Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Today's Malheur Protest trial report from the Oregonian. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...c_display.html
The article doesn't say if Judge Brown ruled on Shawna Cox's second morion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Feds present dramatic display of 22 long guns, 12 handguns recovered from refuge
Updated 6:27 p.m.
Prosecutors Tuesday rested their case against Ammon Bundy and six co-defendants after presenting to jurors a dramatic display of firearms, including 22 long guns and 12 handguns, seized from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge following its 41-day occupation.
The firearms presentation capped 10 days of testimony in the federal conspiracy case against Ammon Bundy, his older brother Ryan Bundy and five other defendants. Defense lawyers and the defendants representing themselves will start their case on Wednesday.
One by one, an FBI agent held up 22 long guns and nearly a dozen handguns that authorities found on the front seats of cars or the beds of trucks, stuffed under a cot or resting on top of a stump, left on the grass or inside a cooler in the west encampment of the refuge.
Two FBI agents had wheeled in a large gray recycling bin containing the long guns. Agent Ronnie Walker handed each one to fellow agent Nick Vanicelli on the witness stand.
Vanicelli, a 20-year bureau veteran based in Denver, identified each firearm, where he discovered it and whether it had been loaded.
Then Walker took the weapon back and propped it against a white board leaning against the witness stand.
After about 20 minutes of testimony, the collection of firepower sat in a teepee-type formation in front of jurors.
Next, a cart that usually holds bound volumes of trial notebooks was wheeled in and the agents presented 12 handguns — 11 found at the encampment and one found in a green truck parked outside the old fire shop near the refuge headquarters — in the same manner.
Once the firearms were removed from the courtroom, FBI agents hauled in 14 large black bins, topped with bright yellow lids. The bins contained evidence bags holding tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition recovered.
Federal agents bagged as evidence a total of 18,331 separate pieces of ammunition at the refuge - including 16,636 live rounds, 1,627 spent casings at the refuge boat launch and 68 spent casings from the headquarters area, FBI agent Ronnie Walker testified.
As Walker was about to identify what was in each of the bags, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown directed prosecutors to speed up their presentation. "Can't we just do a summary please,'' the judge said. "Let's get on with it.''
While defense lawyers were quick to point out through cross-examination of FBI agents that none of the firearms located or ammunition found was illegal, prosecutors intend to show that the mere volume, presence and use of some of the firearms for target practice at the refuge boat launch reveal the defendants' intent to intimidate refuge employees from returning to work at the federal property.
Bundy, Fry, Shawna Cox, Jeff Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, Neil Wampler and Bundy's older brother, Ryan Bundy, are charged with conspiring to prevent federal employees from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management from doing their jobs. Five of the seven are also charged with possession of a firearm in a federal facility.
Testimony showed that a Savage Arms .300 Winchester rifle purchased by takeover leader Ammon Bundy was among five long guns found on the front seat of defendant David Fry's 1988 Lincoln Town Car at the encampment -- the spot where Fry and three others held out for the last two weeks of the 41-day refuge occupation before surrendering on Feb. 11.
Bundy's rifle wasn't loaded. A firearms trace showed Bundy bought it at Cabela's Retail in Glendale, Arizona, on Aug. 29, 2012.
As FBI Agent Vanicelli held up the rifle and attempted to place it into the case found at the refuge with the name "AMMON'' on it, Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford agreed that it fit into the soft rifle case and the agent didn't need to demonstrate it.
"Mr. Bundy said it's a very nice-looking gun,'' Mumford added.
The judge directed jurors to disregard Mumford's comment.
Two of the five long guns in Fry's car were loaded: an SKS-style 7.62mm rifle, which had 21 rounds with it, and a Steyr PW Arms 7.62x54R caliber rifle loaded with five rounds, Agent Vanicelli testified.
Also in Fry's car was a New England Firearms .12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester model 94A .30-caliber rifle. A Second Amendment and Tea Party Patriots bumper sticker on the back of Fry's Lincoln read, "One Right That Secures Them All.''
The tent at the encampment held the biggest arsenal — nine long guns and five handguns. Two of the long guns — a Tennessee Arms rifle and a Stevens .12-gauge shotgun — were loaded and found beneath a cot in the tent. A Remington rifle loaded with four rounds of .308-caliber ammunition was hanging on one post of the tent, beside a pair of camouflage pants, the agent testified.
A .38-caliber revolver with a wooden handle was pictured on a stump beside a lean-to at the encampment and later seen in a video jutting out of the right pants pocket of defendant Jeff Banta, testimony revealed.
The driver's license of defendant Shawna Cox was found on the rear passenger seat of a white government vehicle that had a Harney County Resource Center decal on its side. Inside the vehicle was a pouch containing a 9mm handgun with two magazines of ammunition, the agent said.
During cross-examination, Cox's standby counsel Tiffany Harris established that the 9mm gun didn't belong to Cox and that there was no evidence Cox had been seen driving around the refuge in the vehicle.
A Smith & Wesson .357-caliber handgun was seen lying inside a cooler, beside a container of pistachio nuts, in the tent at the encampment. It was loaded with six rounds, the agent testified.
Thousands of rounds of ammunition also were found with the firearms, in the trucks at the scene or scattered in and around the tent.
In a Chevy Silverado truck with Idaho plates that belonged to co-defendants Sean and Sandy Anderson, authorities found two rifles, three handguns and 2,639 rounds of ammunition, the agent said. A bumper sticker on the truck read, "Only Good Guys with Guns Stop Bad Guys with Guns.''
The Andersons are set for trial in mid-February.
More than 3,417 rounds were discovered outside the tent and about 1,554 rounds were inside, Vanicelli testified. Ninety-eight other rounds of ammunition, for example, were scattered on the seat of an ATV parked at the site. Twenty-seven bullets, propped up in a Styrofoam container, sat on the dashboard of a truck.
Vanicelli also identified a black 9mm pistol found in a green Dodge pickup with Texas license plates that was parked beside the old fire shop at refuge headquarters. Beside the pistol, he said he found a silencer. He twisted the silencer onto the pistol to show it fit and held it up for jurors.
In the bed of that truck, the agent said he found 1,050 rounds of ammunition.
Jurors were notified before the unusual display of firearms that all the weapons were unloaded and "rendered safe.''
During cross-examination, defense lawyers tried to distance their clients from the guns. They also revealed that the federal government didn't pursue with indictments everyone identified as the owners, or last purchasers, of the firearms they collected from the refuge.
Fry's lawyer Per C. Olson asked, "Any of them tied back to David Fry in any way?''
The agent said he didn't think so.
Defense lawyer Robert Salisbury established that his client, Jeff Banta, had lawfully bought a .12-gauge Remington shotgun found unloaded in the encampment, inside a white truck with Nevada plates on it.
Mumford repeatedly asked Vanicelli if he knew who drove the vehicles to the encampment or if he had done further investigation into who owned the firearms..
He said he didn't, that his sole job was to identify and collect the firearms. The agent said, under cross-examination, that he also found significant amounts of cash at the encampment but was directed not to seize the money. This was in contrast to large amounts of cash seized from other locations in the refuge.
Later testimony revealed that only three of the estimated 12 vehicles at the encampment were privately owned, belonging to Fry, Banta and co-defendants Sean and Sandy Anderson. The rest were government vehicles.
"Are any of these guns illegal?'' defendant Ryan Bundy asked Agent Vanicelli.
"Not that I'm aware of,'' the agent replied.
"Are any of the ammunition illegal?'' Ryan Bundy asked the agent.
"Not that I'm aware of,'' Vanicelli said again.
Attorney Matthew Schindler, on behalf of defendant Medenbach, asked Agent Walker, "How many live rounds were fired at employees of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?''
Walker responded that live rounds were not fired.
"Good point, sir,'' Schindler said.
During another showing of the video of men firing assault rifles from the refuge boat launch, testimony from agent Walker revealed that he was only able to identify one man in the video, Ryan Payne, who stood behind the firing line and appeared to be supervising. Walker said he thinks another man in the video was either defendant Jason Patrick or Corey Lequieu but he wasn't sure. Patrick is set for trial in February; Lequieu has pleaded guilty to conspiracy.
"For the most part your case rests on photos and pictures of guns and ammo,'' Ryan Bundy started, during his cross-examination of Agent Walker. The judge asked jurors to disregard his question.
"You know of no evidence anyone personally intimidated a refuge employee,'' Ryan Bundy continued. Again, the judge urged jurors to disregard his statement.
"What are the American people permitted to do to protest improper actions?'' Ryan Bundy asked the agent.
The judge cut him off. "Mr. Bundy, this is improper cross,'' Brown told him.
Once the government rested its case at 3:25 p.m., the judge heard legal motions about jury instructions, and denied a motion for acquittal offered by Medenbach.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Rangfire review of day 10. http://rangefire.us/2016/09/13/ongoi...age-commentary
DAY 10 — Tuesday, September 27, 2016
To wrap-up its case, and evidence against the defendants, today the Government put on the much ballyhooed Gun Show, or “Firearms Presentation.” Although for the most part the FBI was not able to establish who owned or possessed most of the guns and ammunition, the FBI paraded in 22 rifles or shotguns (long guns) and 12 handguns, along with over 18,000 rounds of ammunition. Some have characterized this evidence and its presentation as “dramatic.” Little evidence was presented, however, as to who most of the various firearms belonged to. But evidence was presented that Ammon Bundy had purchased a Savage .300 win mag hunting rifle in Glendale, Arizona in 2012, which was one of the guns found at the Refuge.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x131.jpg
Agents also testified that a handful of the guns were found on the front seat of David Fry’s car. They also testified that several guns were found in Sean & Sandy Anderson’s truck, which had a bumper sticker “Only Good Guys with Guns Can Stop Bad Guys with Guns.” Agents also testified that they found an unloaded 12 gauge shot gun in Jeff Banta’s truck.
Although the government did show quite a few guns and a lot of ammunition, they couldn’t tie most of the guns and ammunition to the seven defendants currently on trial, or any of the other named defendants in the case. Despite earlier attempts and arguments about evidence that Shawna Cox may have been armed at some point during the occupation, in the end the government presented no evidence that Cox had any guns at the Refuge, or that she was ever armed.
Despite the intended dramatic effect of the volume of firearms and ammunition, in many ways, it was actually quite anti-climatic. On cross-examination, FBI agents admitted that none of the firearms or ammunition were illegal, and that there was no evidence that firearms had been used to point at or threaten any federal employees.
We’ve talked about this before, but there is evidence that over the course of the occupation quite a few people came and went at the Refuge. It is fair to say that many of them had their own individual reasons, objectives, and motivations for being there. There has been much speculation that a number of the people who were there were government informants and/or agents provocateur. Such speculations have been further fanned by the fact that the government did not call any of those people as witnesses in the case, which would have subjected them to cross-examination.
Just as with new evidence regarding the shooting of LaVoy Finicum, there is growing evidence that the FBI was working very hard behind the scenes to stage evidence, which could include at least part of the guns, and perhaps a lot of the ammunition. This seems like an even greater likelihood given the disparity between the amount of ammunition that had previously been disclosed, versus the amount of ammunition the FBI claimed at trial had been found at the Refuge.
After less than 10 days of presentation of evidence, without hearing from many other witnesses who were on the government’s witness list and were supposed to testify about a variety of subjects, the Government rested its case instead. There are several possible reasons for this. Either the government is confident that it has put on enough evidence to convict, or it realizes that after having presented the best evidence it has, in the best way possible, its overall case and evidence are still quite marginal at best. In either case, it is pure speculation at this point.
Now the trial will be shifting to the Defendants’ case and evidence, which it is anticipated will take at least twice as long as the Government’s case. Part of the reason that is the case is because some have speculated that although there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in this case there is actually an unstated presumption of guilt that the Defendants must attempt to overcome.
Once the Defense case starts, we will split our coverage into two parts so that it is not necssary to scroll down through this entire post to get to the latest information.
For contrasting perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB)
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
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Judge Anna Brown denise Shawna Cox's motion to reconsider.
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1693
Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...lr-w-crown.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 29, 2016
In two previous articles, Shawna Cox brought the matter of Jurisdiction to the Court. The first, explained in “Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, was filed in response to the government’s “Motion for Judicial Notice” (1229), providing proof of ownership of the land upon which the MNWR headquarters sit. In that Motion, filed September 9, 2016, they cited no previous motion to which they were responding.
Shawna, based upon a chain of title that she had received, had no dispute with the ownership. However, neither the government’s request for judicial notice and attached documentation nor the chain of title provided any indication that the land, which both parties agreed, had been in private hands before the government reacquired it, had been ceded back to them by Oregon.
Shawna then filed her “Response to and Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area” (1245). In that Motion, she stipulated the government’s ownership and asked the Court to take Judicial Notice that the subject lands had not been ceded back to the federal government by Oregon. The Motion was quite simple and simply stated that since no proof of ceding had been provided, the Judicial Notice was in order.
The government then filed its Response (1272) to a number of motions, including Shawna’s Motion. Geoffrey A. Barrow, the attorney that signed the Response, apparently has a reading disorder. Shawna never contested the government’s motion for judicial notice. Instead, she stipulated that they did own the land. However, he chose to read into her motion what he thought the Judge might like:
Cox opposes the government’s request (ECF No. 1229) and, in turn, moves for judicial notice consistent with the separately filed McIntosh Declaration (ECF No. 1252). McIntosh repeats the adverse possession theories that this Court has already rejected many times, although he reads the government’s Houghton Declaration (ECF No. 1230) as further support for his views. McIntosh’s theory is that the federal government simply could not have obtained lawful title to the MNWR absent permission from the state. His theories are contrary to the law that this Court has already recognized controls this issue, and his stated credentials (i.e., his stated directorship of two web-based, environmental-sounding organizations) reveal that he is an advocate who shares defendants’ misguided views. (One organization promises to give a “strong voice that will dominate and control state and federal bureaucrats”).
Cox’s counter-Motion for Judicial Notice should be denied.
Now, Shawna never mentioned “adverse possession” in her motion – she simply sought judicial notice that the land had not been ceded back to the government. This is quite consistent with what the government had cited in their judicial notice, when they said:
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits this Court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.” The Advisory Committee Note to the rule explains that “adjudicative facts” are those that “relate to the parties, their activities, their properties, their businesses.” Courts routinely take judicial notice of recorded property records.
Now, the government has proffered no argument establishing that Oregon had ceded back jurisdiction to the federal government. If it had been ceded back, then it would have, as required by the Statute of Frauds, been recorded in the public records. There is no argument, except the false association with Ammon’s motion, which would be cause for the Court not to take “Judicial Notice”.
Barrow’s ad Hominem fallacy is compounded when in his Response (1295) to an Ammon Bundy Motion, he says:
Like defendant Shawna Cox in her Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 1245), Ammon Bundy also relies on Mr. McIntosh’s Declaration (ECF No. 1252), which espouses the same faulty adverse possession theories.
Let me repeat, Shawna Cox, in her Motion, never mentions adverse possession, she simply seeks Judicial Notice of a fact consistent with the record that the government provided, that the land had not been ceded back. Now, at this point, you have to begin to wonder if the Judge and prosecutors are conspiring to set things up to avoid taking such a critical Judicial Notice. After all, they have no idea how the jury will take such an admission of no jurisdiction.
Next, we have the Judge siding with the erroneous argument given by Barrow when she files her “Order Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge…” (1317). In that Order, she states the following:
II. Ammon Bundy’s Emergency Motion (#1248) to Enjoin Prosecution and Shawna Cox’s Arguments in her Response (#1245) to the Government’s Motion (#1229) for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Area
Defendant Shawna Cox filed a Response (#1245) to the government’s Motion on September 12, 2016. In that Response Cox acknowledges the government has demonstrated it owns the land in question, but, nonetheless, she contends the government does not have any regulatory jurisdiction over that land because it did not obtain the consent of the Oregon State Legislature as required by the Enclave Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Related to Cox’s arguments, Ammon Bundy requests in his Emergency Motion (#1248) to Enjoin Prosecution that this Court reconsider its previous orders denying Ammon Bundy’s Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the basis that the record now clearly reflects that the property on which the MNWR headquarters sits was not part of the land the federal government has owned since before Oregon statehood, but instead was acquired from the Eastern Oregon Land and Livestock Company in 1935.
Well, at least the Judge read Cox’s motion correctly and did not assert that it denied ownership, as Barrow did. However, when we read the entire Order, she does relate Ammon’s Motion to Cox’s argument, and then denies Ammon’s Motion. However, at this point, she has not denied Shawna’s Motion (1245), nor has she taken Judicial Notice.
So, on September 22, 23016, Shawna filed a “Motion to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice, in part” (1322), in order to attempt to force the Court to take Judicial Notice that the land had not been ceded back to the government.
In the denial of Ammon’s Motion (1317), the Court cited Kleppe v New Mexico426 US 529 (1976). Apparently, Barrow did not read the decision; he probably simply resorted to Key notes. As Shawna states in her Motion:
The government offers Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543 (1976) to support their broad contention of jurisdiction un Article IV, § 3, clause 2, however, Kleppe addressed jurisdiction over land that had not been transferred out of the government’s ownership, and to that, there is no contest. Kleppe merely attached the federal jurisdiction to the burros, whether on, or off of, the public lands. This is akin to the parent’s jurisdiction over the child, both insideand outside of the home. It is only for the return of the burros, and of the children. It does not carry with it a jurisdiction over the land where the burros roam, except to the extent of the right to retain ownership of the burros, and obligation to remove them, when so notified. Kleppe addressed an Act of Congress appropriately titled “Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act”, as it applied to the presumption that the home of the burros was the public lands, and they had simply decided to wander away from that home. It did not apply to burros that were raised and branded by a private owner.
Then, in referring to the rather feeble substance of the same Order, she responds to the footnote on page 6 that the Court seems to present as authoritative when she says:
The Order cites, in footnote 1, page 6, that “at trial Harney County Sheriff David Ward testified the state exercised jurisdiction over the MNWR concurrently with federal jurisdiction over those lands.” That does not meet the statutory requirements set forth in 40 US Code § 3112. It can be considered to be nothing more than an unfounded opinion, not support by any factual proof.
Now, to support what she had stated, she offered an existing statute that should put the whole matter to rest. She cited 40 US Code § 3112 (b) & (c):
(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.
(c) Presumption. – It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not beenaccepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.
That should have been the end of the matter, and the Judge should have taken Judicial Notice, since there was no argument, or document, that established any ceding back to the government over the lands where the headquarters buildings were situated at MNWR.
But, the persistent Queen Judge was determined that truth was not a factor, and that she was not going to allow the jury even to begin to believe that possibly the government had no jurisdiction over the land in question. She was committed to using her power to assure a conviction, with no regard for Justice. So, now the ball is back in Queen Judge’s Court, on September 22, 2016, she files another “Order Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” (1327).
In that Order, she incorporates both of Shawna’s Motions:
The Court has now reconsidered the entire record on these matters, which includes the following…
** *
Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area1;
1 The government did not file a reply in support of its Motion (#1229) for Judicial Notice.
She does acknowledge that the government never did file a reply to the challenges to the initial request for Judicial Notice of Ownership, probably, because they can find no rational argument. So, this leaves the entire responsibility, not on the Prosecution, but on the Queen Judge Brown. What is supposed to be an adversarial proceeding, where there are two sides, and the judge’s duty is to assure fairness and justice, is now turned into a situation where the judge has become the adversary to the Defendants. So, the judge exempts the Prosecution from having to respond:
In addition, on September 22, 2016, Cox filed a Motion (#1322) to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice. Although Cox’s Motion to Reconsider related to the Court’s now-withdrawn Order (#1317), the Court, nevertheless, has reviewed Cox’s arguments therein and considers them as part of the record on these Motions. Accordingly, the government need not file a response to Cox’s Motion (#1322) to Reconsider.
She then “DENIES Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion (#1322) to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice.” However, she never denied Shawn’s first Motion to take Judicial Notice.
She then cites the authority for taking Judicial Notice:
“Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
Well, apparently, it is not “generally known”, or a blind eye has been turned to the fact, or, the Court expects Shawna Cox to prove a negative. Or, as Shawna put it in her Motion (1322):
It is impossible to prove negative, and for that reason, 40 US Code §3112 sets the standard for proof that there exists a jurisdiction, whether exclusive or concurrent. Any determination to the contrary is Arbitrary and Capricious.
For whatever reason, the docket then shows the same Motion (1322) that Shawna filed on September 22, filed again on September 26 (1344). However, Shawna’s signature is dated September 22, 2016. There is no explanation as to why this document was filed, in identical form, 4 days later, and after the Court’s Order of September 22. Perhaps, in an effort to cover up the misdeeds of government, the Court and Clerk are getting overwhelmed and confused in trying to obfuscate the issues brought up by the Defendants.
In a final assertion of her authority, even though the Prosecution never contested Shawna’s motions, Queen Judge Brown chops the head off of her victims in a Minute Order (1350), dated September 27, 2016 (repeating what had already been stated) which states:
ORDER by Judge Anna J. Brown as to Shawna Cox (7). The Court DENIES Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion [1344] for Reconsideration, which is identical to her Motion [1322] for Reconsideration that the Court denied in its Order (#1327) Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 40 U.S.C. § 3112 does not deprive the federal government of jurisdiction over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) because, as owner of the MNWR, the government may lawfully exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. See United States v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2010). (bb)
Interestingly, however, it appears that the Judge never denied Shawna’s original Motion for Judicial Notice (1245), though she never did grant the requested “Judicial Notice”. She only denied the Motion for Reconsideration (1322 & 1344).
Regardless, there is a significant, un-convoluted, matter for the Appellate Court, as to whether Federal Jurisdiction exists at the MNWR.
So, regardless of a statute (40 US Code § 3112) and no case law to the contrary, the Queen Judge has shown total contempt for the laws and her judicial obligation for justice, in her rulings in this matter. Her obsession with keeping her schedule and upholding, not the rule of law, rather, the rule of the government, are so clearly demonstrated in the above sequence, that we can clearly understand that law and justice have vacated the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, in Portland Oregon. All that remains are injustice and some patriotic political prisoners.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Tribal elder testifies for the defense
Quote:
Warren was called back to the witness stand after recess. She was asked yes-or-no questions about her phone call with an FBI agent. Warren said she felt “threatened.”
That prompted Judge Brown to again warn her not to volunteer any information she was not asked to provide in a question. That could cause a mistrial if she continued to volunteer unasked-for information, the judge said.
But it is just fine for prosecution witness Dave Ward to give unsolicited testimony -
http://koin.com/2016/09/28/defense-t...tandoff-trial/
Malheur trial: Ammon Bundy may take stand soon
https://lintvkoin.files.wordpress.co...h-2.jpg?w=1248Attorney Marcus Mumford with his client Ammon Bundy during opening statements in the Malheur Refuge takeover trial, September 13, 2016 (For KOIN: Sketch Artist Deborah Marble)
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The defense took center court Wednesday in the trial of the 7 people accused in taking over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and it didn’t take long for Judge Anna Brown to admonish them.
And it isn’t taking long for the defense to present its case. Judge Brown said the defense could wrap up their evidence presentations early next week, with closing arguments possibly near the end of the week.
It’s also possible Ammon Bundy could take the stand as early as Thursday.
Lawyers representing Ammon Bundy, Jeff Banta, Neil Wampler and David Fry began making their cases to the jury. Defendants Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox and Kenneth Medenbach are representing themselves.
Throughout the morning, Judge Anna Brown expressed frustration at the defense’s disorganization, and at one point said “Get it together, folks.”
The 7 defendants are accused of impeding federal refuge employees from carrying out their work through intimidation, threats or force.Two defendants are also charged with theft of government property. Five face an additional charge of possession of a firearm in a federal facility.
Still to come
Rev. Franklin Graham, who came to the refuge with Nevada legislator Michele Fiore to help the final 3 occupiers surrender, is expected to be the first witness on Thursday.
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward may be called back to the stand and then Ammon Bundy may be called.
Defense witnesses begin
Witnesses for the defense were quickly called. The first witness called was FBI agent Marc Maxwell, who was on the phone with David Fry, the last person to surrender from the refuge.
Maxwell testified Fry said he was suicidal and said the situation was “tense and emotional.”
https://lintvkoin.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=600&h=342
Ammon Bundy (plaid shirt) argues with Harney County deputies and FBI outside their office, Jan. 22, 2016 (KOIN)
Confederate Tribes elder Sheila Warren took the stand next. She said she went to the refuge during the standoff and looked for guns but never saw any. She said the occupiers were friendly and welcoming.
She inspected tribal artifacts stored at the refuge to see if they had been handled by the occupiers and only noticed they were dirty and had rodent droppings on them. This, she said, didn’t prove whether they had been touched by the occupiers.
The FBI tried to speak with her about what she saw when she was there, but Warren said she “didn’t trust the FBI” and didn’t speak with them.
Warren was called back to the witness stand after recess. She was asked yes-or-no questions about her phone call with an FBI agent. Warren said she felt “threatened.”
That prompted Judge Brown to again warn her not to volunteer any information she was not asked to provide in a question. That could cause a mistrial if she continued to volunteer unasked-for information, the judge said.
Ammon Bundy a ‘face-to-face kind of guy’
FBI agent Christopher Luh was then called to the stand. Luh, a trained crisis negotiator who spoke extensively with Ammon Bundy by phone during the standoff, said Bundy showed up at the Burns Municipal Airport hoping for a meeting.
Ammon Bundy, Luh said, “is a face-to-face kind of guy.”
The defense played a phone call between them. Bundy told Luh things were “great” and that he “wanted to get the land back into the right hands.”
https://lintvkoin.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=600&h=448
An armed group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge took down a fence Monday, Jan. 11, 2016. (KOIN)
The refuge, Bundy said on the phone call, was in bad shape and the occupiers were doing maintenance, cleanup and fixing what they considered to be fire hazards.
Bundy told Luh the local citizens “should be able to manage those lands as a free people,” and that the Bureau of Land Management was there to make money off fires, not put them out.
He also re-iterated that the reason the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was chosen was because of the prison sentences imposed on local ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond for burning property on federal land.
When Luh asked Bundy how he saw the standoff ending, Bundy said he saw the land being turned over to the county and used as a resource cneter to help rancher under county jurisdiction.
“We’re not going to escalate [anything],” Ammon Bundy told Luh on that phone call. “We’re here to work, here to shake your hand… let you know that I am a good person, not a threat… not going to use violence. That’s never been our style and that’s not what we’re here to do.”
Ammon Bundy added, “We have a situation here that needs to be resolved and we’re not going to ignore that.”
Afternoon FBI witnesses
In afternoon testimony, 3 FBI agents confirmed Mark McConnell — the informant driving the car the day Bundy and the others were arrested — was paid $2000 by the FBI. McConnell’s son was also paid $2000.
Andy Dunbar, whose ranch is next to the refuge, let the FBI use his land for access to the refuge, the FBI agents testified.
The prosecution rested its case Tuesday afternoon. Witnesses including Harney County Sheriff David Ward, refuge managers and employees, FBI agents and other law enforcement officers were among those called to testify.
KOIN 6 News is in court Wednesday and will follow this story.
Trial for the Malheur Refuge occupation
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
Video expert Peter Offerman's analysis of the videos done by Casey Runyan:
links to Offermans website are at the bottom of the article.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2373...5607720564555/
Bill Goode
8 hrs
The following text is a comment from Peter Offerman on the video analysis of LaVoy's murder done by Casey Runyan, and posted here originally last 18 September by Mary Schumpf, and again 23 September by Eric Andrew Wilkinson and Dan H. Bailey.
Peter Offerman is a video expert, who has done a frame by frame analysis of both the FBI video an Shawna Cox's video, as they were released by the FBI. Peter's analysis shows there were missing frames in both releases. In addition Peter's analysis shows the FBI video was a composite of two videos.
Following is Peter's commentary on Casey's two videos:
"Hi George Schumpf... Thanks for sending the links. Although the videos are well prepared and appear to support Lavoy's cause I think they are an attempt to keep the focus away from more damning facts.
"The truck approach is pretty well done. The 3 pauses of braking are probably the result of an anti-lock braking system which modern vehicles come with not any specific action of Lavoy's. When attempting to stop in a hurry jamming on the brakes and holding them on causes a vehicle to go into an uncontrolled skid so modern vehicles moderate braking by automatically pumping the brakes on hard braking at speed in an attempt to retain control. A trained driver in such a situation would manually pump the brakes.
"I don't buy the explanation of the 3 shots as the truck approached. One of my last posts looks at the angles involved and shows that these could not be responsible for the bullet holes in the truck.
"What does this explanation conceal?
"It is far more justifiable to shoot at a speeding vehicle as it approaches a road block, while accelerating, as incorrectly stated by the officers involved, than it is for an officer to run out in front of an almost stopped vehicle and shoot at the driver. All 3 bullet holes found were the result of this later murderous attempt and not the result of the officers shooting at the truck as it approached. They may well have also shot at the truck as it approached but these later shots did the damage to the truck.
"The explanation regarding the shots at Lavoy, after he gets out of the truck, is not credible at all. What it instead does is avoid any mention of significant events that happened as Lavoy got out of the truck. How and why was the shot through the roof of the cab caused? The explanation based on a few clues left behind by sloppy video editing makes it obvious there is missing time in the video at this point. This missing time is very damning because it implicates not just the officers at the scene but also those that had possession of the video before it was made public. No lab tech would make such alterations without authorization from higher ups. It totally destroys the credibility of the authorities evidence and testimony.
"During this time period I pointed out some of the anomalies in the video such as the shooting stand that appears in one frame without being seen put in place or taken away to where it is very obvious in many frames both before and after. This is physically impossible and proves time is missing. The shot through the cab roof occurred from this stand. We should have seen the stand being put in place, the shooter getting on it, taking his shot, getting off it, moving it away afterwards. That we don't see this supports what Shawna says that Lavoy stood in the door of the truck for a period talking to the officers before moving away from the truck.
"The shots taken while Lavoy was standing there at the truck, complying with the officers, are responsible for his fast movement away from the truck. The one through the cab roof came from behind him while he was cooperating with his hands in the air. Would you duck for cover if this happened? This shot is irrefutable evidence of the murderous intent of the authorities.
"If you reviewed my analysis of the trajectories of the 3 shots that actually hit Lavoy it is obvious that the second shot (autopsy shot 2) which occured during this period, actually hit Lavoy. There is no one in a position to cause a wound with this trajectory once Lavoy gets to where he is dropped.
"In my analysis I looked very closely at the actions of the supposed shooter of the foam bullet and his actions do not fit this explanation. The officer on the ground does not move to that location to take a shot. The movement is a second officer moving past him to get into position behind Lavoy's truck. The officer on the ground, appearing to crouch, is the officer who ran out in front of the truck as it came to a stop, who was knocked to the ground by the wave of snow thrown up by the truck. That we do not see him get into this position is another indicator of missing time in the video.
"What I saw on close examination was that he was on the ground just getting up from being knocked down. He was facing towards the roadblock, not uphill. He braces himself with his left arm and swings his right arm in front of himself for balance in order to get up from the ground. He then moves into the center of the roadblock in a crouched position because other officers are aiming at the truck over his head and he is trying to stay out of the line of fire.
"I detailed thoroughly his movements after his point as his movements make it obvious of more missing time in the video. The reason for the missing time here is that while he is moving Lavoy arrives at the location where he was gunned down. The foam bullet attempts to hide the fact of another shot (autopsy shot 1) that hits Lavoy in the back while he has his hand in the air and is cooperating with the officer he is facing. The missing time mostly hides Lavoy's physical response to being hit by a bullet from behind him.
"Regards, Peter"
Peter Offerman's own analysis that he refers to may be seen at http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/?s=lavoy
https://towardsabetterworld.com/blog/?s=lavoy
8 Likes3 Comments3 Shares
LikeCommentShare
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Judge Brown conspires against defense in Malheur trial
http://youtu.be/2rgr3FBT2Zc
https://youtu.be/2rgr3FBT2Zc
https://www.facebook.com/CitizensFor...55608964713132
The following commentary more or less echos Gary Hunt's opinion.
Citizens 4 Constitutional Freedom
5 hrs ·
Judge Brown Undermines Patriot’s Defense Strategy
By Jake Morphonios, ETNR
September 28, 2016
Portland, Oregon
Today in the Oregon Refuge Takeover trial of Ammon Bundy and his associates, the defense team began its case before jurors to attempt to clear their defendants of the government charges of conspiring against federal officers by impeding bird sanctuary workers from completing their duties. The prosecution is making its case based on an archaic statute pushed by Abraham Lincoln and passed by Congress in 1861 during the Civil War.
In her opening arguments, the attorney for Shawna Cox, Mrs. Tiffany Harris, said that the prosecution’s case is without merit because they are misinterpreting the original statute. Because so much of the defendant’s case rests on this principle, I want to remove all the legal jargon and explain the issue to you all in straight-forward language.
As is typical with today’s politicians and federal bureaucrats, the government prosecutors in Portland not only pervert the original intent of the content of the US Constitution, but they also twist and contort statutes from the federal law codes. I’ll explain.
You all know that the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. The Congress passes laws that are based on the Constitution, or at least are supposed to be based on the Constitution. So many laws are passed that it is necessary to keep them cataloged. A reference system was created for that purpose. It is called the Code of Laws of the United States of America – often just referred to as the US Code or USC. It is the official compilation and codification of the statutes passed by the US Congress. Statute is another word for law. These statutes are organized in the US Code under 51 chapters, called titles. Following the title number, is a double S symbol which means “section”, and then the section number appears. The statute being used by the prosecutors in Portland is 18 USC § 372, or in other words, Title 18, Section 372.
So let’s talk about the historical background of this statute. Three months after Lincoln initiated the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression as we southerners prefer to call it, Lincoln was already experiencing major backlash, even among his own ranks in the North. He was worried about conspirators working together to subvert his power or trying to overthrow the US government.
Let’s read the text of the statute itself:
“If two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging the duties thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to induce any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place where his duties as such office might lawfully be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his person while engaged in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duty…”
Clearly, within its historical context, this statute was intended to deal with major conspiracies that threatened to overthrow the entire US government. The statute uses very specific language. It says that if two or more people conspiring to overthrow the US government are found to have used threats, intimidation or force to stop (and this is the key word) officers of the United States from discharging their duties, then those conspirators can be punished.
The prosecutors are using this wartime statute to say that Ammon Bundy and his associates are guilty of that exact offense. They argue that because the employees at the Malhuer Bird Refuge felt afraid to come back to work and go about their business of handing out park maps to the public at the Refuge’s visitor center, this constitutes a violation of 18 USC § 372. The very idea is preposterous. At no point did Ammon or anyone else during civil disobedience action hint that they were trying to overthrow the US government. It’s also a gross distortion of the statute to equate federal employees with the kind of federal officers referred to in the statute.
The prosecutors are arguing that the Refuge employees are federal officers. But that simply is not true. Think about it. The cashier in the cafeteria working at the US Capitol building is a federal employee. Does anyone think that if two people conspired to stop her from taking people’s lunch payments that this constitutes a conspiracy to overthrow the federal government or to stop federal officers from being able to perform the duties necessary to keep the government running? The very concept is absurd – yet that is exactly what the prosecutors are arguing.
Fortunately, we know that there is a distinction between what a federal officer is and what a federal employee is. Statute 18 USC § 372 specifically refers to the discharge of official duties by an officer. An officer of the government is someone who is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Malhuer Refuge park rangers do not take such oaths and are not federal officers.
Therefore, the defendants cannot be found guilty of the charge of conspiring to impede federal officers. And the prosecution knows this – which is why they have perverted the wording of the statute itself. They have added the word “employee” into statute 18 USC § 372 so that the charges against Ammon Bundy and his associates include conspiracy against ANY federal employee. The prosecutors have conflated the distinct identification of officer and employee so that they are synonymous in meaning.
In other words, because the government prosecutors don’t have a legitimate case against Ammon Bundy, they have changed the wording, the meaning and the intent of the federal law to suit their own personal agenda. This is unethical, diabolical and immoral - and it is a brilliantly shining example of the very government corruption and injustice that prompted Ammon Bundy and his associates to take a stand in the first place.
Despite the fact that the statute is crystal clear that it only applies to conspiracies to impede actual officers of the government – and not the tens of thousands of cafeteria workers, trash collectors, lawn maintenance personnel and park rangers – the judge overseeing the case, Anna J. Brown, told the jury that the defenses strict interpretation of the statute doesn’t apply in this case. In essence, she told the jury that the government prosecutors are allowed to change insert new ideas into statute 18 USC § 372 and change the statutes meaning if they so choose. The bias and corruption of Judge Brown seemingly knows no bounds.
This kind of judicial and governmental abuse of the rights of our fellow citizens is what Ammon and the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom were fighting against from the very beginning. Back in February, speaking from his jail cell, Ammon Bundy said, “”When government officials are acting unjustly against the people, they must not get away with it. The takeover of the Malheur refuge was a needed action to show government officials that the people will not be complacent when they prosecute and bully good families like the Hammonds.”
###
For ongoing coverage of the trial of Ammon Bundy and the Oregon Refuge Takeover, make sure to subscribe to this YouTube channel
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
14 large black bins, topped with bright yellow lids. The bins contained evidence bags holding tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition recovered.
Federal agents bagged as evidence a total of 18,331 separate pieces of ammunition at the refuge - including 16,636 live rounds
Dramatic effect.
17 gallon storage bins -
http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pro...2f27a1_400.jpg
