150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

"The national mainstream media doesn't really want to talk about it...or maybe they think it is just to important to talk about on a national level" Scott Rohter

The Trial of the Century – The Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

For concise, informative and thought provoking analysis of the news.
The Independent Voice for Conservative Values!
Less Gov is the Best Gov, Because Less Government
is the Best Government!
© Scott Rohter - All rights reserved

Posted by Scott Rohteron Friday, October 7, 2016

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...occupation.png


The Trial of the Century

The Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

By Scott Michael Rohter

Notes from the courtroom for the week of October 3 through October 7

The national mainstream media doesn’t really want to talk about it… or maybe they think it is too important to actually talk about on a national level. I’m not sure which, but the most important aspect of the occupation trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge won’t even be discussed at the trial, more less debated in the jury’s presence. That is because the judge won’t allow it to be discussed or debated.

Nevertheless this occupation trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is the trial of the century. It is the political trial that isn’t supposed to be a political trial. It is purported to be a criminal trial… but all of the underlying issues that caused the occupation of the Refuge to happen are all political in nature and they all began back in 1976 when Congress rewrote 200 years of American history and precedent by passing the Federal Land Policy Management Act.

This changed the way that Congress administers public land. It went from being a temporary, custodial stewardship to a permanent confiscation as a result of this law. The occupation of over seven hundred million acres of land in twelve Western States will not be discussed in the courtroom during the trial. This is the real occupation, not the one that occurred at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… The amount of land occupied by the Federal Government is an area bigger than the size of most countries.. Only eight countries in the world are bigger than the amount of land owned and administered by two agencies of the Federal government… the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service. It isn’t constitutional.

The eight defendants in this trial are accused of conspiracy to impede federal officers by threats and intimidation. The defendants are: Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Jason Patrick, Kenneth Medenbach, Jeff Banta, Neil Wampler and David Fry.

This may be the most intensively managed trial that America has ever seen. It is certainly the most intensively managed trial that I have ever seen. Every aspect of it is controlled and regulated by the judge from the moment the jury enters the room to the moment they leave the room. The judge acts more like an explosives expert than a referee between the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. She is handling this trial like it is some kind of a ticking time bomb or a lighted stick of dynamite.

All the video evidence submitted by defense attorneys is managed right down to the very last nano second so jurors will not be allowed to get too comfortable with the soft going, gentle resolve of the man who is at the center of this trial.. the good natured, mild mannered Ammon Bundy, and his simply amazing brother, Ryan Bundy. These modern American heroes have been locked up without bail since their arrest in January 2016 for organizing and participating in a protest designed to get Congress to re-examine the issue of what to do about America’s public lands.

In order to eliminate a lot of what Judge Anna Brown likes to call cumulative evidence but what many observers, myself included consider to be corroborating evidence, she has sustained almost four thousand objections raised by federal prosecutors who want to keep as much exculpatory evidence as possible out of this trial. Every time defense attorneys open their mouth to speak another government prosecutor is up on his feet raising another objection. Much of the time is spent stating and restating the following words: “Objection… cumulative… sustained. The objection is sustained Mr. Mumford, now move on”. This goes on over and over again till you want to scream.

The government is not trying to win the argument by presenting a clear and convincing case against the defendants, but rather by preventing their attorneys from making a clear and convincing case on their behalf. That is my impression at least, and this isn’t justice. It isn’t even fair.

Neither the defense attorneys nor the prosecutors really want to talk to each other so the judge acts like a reluctant intermediary and she acts like she doesn’t understand it. This trial is certainly like no other… and the conspiracy that Ammon Bundy and the others are accused of committing is a conspiracy like no other.

Normally you can’t have a lawsuit unless you can show damages, so where are these damages? Well, the FBI and the Department of Justice have fabricated a list of so called damages which were created after most of the defendants had already been arrested and removed from the Refuge. They are attributing these damages to all of the defendants collectively. The government alleges that the defendants trashed the place, but numerous eye witnesses who were there during the occupation have stated that they always saw it neat and tidy and never saw any damages. If there are no damages, there is no basis for a lawsuit. That is the usual rule, but there has been nothing usual about this trial so far, so we will just have to wait and see what the jury decides to do..

Federal arms charges were dismissed against Shawna Cox this week. It also came out during trial this week that the BLM district manager for Harney County closed the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Center on or about the same time that the BLM obtained a first right of refusal to purchase the Hammond Ranch. The BLM also filed a civil lawsuit against the Hammonds to cancel their grazing rights so they could never use public land again.

Many witnesses testified that they never felt threatened or intimidated by any of the defendants who were at the Refuge. That included Pat Harlacher, a seven year resident of Burns who visited the Refuge six different times while the defendants were there, a man from Las Vegas named Brand Thornton who supported the occupation, a local rancher named Travis Williams, another local rancher named Melody Rae Molt, and Sheriff David Ward. Sheriff Ward also said that he didn’t recall ever hearing about any threats made to Federal employees by the defendants. He said he did feel that he had been given an ultimatum though at one point by the defendant Ammon Bundy, but he failed to show any evidence of that under cross examination.

The judge ruled that no one could discuss the Constitution in her court because only a lawyer is qualified to properly understand and explain the Constitution and she wasn’t about to therefore it wasn’t going to be done… Ammon wasn’t going to be allowed to do it period, end of story. The prosecutors objected to the Constitution being read, and the Bible being quoted, and the Book of Mormon. God was ruled inadmissible at some point in the day, but someone did find a way to bring the devil into the discussion. That was one hell of a crazy day.. and oh by the way there is one more thing that is Verboten… No one can ever talk about the murder… excuse me, I mean the death of Lavoy Finicum. That is absolutely forbidden… along with any discussion of how 700 million acres of land in twelve western states has become occupied by the Federal Government and controlled by Congress through two federal agencies … the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service. This trial is so frustrating as to what the defense is and is not allowed to talk about that it is getting ridiculous already.

Out of those nearly four thousand objections raised by the prosecutors about 99% of them were sustained

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...ly-300x240.png
The Hammond family of Burns,Oregon

There was a brief discussion in court about whether or not prosecuting the Hammonds under the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was the same thing as calling them terrorists… The judge said it wasn’t.. but Ammon basically said it was a difference without a distinction. Judge Anna Brown then stated the record pertaining to the Hammonds as follows…

On June 21 2012 Dwight and Stephen Hammond were convicted of arson. Dwight was sentenced to three months in jail for one count, while Stephen was sentenced to twelve months on two counts. On February 5, 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court of Schlemiels overturned the lower court sentences. Upon further appeal the Hammond’s claim for relief was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court and they were resentenced to spend the rest of a five year mandatory minimum sentence under AEDPA.

Categories: National, Oregon Tags: Ammon Bundy, Bundy Trial, Lavoy Finicum, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon Standoff Trial, Ryan Bundy

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...16e4840fd18e2b





http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...hursday_3.html
Oregon standoff trial: Thursday highlights, and what's next

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...rs/1825277.pngBy The Oregonian/OregonLive
Follow on Twitter
on October 07, 2016 at 5:00 AM, updated October 07, 2016 at 5:02 AM



Here's what you need to know about Thursday's developments:

• Ammon Bundy testified that there were "men in the trees and everywhere else'' when police surrounded the Jeep he was riding in to a community meeting in John Day on Jan. 26. "I believed my life was in extreme danger if I moved in any way,'' Bundy said Thursday, his third day on the witness stand in his federal conspiracy trial. "I didn't even reach to pick up my hat in the seat next to me because I was afraid I'd get shot.''

• A prosecutor Thursday afternoon lobbed rapid questions at Ammon Bundy during a cross examination that lasted just under 15 minutes.

• The prosecutor highlighted key testimony that Bundy had offered during his direct examination that seemed to bolster the federal government's case: there was a "unified purpose'' to the occupation, guns played a role in helping carry out the refuge takeover, that Bundy knew federal employees worked at the site, and Bundy and others used parts of the refuge as their own.

• Jeanette Finicum, the widow of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy'' Finicum, briefly testified. She visited the refuge the weekend of Jan. 22, and had planned to meet up with her husband again in Idaho on the following weekend.

• The judge didn't allow anyone to question Finicum's widow about her husband's shooting, or a wrongful death lawsuit that she intends to bring against the government.

Coming next week:

• The federal conspiracy trial will resume on Tuesday next week. Testimony will be heard Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.

• There's no court Monday because of the Columbus Day holiday or Wednesday because of the Jewish high holiday, Yom Kippur.

• U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown has urged defense lawyers to limit the number of witnesses they call who may offer the same testimony as others have given regarding, for example, the cleanliness, welcoming atmosphere and peaceful activities they found at the refuge. "It's been established,'' Brown said. "We need new information ... I have a duty to not waste the jury's time ... You're going to lose these people. It's the same message and they got it.''

• The judge directed defense lawyers to give a list of their remaining witnesses to prosecutors by 5 p.m. Saturday.

• Defense firearms expert Charles Stephenson, a former FBI special agent, is expected to take the stand Tuesday morning.

• Defendant Kenneth Medenbach also is expected to take the stand sometime next week. His standby lawyer Matthew Schindler anticipates the direct examination of Medenbach to last three hours.

• "What we did with Ammon Bundy took far too long,'' the judge told defense lawyers. Bundy was on the stand for a total of about 10 hours over three days.

• Asked if he intends to take the witness stand, defendant Ryan Bundy, Ammon's older brother, told the court Thursday, that he's "leaning against it.''

A facebook poster asking for more information on sighted caretaker at Malheur Reserve; seems urgent:

Robert Jones

19 mins ·

Attention: VERY important!!
A caretaker came out to the Harney County resource center he was emptying trash cans or something if you personally seen this person there, please private message me and I can get you to the proper people!!
Please share this post over and over again we need to find first hand accounts of this man!!!

I liked this photo, most today don't know what the constitution is:

I belive this is Jason Patick, defendant in the Malheur Protest

https://fb-s-c-a.akamaihd.net/h-ak-x...81773751_o.jpg

Burns Documentary, Chapter 33

The Shot Heard Round the World - Bundy's Finicum


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md0ASUDgSvk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md0ASUDgSvk

Ammon Bundy has words with US Marshal after court Thursday for using attorney's computer to send a message to his wife.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta..._allowing.html

U.S. marshals end Ammon Bundy's contact visits with lawyers in courthouse over 'disrespect'

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...77f966f9e8.JPG


A dust-up between Ammon Bundy and a deputy U.S. marshal late Thursday while defendants and their lawyers were allowed to remain in a federal courtroom to confer after the conspiracy trial had adjourned for the day has resulted in reduced privileges for Bundy.

Bundy got onto an online chat room using his defense lawyer's computer in Courtroom 9A to send a message to his wife, and the deputy told him to stop and get off the computer, according to the U.S. Marshals Service.

Bundy was "very disrespectful'' and declared he wasn't going to follow the deputy's directions, saying: "I'm not going to do what you want,'' a deputy U.S. marshal told U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in a brief status hearing Friday afternoon.

Bundy's defense lawyer, Marcus Mumford, told the court that he was about 10 to 15 feet away when the dispute occurred.

Mumford said his client just wanted to send his wife a message, telling her that he loved her.

"All I heard was the aftermath,'' Mumford said. "The marshal and Mr. Bundy exchanged words.''

As a result, the U.S. Marshals Service moved to end the special accommodations the court had made for Bundy to meet together with his lawyers, as well as brother Ryan Bundy, a co-defendant in the trial, in a locked room in the courthouse as they've done about 20 times to help them prepare and work on their defense.

The two are among seven defendants on trial in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, charged with conspiring to prevent federal employees from carrying out their work at the refuge through intimidation, threats or force.

Instead, the marshals are allowing Bundy to meet with his lawyer in one of the courthouse interview rooms, where the defendant is separated from the lawyer by a see-through screen.

Mumford urged the court to allow the earlier accommodation. "We would still want to meet with Mr. Bundy in a contact setting'' to review evidence that is still expected to be presented in the ongoing case, he said.

"This is an episode we could put as water under the bridge, perhaps,'' Mumford offered.

But Jones said he would maintain the restrictions. If he has problems meeting with his client in the courthouse interview room, Jones told Mumford to let him know.

"We'll work it out,'' Jones told Mumford. "I hope you tell your client it's stupid to make remarks like he did.... I hope you can give him some wise counsel.''

Trial resumes Tuesday morning before U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown.

-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian

Shari Dovale's assesment of Thursday's court session. Redoubt News.

we can only hope this jury has some people capable of thinking for themselves.

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/07/br...le-government/

Judge Brown, “In a Light Most Favorable to the Government”

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=678%2C381photo: http://www.parentsociety.com

Or… Just Lean a Little to My Side

Politics of, and in the Courtroom

by Shari Dovale

This week brought several emotional moments in the Malheur Protest Trial in Portland. Ammon Bundy spent the better part of three days on the stand, completing his testimony on Thursday.

The court attempted to severely limit the evidence presented by the defense, including a video between Ammon and a couple of ranchers. Though Judge Anna Brown has allowed the prosecution leeway to present what they want, she has ruled, repeatedly, that defense evidence is “cumulative” or repetitive. She is tired of seeing pictures and videos of the same offices and places around the refuge.

Ammon Bundy attempted to discuss his conversations with the Hammonds, yet Brown shut that one down as well.http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=220%2C279
Telling him that he could not share the specifics of the conversation, Brown said Bundy could only describe his personal state of mind after the conversation.

“I’d rather not say my state of mind if I’m unable to explain why,” Bundy responded. Brown then told him to be quiet. Marcus Mumford took up the argument with the judge. Waiting until the jury was out of the room, Mumford accused the judge of not allowing key evidence to be presented.

Understandably, Mumford was upset for his client, yet the judge had her own theatrics in claiming that Mumford was threatening her. After the repeated shutting down of the defense, yet allowing the prosecution to grandstand, it is amazing that these defense attorneys have held their cool for this long.

Ammon spent time discussing the lack of response by the elected officials, including the sheriff, county commissioners and the governor, to the people’s questions and concerns. “When elected officials ignore us, what are we to do?” he asked.

Judge Brown has told them that she has heard enough of how the refuge was safe and clean, with the protesters being open and transparent during the occupation. She has told them that they cannot refer to conversations they had with others, including Dwight and Steven Hammond. And, she wont allow them to discuss the FBI being under investigation for lying about the murder of LaVoy Finicum.

The defendants cannot talk about their conversations as it is “hearsay” but there is no way to get some of these people into the courtroom to testify to it themselves. This includes Governor Kate Brown, whom Ryan Bundy has tried to subpoena, yet Judge Brown continues to stop that from happening.

Ammon was able to show video highlights of him teaching the principles of adverse possession. This was important, and powerful enough, that the prosecution now wants Judge Brown to instruct the jury in such a way that they will disregard it. The prosecution cannot refute this through testimony, so they need the judge to play the “I am the only one that understands the law” card and try to shut it down for them.

At one point during Ammon’s testimony, out of sight of the jury, Neil Wampler led other defendants and audience members in a standing ovation for Ammon. “We love you Ammon,” they shouted. This demonstration took Judge Brown by surprise, but was over quickly so she had no comments.

At one point, Ammon was asked to name who attended the meeting at Ye Old Castle restaurant in Burns before the rally on January 2^nd. As he named several people, he commented, “I hope I’m not making a list for the government’s next indictments.” This drew laughter from the audience and anger from Judge Brown.

Ethan Knight of the prosecution team threw some rapid-fire questions at Ammon on cross examination. He attempted to distort Ammon’s testimony, however, Ammon held his own very well.

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...y2-300x216.jpe
LaVoy Finicum

Jeanette Finicum briefly took the stand on Thursday afternoon to discuss when her husband went to the refuge. Not hearing about the rally until January 1^st, LaVoy only took a single change of clothes with him, as he did not intend to be there for very long. Describing when he told her that he was going to stay at the refuge, “I repeatedly asked my husband to come home,” she testified.

Judge Brown did not allow any questions to be asked about the day LaVoy was shot and killed. “She [Jeanette] should not be asked about his death, period,” Brown instructed.

Next week will bring several more witnesses, including Sheriff Richard Mack. There have been several points made during the trial about what authority the Constitution gives to the county sheriff. Mack will be here to explain the truth of this. I am sure Judge Brown will not be happy when the law, and the Constitution, get discussed, and she is probably already planning how she intends to shut this testimony down.

Kenneth Medenbach is planning to testify next week, as well as several other witnesses. Judge Brown was not happy to hear that the defense case is not ready to rest, and she makes various comments that might suggest she is encouraging them to do so. However, the defense attorneys, and the defendants, are determined to continue despite Judge Brown’s annoyance.

Judge Brown has found various ways to aid the prosecution, and another way is within the jury instructions. Though the charge “Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States” is listed in the beginning, she goes on later to say the charge is to “prevent officers of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of the office” which is a noticeable difference.

With this change, it seems to me that she has lowered the bar for the prosecution and made it much easier for them. The standard should be higher for the government, but it is not.

She refers to the standard by “In a light most favorable to the government” which, by my layman’s view, is a guilty until proven innocent standard. However, I had a discussion with an attorney in this case and it seems that this is a legal standard that goes to whether or not the government has presented enough evidence to send it to the jury. Though I, among others, do not believe that is the case, it only matters whether or not Judge Brown believes it. Of course she does. She is heavily invested in this verdict.

Additionally, she has stressed to the jury that the conspiracy does not have to actually take place, just that two people discussed it at some point. This sounds an awful lot like the “Thought Police.”

There will be just three days of testimony next week as the court will shut down on Monday for the Columbus Day holiday and Wednesday for the Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur.

Todd Macfarlane with week 4 recap of Malheur Protest Trial

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/29/ongoi...-defense-case/

WEEK 4 RECAP
Rural Route Radio Recap Discussion with Trent Loos & Todd Macfarlane

http://youtu.be/V784OV2BGQ0

For contrasting perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), Bundy Court Sketches on Facebook, or Gary Hunt at Outpost for Freedom and Redoubt News.

At RANGEFIRE! we believe in the need for alternative voices to mainstream media commentary and coverage of these issues.

RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback

I must concur with the views of Bill Goode. There is no way the government is going to allow a win, even though it appears the they have little or no case. Judge Anna Brown has her orders from Washington. She will do whatever to win this.

Edit:

Quote:

---

I'm disgusted with the direction this country is going because it seems to me to be turning into a satanic shithole run and controlled by Jews. Tumbleweed

---

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...0127909200084/


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...c34942e9191688
Bill Goode
9 hrs

Many court observers have expressed optimism for the outcome of this trial in Portland. Strictly based on what I've heard from courtroom observers and what I've read in the news, I would be optimistic as well. But then I am almost always an optimist. ;)

However, several things have come to my mind today as I've been pondering about the trial.

1) Prosecution only asked about 10 questions to Ammon and only spent about 15 minutes questioning him during his three day testimony, asking some pretty innocuous questions. Prosecution questioning of other defense witnesses has been similarly brief. Does the prosecution, not being the idiots we would hope they are, care what the defense witnesses say?

2) The article posted this evening, titled "Judge Brown, 'In Light Most Favorable to the Government' - Redoubt News" blatantly displays Anna Brown's (I refuse to call her by the honored title "Judge") overwhelming bias toward the prosecution and the government side of things. After all, that's who she's working for and pays her salary. And undoubtedly has given her orders with regard to this particular case. Does anyone think she would act any other way?

3) The federal government cannot afford to lose this case. It would mean the initiation of a massive transfer of real estate away from the federal government, ie Anna Brown's employer. BLM, USNPS, USNFS, USF&WS, and probably a number of other agencies involved with the public lands we haven't heard of, become obsolete.

It could possibly even affect military bases, because none of that land has been purchased from the states, any more than the public lands. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 requires military bases be purchased, along with other requirements, not simply absconded with.

It would massively change the nature and appearance of the federal government. Will the federal government, being in virtual absolute dictatorial control of this trial, allow that?

I doubt that the prosecutors or Anna Brown are stupid. What do they have up their sleeves?

Anna Brown has made it clear that she will run the trial as a dictator, points of law and judicial procedure being of little consequence to her, let alone those forgotten documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Brown can and may very well conduct the trial to whatever outcome she plans.

As the jury enters into deliberations and Brown gets a sense the jury will come up with the "wrong verdict", she could declare a mistrial. Then she may well rule that we have to go through the entire process again, whereby our patriot defendants, who have been in jail for 8+ months, will have to remain in jail, until we have another trial. Virtually declaring that they must remain there until she feels any jury will deliver the verdict she is looking for. This would in effect give the defendants the sentences she has in mind.

I have heard more than once that some of the jury members were in tears during defense testimony. Does anyone presume this escaped the attention of Anna Brown?

Anna Brown may well have something else up her sleeve, besides a mistrial.

Being the optimist I am, and based on the evidence presented, I can't see anything but an acquittal on all charges. But neither Anna Brown nor the prosecution are stupid. I am simply wondering what they have in mind to effect the outcome they are looking for. We must brace ourselves for come what may.

Teresa Brookshire from North Carolina has followed this case from the beginning. She flew to Portland to watch two days of the trial. She responds to Bill Goode's essay:

Quote:

---

3) The federal government cannot afford to lose this case. It would mean the initiation of a massive transfer of real estate away from the federal government, ie Anna Brown's employer. BLM, USNPS, USNFS, USF&WS, and probably a number of other agencies involved with the public lands we haven't heard of, become obsolete.

---

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...3c97e8b3268285

Teresa Brookshire I sat and watched as Comey gave his testimony regarding Hillary Clinton and what they actually had found in regards to the emails. The many thousands of classified and ones that since that time had been classified. I thought "we got her". Then I watched him with a straight face say they did not recommend prosecution. Blown away yet? #3 is your biggest reason the prosecution and judge absolutely has to win this case.

My thoughts on their strategy? By the prosecution giving a brief cross of Ammon, they were signaling to the jury that regardless of his testimony-it is legally irrelevant. The issue of land jurisdiction was never resolved, and they will claim adverse possession cannot occur on federal land. After testifying, they know that Ammon has touched the souls of some of them. They will acknowledge that to the jury-because they don't want to lose them seeming like the bad guy. They will use the testimony of weapons being brought there so they would be taken seriously as intent to intimidate. The pouch they say was found in a vehicle with the computer card, etc, they will use as taking away that persons ability to do their work. Small things like that.

Cross will have to focus on what has been built by Ammon as the overreach of the government in cases like the Hammonds and truly that adverse possession was the last avenue Americans had to take a stand. Unfortunately, she is not going to allow statements about the jurisdiction issue to be elaborated on. What is vital for the government, she will let in.

When the jurors are deciding the verdict, any hold outs for not guilty will be brought to her chambers to be questioned if they understood the law and her directives. Based on their answers, she has the authority at that time to replace them with an alternate juror. Their answer needs to be they understand the law as she quoted it and don't have any questions. If I remember correctly, a motion was filed to allow the jury to be instructed on jury nullification-or I dreamed it. I do not recall this being addressed.

I have been surprised by the lack of testimony from the FBI. YES, many agents but not dynamic, damming testimony. I have thought about this and believe that was a strategy also. They don't want the jury knowing how intensely they were involved in the entire situation and the degree of surveillance they had and how their own role was the escalation. In closing the defense will have to keep in the juries head the thought that if they will being unlawful, they had many opportunities to arrest them. Why did they not? I felt very good about the case when I was there for the two days during the prosecutions presentation and have closely followed since. Everything has been a positive for our guys. But, I am like you Bill in that the government is not going to let it be this "easy." They definitely have a strategy. I believe in the innocence of these men and their reason for standing. As Americans, I pray that regardless of the prosecution's strategy, the jury will say, no, we won't let this happen. Just as these men took a stand, I pray the jury will also. But, I imagine Judge Anna will be quite formidable when giving jury instructions.
Like · 1 hr

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...bce7e9dbfd33fe

Bill Goode Teresa, I don't believe either Karen Armstrong, who I believe wrote the indictment, or Greg Bretzing, FBI in-charge in Portland, have testified. Is that the case? They should have.
Like · 1 hr


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...3c97e8b3268285

Teresa Brookshire I don't believe so. When I was there, each FBI agent testified to specific incidents, so when defense asked them any further questions they would not have any knowledge of it. Almost as if the strategy was to only put up FBI agents that had limited knowledge of the total FBI's role. This would severely restrict questions from the defense. All of this is JMO.
Like · 2 · 49 mins