Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
The spin from the jewess at Oregon Live.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...n_on_ammo.html
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 08, 2016 at 5:00 AM, updated October 08, 2016 at 5:02 AM
Does Ammon Bundy's 10-hour testimony help or hurt his case in Oregon standoff trial?
Did Ammon Bundy's nearly 10 hours of testimony help or harm his case?
Bundy told the judge this week that she left him no choice but to take the witness stand in his own defense.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown had restricted defense lawyers from eliciting testimony from witnesses about the principle of adverse possession or who owns the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge unless it related to a defendant's state of mind in explaining motivation for occupying the refuge.
Facing those limitations, Marcus Mumford, Bundy's attorney, said it was crucial for his client to tell his full story.
"We put him on because he wanted to explain why he did what he did,'' Mumford said. "The jury got to see him and hear him speak with candor.''
Legal experts weigh in:
Margaret L. Paris, University of Oregon law professor:
"If you have a defendant who can appeal to the jury, you give them as much time as you can. If he comes across as sincere, that he really believes this – that may be the best defense available.''
But if the testimony is repetitive and too long, Paris added, "you risk losing the jury.''
"It's a calculated risk a defense lawyer takes. And, it's always a crap shoot.''
On the prosecutor's brief cross-examination, Paris said it's not unusual.
"If you're facing an effective witness, as a cross-examiner, you want to get your points out without giving him too much more time on the stand. The prosecutor went in for the points he needed to make, got in and got out.''
Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, standby counsel to Kenneth Medenbach, one of Bundy's six co-defendants. Medenbach plans to take the witness stand next week.
"It's his right to get up and tell his story. A protester should not invoke their right to remain silent.''
Of Ammon Bundy's testimony, "All I can tell you is it seems authentic.''
The decision allowed Ammon Bundy to humanize himself to jurors, Schindler said.
"It's fairly unusual to have a defendant who can come across as sincere and handle a cross-examination.''
Schindler wasn't surprised by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight's 15-minute cross-examination.
"This is the U.S. government. These guys let the evidence do the talking.''
Tung Yin, Lewis & Clark Law professor:
If the defense is seeking jury nullification – meaning the government has proved its case with the evidence presented but a juror won't convict because he or she likes or feels sympathy for the defendant or their cause -- then it was probably useful for Ammon Bundy to take the stand, Yin said.
"It would be useful to make his client seem likeable, not crazy and halfway reasonable."
Ammon Bundy remained calm and composed on the witness stand, often looked at jurors as he spoke and became emotional as he described his past experience with federal agents at the 2014 standoff outside his father Cliven Bundy's ranch in Nevada.
As for the short cross-examination, that makes sense for several reasons, Yin said.
"Because it was so short, it was pointed and sharp. It's unlikely the jury was bored, or dozing or or not paying attention. The jury is likely to remember the entire exchange. Second, it limited the scope of redirect, meaning that Bundy's lawyer could only ask further questions relating to what Bundy was crossed on.''
Andrew Chongseh Kim, Concordia University law professor:
It appears that Ammon Bundy's lawyer wanted to spend time delving into his client's intentions, motivations, reasoning and background that played into his decision to stay at the refuge for nearly a month.
In contrast, the prosecutor's decision to limit his cross-examination may demonstrate "that they think the vast majority of the previous three days' testimony is irrelevant to whether Bundy is guilty'' of the federal conspiracy charge.
The charge accuses Bundy and co-defendants of conspiring to use intimidation, threats or force to prevent employees from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management from carrying out their work during the 41-day occupation of the refuge.
"Such a stark contrast could make the jury think the prosecution failed to respond to the defense's strong evidence, or it could make the jury think the defense spent three days trying to distract them from the real issues of the case.''
-- 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
Todd Macfarlane was supposed to testify in the Malhuer trial, but has been released.
http://youtu.be/8BHXK5vi9Xc
https://youtu.be/8BHXK5vi9Xc
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
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:
[/I]
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
This fellow understands the situtation,
John Kolak I have to agree with Teresa that #3 is the overriding factor here. Ammon was wrong. It's not just that the issue of western land ownership is bigger than the Refuge and federal employees. This is much bigger than an academic review of western land ownership. This is about the value of public land and its resources, collateralization of the national debt, and the wealth and power of the globalists. I'm afraid the corruption in this court is bigger than Anna Brown and Harry Reid, but is directed from the globalist command center in the Department of Justice and the White House. This might have gotten a fair trial in the Reagan administration. I'm not sure about the Bush Dynasty. They might succeed on appeal in the 9th Circuit, but they might have to go to the Supreme Court to win. Is it possible that we lost Justice Scalia specifically for this case? If I am wrong and they are acquitted here, I'll be glad to be the first one to admit it.
Like · 2 hrs · Edited
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Shari Dovale, Redoubt News "Examaning the Prosecution Evidence"
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/10/ma...tion-evidence/
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=554%2C284
Examining the Prosecution Evidence
by Shari Dovale
The Malheur Protest Trial resumes in Portland this week and the defense has been able to refute the prosecutions case pretty well.
Though they spent a couple of weeks presenting their ‘evidence,’ the prosecution didn’t have a lot to base their case on.
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=210%2C219
They began by saying that 2 or more people conspired to impede Federal officers from November 5, 2015 through February 12, 2016. That is the basic charge. Let’s look at that first.
Ammon Bundy testified that he did not look into the Hammond case until November 2nd. That is the date that he remembered specifically. He read for hours about Dwight and Steven Hammond, what they had gone through at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and how similar this case was to that of his family.
He then spoke to the Hammonds and Sheriff Ward. At his point, it was still just Ammon with one other person, Ryan Payne, accompanying him. Knowing how important it was for the Sheriff to protect the citizens, and how much power he has to do this, speaking to the Sheriff was an important step. However, Ward apparently got scared and refused to do his job. Ward testified that he immediately called the FBI to step in and take over for him.
Bundy then tried to contact the state and local elected officials. He prepared a letter of “Redress of Grievance”, first sending it via official email accounts, then sending notarized hard copies as a follow up. These went to the Harney County Commissioners, the Sheriff and Governor Kate Brown.
It has been shown that the FBI specifically told these officials NOT to respond to Bundy. As Bundy asked, when your elected officials refuse to respond to you, “What are we to do?”
That is when the January 2nd rally was organized. It began with just Ammon, but quickly spread on social media. It was very encouraging that so many planned to attend the rally.
Before the rally, Ammon held a meeting with about 30 people that had traveled to Burns, OR to attend the rally. This meeting took place at “Ye Olde Castle” restaurant in Burns. It was here, just before the rally, that Ammon first disclosed his idea to hold the refuge through ‘Adverse Possession.’ It was not the only idea talked about that day, but this was Ammon’s idea and no one had heard it prior to then.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=205%2C308
The prosecution believe they can convict everyone on the conspiracy charge through various pieces of evidence. Some of that evidence consists of Facebook postings. So, if you post, or re-post, an event such as a protest rally on Social media, the prosecution says that can be evidence in a federal conspiracy trial.
Another item they submitted as evidence is a ‘Meme’ that someone posted to Ammon’s Facebook timeline. It has already been established that several people were administering this page. The meme shown here is either the exact one placed into evidence or one that is very similar. The caption reads: “Forgive me Father for I will sin.”
The prosecution contends that Ammon and the group of Citizens for Constitutional Freedom (C4CF) are extremely dangerous based, in part, on this meme. It is my understanding that this saying goes back to ground forces in the military. I guess that fits with the progressive agenda of the military being too dangerous for society.
The prosecution brought in several guns, but were not able to prove ownership of all of them. They could not determine when the guns arrived at Malheur, and whether or not they were placed there before or after the protesters arrived. They could not determine if these specific defendants brought them in. They were … just there.
The defense has presented multiple witnesses stating how comfortable they were at the Refuge. They testified that they saw very few, if any, weapons displayed while they visited. There were enough witnesses making these claims that Judge Anna Brown put her foot down and said that she had seen enough.
Remember, Oregon is an open carry state. It is perfectly legal to carry a sidearm as you go around town and complete your business. In a ranching community, it is normal to see people carrying weapons. Yet, the prosecution made a big splash telling everyone how afraid the town was to see guns being worn everywhere.
The prosecution did not mention the FBI taking over the town, the heavily armed vehicles, or the airport and school being turned over to the FBI for their own use. Just some cowboys carrying sidearms.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=236%2C177
Photo of PPN outside the refuge.The prosecution also attempted to bring in multiple crates of ammunition they say were found at the refuge. Even Judge Brown didn’t want them to take the time to show each box. They say there were approximately 18,000 rounds. The defense put up a witness, Brandon Rapolla, who is a firearms instructor and was at the refuge with the Pacific Patriots Network (PPN). Rapolla testified that this was a small amount of ammo for as many people that were at the refuge, even for target practice.
Rapolla also testified to a photograph that the prosecution entered into evidence. This photo was taken on the road above the refuge and does not depict any of the C4CF group. It shows the PPN under Rapolla’s direction.
Then there are the videos that the prosecution entered as evidence. These include a video that they took from Ammon’s phone. This particular video was a ‘rough draft’ that he later re-recorded. The final was posted publicly, which included Ammon telling folks to come without their firearms. However, the prosecution used the rough draft and objected to the defense wanting to include the final version.
The witnesses that the prosecution questioned included Chad Karges, the refuge manager. Karges testified that it was his decision not to allow his employees to return to the refuge. This decision was made at least 2 days before the rally, and was based on Ammon being at Bunkerville. His name was Bundy and his family fought the BLM in 2014. There you go, the big conspiracy.
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=225%2C253
Chad Karges, the manager of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, April 29, 2016 (KOIN)Also testifying were employees that said the offices were messy when they returned on February 17th or 18th. Looking at the time frame, let’s remember that the FBI had sole access to the refuge for about a week after the final four turned themselves in. The FBI then went about doing their crime scene investigation.
Has anyone ever seen what the FBI and crime scene investigators can do to a place? I have personal knowledge of this in my own family. They will tear a place apart to search it all. They will tear down walls, cut up carpet, dump desk drawers, etc. They will cut up cushions on couches and chairs, upend trash cans, kick in doors and more. They NEVER clean up after themselves. There are companies that you can hire specifically to clean up after crime scene investigations, and it costs thousands of dollars. Yet, the protesters have been blamed for every single thing out of place.
The defense has put on multiple witnesses that testified to the cleanliness and care that the C4CF took of the refuge. So many witnesses that, again, Judge Brown grew tired of it and told the defense to stop.
Statements from the defendants never mention keeping employees from doing their jobs. On the contrary, Karges and others testified that the employees never lost time or pay from the protest. They were able to complete their work at other facilities.
The defense has successfully refuted the prosecution evidence. But the questions still beg to be answered. Where is the crime, and who set the standard for this crime?
Judge Brown is heavily invested in this conviction. She has clearly shown her bias favoring the prosecution. Her jury instructions have been changed to lower the bar for the prosecution and make it more difficult for the defense team. She is determined to get a guilty verdict for all defendants in this case.
Stay Tuned! We will see if the evidence really matters.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C185
Share this:
Arnold Law Steps Down as Bundy AttorneyMay 26, 2016In "BLM"
Hammond Case Facts - Ammon BundyFebruary 3, 2016In "Constitution"
In Burns with the Oath KeepersFebruary 12, 2016In "Constitution"
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Shari Dovale, Redoubt News "Judge Anna Brown vs the Constitution".
Because it is an administrative court the constitution cannot be heard or ruled on. Administrative courts deal in civil rights. United States Citizens have 14th amendment civil rights. The people have unalienable rights.
Judge Anna Brown vs the Constitution
THE OVER REACHING GOVERNMENT IS ON TRIAL HERE, AND THE US CONSTITUTION IS AT STAKE.
October 9, 2016 BLM, Constitution, Featured, government 2
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C434
Judge Anna Brown vs the Constitution
By Shari Dovale
The week in Portland has certainly been a roller coaster ride. So many ups and downs that it can make a person dizzy.
Ammon Bundy testified this week and he was very genuine and well versed. I can’t help but think that the jury has to have seen his honesty and passion. The best part of his testimony was when he was explaining “adverse possession.” He became a teacher and explained the goals very well. There were a few short clips of videos that showed him teaching this message, as well. Most of the jury paid close attention.
It was interesting to see Ryan address his brother as “Mr. Bundy” but that quickly turned to a more familiar “Brother” as he went through his questioning. This is certainly an unusual trial, as we see one brother representing himself while questioning another brother on the stand defending his own actions. I don’t think I have ever heard of another case like this one.
There is good news on David Fry. I went to see him today and am happy to report that he is finally in a new, and clean, cell. When he
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C234
first went into solitary, David was placed into a cell that had human feces all over it. The outrage from the public was loud and shrill. Well, it had an effect, and that was to move him to a cell in even worse condition. After a few days, however, he was finally moved to a clean cell on a different floor. He is hoping that his time in solitary will be ending soon.
David is looking good today He is very animated and excited to be experiencing this trial. He assured me that, though it is hard to go through, he would absolutely do it again. It was worth it to him to stand up for his beliefs. David, like the other defendants, is an inspiration.
David’s parents came in to Portland to support him. His father testified on his behalf, explaining to the jury how David grew up dealing with racism and bigotry due to his half-Japanese heritage. David never was very political, but he did understand what was right and wrong. I think it resonated with several of the jury members.
Michele Fiore is a force of nature. Her testimony was very good with several key points being made. Before getting involved with the protesters at Malheur, she verified with state and local officials that no laws had been broken. She knew all the right questions to ask because she is a lawmaker. She is a sitting Assemblywoman from Nevada.
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C200
This, however, was not good enough for Judge Anna Brown. Trying to make Fiore seem uninformed of the laws did not look good. Brown’s constant cries of how she is the only one that can understand the law in her courtroom are becoming rather tedious. There are some heavy hitters scheduled to testify this week. I am looking forward to the Judge trying to explain this theory to them.
Judge Brown has made no secret of her bias. There have been hundreds (yes, hundreds) of objections by the government this week, and probably 99% of them have been sustained by Judge Brown. She doesn’t, generally, ask what the basis of the objections are, or asks the defense if they have a response. She just goes with it.
She has even sustained an objection that the Prosecution never made. I have seen her look up at the prosecution, clear her throat (which seems to get their attention) and all of a sudden they remember to jump up and object. It has actually been humorous watching the circus in there.
Judge Brown has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution cannot be read or quoted in her courtroom. She does not allow the Declaration of Independence either. And, with one exception, no one has offered to affirm “So help me God.” This judge is fighting for Socialist principles, and that is why this trial is so important.
This is a political trial regardless of what the prosecution would have you believe. The mainstream media are trying hard not to cover it, with few exceptions. The left has gotten their foothold and are trying to control the narrative. You will not hear the truth from sources other than alternative media.
The over reaching government is on trial here, and the US Constitution is at stake. We cannot give up our liberties. We cannot rollover and allow our rights to be taken from us.
Read the Constitution.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=411%2C137
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Because it is an administrative court the constitution cannot be heard or ruled on. Administrative courts deal in civil rights. United States Citizens have 14th amendment civil rights. The people have unalienable rights.
Considering there are no Article III and Article IV courts, can't the Bundy's challenge the courts jurisdiction to even hear this case? How or who they could present their claim to I'm not sure since there are only 1 or 2 Article III courts left in the country?
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
He and Shawna Cox both have challenged the subject matter jurisdiction because the Malheur headquarters were purchased from a ranch. The jurisdiction was never ceded to the United States. But none of them have challenged the constitutional authority to take jurisdiction.
This judge denied the motions and is bulldozing onward jurisdiction or not.
http://rangefire.us/2016/09/15/exper...iction-issues/
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1673
http://annavonreitz.com/ammonbundy.pdf
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
That would be expected in an Administrative Court. In an Article III court they would have to hear it I believe. But with only 1 or 2 even existing it's not like the Bundy's have the luxury to file a claim in an Article III court.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
