she found nothing wrong with it. At that point I did back up a little bit, but continued to carefully block the witness’ view. Left to testify without coaching, eventually the witness completely fell apart. He became very emotional, and blurted out that he thought the plaintiff in the case was a real jerk, and he had no reservation bending the law to stick it to him. So based on my own personal experiences, I am not going to reject Cox’s notice so lightly. It actually seems consistent with what I have observed in the case so far.
MIDSTREAM BACKGROUND COLOR COMMENTARY
https://youtu.be/lJ7nKS1F9DU
Meanwhile Back at the Ranch — Color Commentary — Background Introduction
Commentary Regarding the Charges
https://youtu.be/Un1tE-YJ_HA
Clarification re: Theft Charge:
Misstated that the Theft of Government Property charge only applies to Defendant Ken Medenbach. Ryan Bundy is also charged with theft of government property based on alleged removal of the FBI surveillance cameras.
Commentary re: CONSPIRACY CHARGE
https://youtu.be/1Vk3ph9Frgs
Commentary re: ADVERSE POSSESSION
https://youtu.be/kf1DhYccNkc
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...ssession-1.jpg
Commentary re: JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY
https://youtu.be/dhtAjkF0NSs
DAY 7 — Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Today, Oregon State Police Trooper Jeremiah Beckert confirmed what many have suspected for a long time — that Mark McConnell was a government informant, and was providing “intel” to the government for the arrest operation. Beckert also testified about the arrests of Ammon Bundy, Brian Cavalier, and supposedly Mark McConnell, who was immediately released and shortly afterward produced a video stating that he had seen the shooting of LaVoy Finicum and that Finicum had been “charging” the officers.
Judge Brown repeatedly warned the Defendants and their attorneys that discussing and questioning witnesses about the shooting of LaVoy Finicum was off-limits, but she allowed the government to ask questions about Finicum and the circumstances surrounding his shooting. In the afternoon, the government called Deschutes County Sheriff Detective Ron Brown to testify. He held up handguns, and claimed that they belonged to LaVoy Finicum, stating that one — with one round in the gun — was on Finicum’s person, and the other was found on the floorboard of his pickup, under the driver’s seat. He also held up .223 caliber rifles, and testified that they were found under the back seat of Finicum’s truck.
In light of the fact that Judge Brown has repeatedly stated the Finicum’s shooting death is completely irrelevant to the case, and her repeated warnings to the defendants and their attorneys about it, it is very interesting that she continues to allow the prosecution and its witnesses to talk about, and present evidence about it. Her apparent reasoning is that it helps support the charge of conspiracy to impede or interfere with federal officers. But she won’t allow the defendants to explore anything about it.
The prosecution also presented evidence about the remaining four “hold-outs” who remained at the refuge until their final surrender on February 11th. This evidence included photographs, and recordings of the negotiations between the FBI and the four last remaining hold-outs, including Jeff Banta, David Fry, and husband and wife, Sean & Sandra Anderson. This evidence was presented through FBI Special Agent Marc Maxwell, who was doing much of the negotiation for the FBI.
The prosecution played at least four recordings of telephone conversations between Maxwell and Jeff Banta. When Maxwell asked what they wanted, Banta said the main thing they wanted was the Hammonds released — this whole thing is about the Hammonds.
Banta also told Maxwell that they were concerned that they were going to be murdered just as LaVoy Finicum had been. Although Maxwell said they would be given safe passage to leave if they didn’t have any outstanding warrants, Banta and others in the background said they didn’t believe they could trust the FBI. Banta requested an independent third-party negotiator “that I can trust,” and suggested Reverend Franklin Graham, who was eventually contacted and became involved in the final negotiations. The government also played several of David Fry’s live streams from the refuge. By the end of the occupation, the four remaining hold-outs had removed themselves from the headquarters buildings, and were camping in a makeshift camp of their own in the West parking lot that they called “Camp Finicum” in honor of LaVoy. The goverment presented plenty of evidence that the last four hold-outs genuinely believed that they would probably meet the same fate as Finicum.
What follows is Shari Dovales’ report on Wednesday’s Proceedings, from ReDoubt News:
“The Malheur Protest Trial continued today with Judge Anna Brown repeating her orders to Ryan Bundy not to bring up the “FBI Cover-up”. “This is very serious controversy,” she told him. She warned him that if he attempted to bring up this point that she will have him removed from the courtroom and he will forfeit his right to represent himself.
Later in the morning, Oregon State Police (OSP) Trooper Jeremiah Beckert testified about January 26, 2016, the day the FBI and OSP set up an illegal Dead-man’s Roadblock
on Highway 395 north of Burns.http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C154
Beckert testified that Mark McConnell, driver of the jeep, was a cooperating government informant that tipped them off as to the vehicles, which occupants were in the vehicles, etc. Beckert told the court that McConnell was the only occupant of the jeep that was armed. The other two passengers, Ammon Bundy and Brian Cavalier, were not armed.
Beckert brought with him a 24-page statement to refresh his memory, but stated that most of the events were very clear in his mind. “This was a High Profile incident,” he stated. “A once in a lifetime event.”
When defense attorney Mumford questioned him about the legality of the events, Beckert said, “It is not my job to understand the laws. It is my job to do what my supervisor tells me.”
Beckert testified that he was assigned to apprehend the jeep during the operation to arrest the protesters. He was in an unmarked truck, and when he saw the jeep he hit his lights and sirens and went up behind them. After the arrests of the jeep passengers, Beckert drove off to assist with the vehicle driven by LaVoy Finicum.
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=278%2C231
He testified that Finicum was on the ground and not moving when he arrived, and continued to describe the events after that, leading to the arrests of the remaining passengers.
Judge Brown attempted to limit how many details were discussed in front of the jury, but some made their way into open court. It was noted that no shots came from the truck, and several non-lethal rounds were shot towards the truck. The lethal rounds were not discussed.
“So the round that was shot into my shoulder, was it lethal or not lethal?” Ryan Bundy attempted to ask on cross-examination. This was another question that went unanswered.
Since the defendants perception is the main focus, it would have been nice to hear if they could have discerned the difference between lethal and non-lethal rounds being shot at them, however, the Judge was having none of that.
The prosecution has not presented a strong case, yet I am sure it will be enough for Judge Brown to send it to the jury. Let’s hope and pray that the jury is smart enough to see through them.
http://youtu.be/JxJJKgX_2iY
For contrasing perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB)
Reminder: the trial is only in session four days each week, so Thursday will be the last day this week, and will end early at 2:00 p.m.
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
FBI paid a witness for access to his property. His testimony sound suspect to me.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._bundy_if.html
Judge to Ammon Bundy's lawyer: If he continues to defy her orders, she'll hold him in contempt
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...977ad5f93e.jpg
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown on Thursday threatened to hold Ammon Bundy's lawyer in contempt of court each time he defies her order and tries to delve into the circumstances surrounding the officer-involved fatal shooting of refuge occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum in front of jurors.
The judge told attorney Marcus Mumford that she'd fine him $1,000 each time he raises the issue while questioning witnesses.
"I have ruled on this issue and it appears to me you disregard it,'' Brown told Mumford after excusing the jury for a morning restroom break.
"Do you understand what I'm saying ... yes or no?'' the judge asked Mumford as he was about to explain. She cut him off, requesting a simple answer, just as he's done to witnesses on the stand.
"I don't understand. Your honor says I'm asking improper questions?'' Mumford said.
The judge pointed to Mumford's questioning of rancher Andy Dunbar, whose property is adjacent to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, about what he learned on Jan. 26 about the fatal shooting of Finicum.
"You are not to do that,'' Brown said.
"You're telling me I'm allowed to inquire about the shooting, but not the circumstances of the shooting?'' Mumford asked.
Brown reminded him: Anything about Finicum's shooting death, beyond that it occurred and the date, isn't allowed to be discussed in front of jurors.
"I understand the words,'' Mumford told her.
"I hope you can comply,'' the judge said.
The admonition followed days of directions by the judge to Mumford about restricting his questions during cross-examination to the testimony elicited during prosecutors' direct examination of witnesses. She frequently sustained prosecutors' objections to Mumford's lines of questioning because they were either irrelevant or "beyond the scope'' of the direct testimony.
The judge instructed Mumford and all other attorneys to take it up with her without the jury present if they want to ask questions that go beyond her order.
Earlier Thursday, rancher Dunbar described how he noticed six vehicles headed to the refuge on Jan. 2 as he was having lunch with his wife at The Narrows campground restaurant.
"They're my closest neighbor,'' Dunbar said of the refuge.
He also testified that he heard shooting by the refuge boat launch on six different days. The launch is a little over a mile from his Dunbar Ranch, he said.
"You could definitely hear the shots being fired,'' he said.
Asked if there were a few gunshots, Dunbar said no, that there were "lots, lots and lots.''
During cross-examination, Mumford suggested to Dunbar that if someone wanted to do target practice, wouldn't it be good to find a spot "out in the middle of nowhere?''
Mumford likely didn't expect the answer he got.
"As a rancher and permittee holder, no place on the refuge is a good place for target practice,'' Dunbar responded.
Mumford then had Dunbar review a pamphlet from the refuge about hunting. Dunbar acknowledged that limited bird hunting is allowed on the refuge property.
During re-direct, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel asked Dunbar if the shooting that he had heard sounded like bird hunting.
"No, not at all,'' he said.
Prosecutors plan to introduce a Facebook video from cooperating government witness Jason Blomgren, which captures about eight or nine men lined up and firing assault rifles at the boat lunch. The video was posted to Blomgren's Facebook page on Jan. 25, according to court testimony. Blomgren already has pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
Mumford had argued that the video is "prejudicial'' and the only man identified in the group was co-defendant Ryan Payne, who has pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight successfully argued for the video to be admitted as evidence. "It's not simply the presence of the firearms. It's the use of firearms on the refuge, during the conspiracy. It could not be more relevant,'' Knight said.
The judge said she would allow the video to be played. She said she found it prejudicial, "but not unfairly prejudicial.''
In the first few days of the refuge occupation, Dunbar said he was on his 42 acres, caring for his heifers when he and his son looked through binoculars to see who was in the refuge watchtower. He testified that each time, he saw a man pointing a rifle.
"The guy pointed a gun towards us,'' Dunbar said.
There appeared to be a "sniper team'' in the refuge watchtower, he said, and other men patrolling the perimeter of the refuge.
Further testimony revealed that Dunbar and his 26-year-old son, Tucker Dunbar, each were paid $2,000 by the FBI for access to their properties. The son lives across the street from his father.
Mumford introduced the FBI receipt into evidence, showing that the senior Dunbar got $2,000 "for services rendered'' from Jan. 2 to Feb. 22. Andy Dunbar had previously testified that he didn't talk to the FBI until they called him on Jan. 21.
Asked if that amount is a large amount of money for him, Dunbar said it was a "significant'' amount. "I told them I didn't want it,'' Dunbar said.
"Did you give it back?'' Mumford asked.
"No,'' Dunbar said.
Dunbar even helped talk to several of the holdouts at the refuge on Feb. 5 about ranchers' need to access the refuge property for irrigation purposes.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
September 19 Briana Bundy on Twister Radio with host Jim Lamley,
http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...ial-Update.m4a
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Judge Brown threatens Ammon Bundy's attorney with contempt for delving into LaVoy Finicums murder
http://youtu.be/zJpmy0pq4Xk
https://youtu.be/zJpmy0pq4Xk
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
