Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Redoubt News reporter banned from federal courthouse,
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...527b23b7ebc02c
Redoubt News
2 hrs ·
Our reporter now BANNED from the Federal Courthouse in Portland, OR.
LikeComment
Chronological
Redoubt News, Rebecca D Anderson and Josh Hutch like this.
6 shares
Comments
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...1119bae3b62098
Kerin Dunham Kangaroo court!
1 · 2 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...64fac2dd27623e
Lonny Weaver They don't want the truth out
2 · 2 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb
Brenda Foley They are obviously very afraid of the Truth Being Told. Guess they have little belief in The Truth Cannot Hide.
1 · 2 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb
Brenda Foley Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
1 · 2 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb
Brenda Foley The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill
1 · 2 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb
Brenda Foley Truth exists; only lies are invented. Georges Braque
2 · 2 hrs
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...17deedb285a57f
Mark Conrad Freedom of all the press the government deems relevant.
2 · 1 hr
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...5e4fd4109bd9f0
Connie Hopkins Brandau Send in a substitute.
3 · 1 hr
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Kelli Stewart video Oct. 19 Is it time to box up the American flaf and rip up the constitution.
Todd Macfarlane has not written anything at this time.
http://youtu.be/wKZzIs5F09w
https://youtu.be/wKZzIs5F09w
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
There's a pretty good article at the occidental observer on the constitution that is along the lines of Kelli Stewarts video above. The point is made that the constitution won't save us and it's a pretty good read.
Link here http://www.occidentaldissent.com/201...-will-save-us/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Shari Dovale, Redoubt News Oct. 19 Malheur Protest trial
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/20/ma...t-prosecution/
Malheur 7 – The Petulant Prosecution
THE JURY WAS GIVEN THE CASE AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND THEY WILL BE IN THURSDAY MORNING TO BEGIN THEIR WORK.
October 20, 2016 BLM, DHS, DOJ, Featured, government, Oregon
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...er-800x150.jpg
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=678%2C249
Malheur 7 – The Petulant Prosecution
by Shari Dovale
Wednesday began the remaining closing arguments from the defendants and their attorneys in the Malheur Protest Trial in Portland.
The prosecution acted like spoiled, petulant children with continuing objections through out. During Ryan Bundy’s quiet, yet powerful speech, the prosecution must have felt the jury responding because they had to break the flow and get the attention back on them.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...an-300x236.jpe
First, Ryan told everyone he was not allowed to show a slide of the Constitution. That brought on the first objection. I’m not real sure what the grounds were other than him ratting out their tantrum to the jury.
He then attempted to quote a portion of Articles 4 & 6, but that brought another objection. Judge Anna Brown sustained the objection and reminded Ryan that he cannot read from the Constitution. She has repeatedly given orders that no one is allowed to ‘interpret’ law in her courtroom, and reading from the Constitution violates that directive.
It has been explained to me that closing arguments are typically the opportunity for each side to make their case. They are allowed to argue their theory of the case, even though the other side does not agree. I am told that it is almost unheard of to object during these arguments.
The defense did not object when the prosecution told untruths, they just rebutted when it came time for their turn. The prosecution, however, cannot contain themselves if it seems their case is swirling around the drain.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=292%2C300
Shawna Cox
Tiffany Harris spoke for Shawna Cox next and gave an excellent presentation. She was very eloquent and presented several very important points.
She talked about the government picking winners and losers, and how this could be why they did not charge any Harney County residents in this case. It does not fit their narrative of ‘outsiders’ coming in to take over the county.
The government does not want you to know that Harney County used to be one of the most prosperous counties, yet now is one of the poorest. They don’t want anyone reminded that this economic disaster happened while the Federal government had control of about 75% of the county.
“Hold the government to it’s burden,” Harris said. They need to prove the charge they have or pick a charge they CAN prove.
The prosecution seemed to really be gunning for Harris with the numerous objections, but, she held her own quite well.
Per Olson represented David Fry very well in the closing arguments. Telling of the events on January 26th, he described David as being in great distress because what he feared most had happened. LaVoy Finicum had been murdered by the FBI, so he heard.
Olson explained that the government had not really challenged their theory. All they had really done is a bunch of mudslinging to sully the defendants.
Robert Salsbury, defending Jeff Banta, asked “How can you have a criminal partnership or agreement with someone
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=274%2C300
you never met? You can’t!” Explaining that Banta had only arrived at the Refuge on January 25, 2016, the night before LaVoy Finicum was shot by law enforcement, Banta had not had the opportunity to even meet most of the protesters, let alone form an agreement to commit a crime.
Banta, who had never taken part in a protest in his life, was only there to meet, and hopefully help, the Hammond family.
Salsbury, who described a confidential informant as the “Fabulous Fabio” went on to say that the government was not here to find the truth. The government thinks they can prove the case just by saying so, not by actual evidence.
The government, and Judge Anna Brown, had an opportunity to yell at two defense attorneys in one objection. The prosecution first objected to Salsbury’s commentary, but when Per Olson jumped up to defend the attorney, Judge Brown yelled for him to “Sit Down!” That particular objection was unusual in another way as it ended up being actually overruled.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=249%2C300
Kenneth Medenbach
Mathew Schindler gave an outstanding argument on behalf of Kenneth Medenbach. Medenbach was not in the courtroom this week due to medical treatments he is undergoing. He is sure to hear of the terrific job that Schindler did in front of the jury.
Explaining that farming and ranching is difficult enough already, but the government doesn’t care. This, naturally, received another objection. Always the most polite, Schindler just said, “Thank You” and moved on.
Schindler explains that the essence of the Rule of Law is enforcement. But, the FBI did not do anything to stop the protest. When the protesters were in town, the LEO’s would wave at them, or talk to them. The FBI went to church to worship with a leader of the protest and allowed him to walk away.
Is it any wonder that everyone believes it was a legitimate protest? The FBI had more than enough opportunities to make things very uncomfortable for the group, including turning off their power supply, or their cell phone service. Even deliveries were regularly made to the refuge during the month of January.
When Representative Greg Walden addressed the US House on January 5, 2016, this seemed to confirm for Kenneth Medenbach that this was a lawful protest. He started crying, believing that after 21 years of civil disobedience on the Federal land issues, someone was finally listening.
Talking of the “Closed” sign that Medenbach placed on the door of their local BLM office, Schindler said, “Only the Federal Government can make a Federal case out of a sign that says CLOSED.”
“Look around,” Schindler said, pointing out the defendants. “Is that an army that’s going to scare the government?”
Lisa Maxfield described Neil Wampler as “an Old Hippy” during her closing argument.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=221%2C300
Neil Wampler
She spoke of his 2 emails to Sheriff David Ward and reminded everyone that Ward never even turned those over to the FBI until after he heard Wampler had been arrested. Ward didn’t care about the emails, as he saw them as “clutter.”
Maxfield made some excellent points, including reminding the jury that the instructions only mention 2 specific agencies. The US Fish and Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management are the only agencies mentioned as being “impeded”. Not the FBI and not Sheriff Ward.
Maxfield does admit that her client has a big mouth, but “If you are not going to offend someone, you don’t need the First Amendment.”
Craig Gabriel did not let any opportunity to disrupt the defense get past him. Ethan Knight was originally scheduled to give the final rebuttal, however, Gabriel must have really had his shorts in a twist because he jumped up to respond himself.
Beginning by reminding the jury just how dangerous this situation really was at the Refuge, after all they had a history from Bunkerville.
At one point, Ryan tried to object to the obvious misstatements by Gabriel, but Judge Brown shut him down by saying that he was allowed because this is “argument.” (Funny how that was good for the prosecution but not the defense.)
Gabriel did state during this argument that a Redress of Grievance is not a legal document. This was his implication as to why the defendants did not receive any responses from their elected officials. I do not think he has read the First Amendment.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C183
But Gabriel pushed on, trying to get as much reaction from the gallery as he was from the defense. At one point he calmly stated that the events on January 26th, in which LaVoy Finicum was murdered by Law Enforcement, was just a regular, basic traffic stop. So I guess every ‘regular’ traffic stop
has overhead video, roadblocks, marksmen in the http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C205
trees and 3 or 4 (who knows how many) times the number of LEOs needed.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Jury sent home for the day, will begin deliberations again Monday morning.
https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...b7&oe=589FEB1C
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Todd Macfarlane Week 6 Recap, predicting a hung jury
http://rangefire.us/2016/09/29/ongoi...-defense-case/
WEEK 6 RECAP, following Closing Arguments, as the case has been handed over to the jury, including my prediction that the trial will end in a Hung Jury.
http://youtu.be/LL_1rf8nKSs
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, John Lamb on Facebook, 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
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
A little more from Todd Macrarlane with Trent Loos
http://rangefire.us/2016/09/29/ongoi...-defense-case/
Once again, discussed by Trent Loos and Todd Macfarlane on Rural Route Radio (although the first part of the program is off on another tangent).
For yet another perspective on where things stand at this point in the trial, following closing arguments, we also invite you to check-out what Kelli Stewart had to say. Her FacebookLive summary on 10/19/2016 at 9:29 pm is especially interesting.http://youtu.be/wKZzIs5F09w
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, John Lamb on Facebook, Kelli Stewart on Facebook, Gary Hunt at Outpost for Freedom and Redoubt News.
At RANGEFIRE! we believe in the the value of multiple perspectives. 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
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
April Kiessling, Redoubt News. Anna J. Brown's War on the Constitution.
http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/22/ju...-constitution/
Judge Anna J. Brown’s War on the Constitution
BROWN’S DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR IN HER LITTLE FEDERAL FIEFDOM ARE GROWING AS THIS CASE WAXES ON.
October 22, 2016 Constitution, DHS, DOJ, Oregon
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=478%2C361
Judge Anna J. Brown’s War on the Constitution
By: April Kiessling
Defendants in Oregon’s Malheur Refuge Occupation case have been imprisoned and charged with a multitude of high crimes and misdemeanors by federal and state agents. As the wheels of justice slowly grind, they find their most formidable foe may not be the FBI, embedded informants or a biased press – but their judge.
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=199%2C300
Anna J. Brown is a US District judge in the state of Oregon, appointed by Bill Clinton. She was sent to supervise the mass trial of virtually all the Malheur Refuge Occupation defendants (originally 26). Seven are currently being tried as a group. It quickly became clear why she was chosen, as well as given a great deal of latitude and scope of power. Brown appears to been exhibiting an extreme bias against the defendants and an almost slobbering largess toward the prosecution. So open is her bias, that virtually every observer is aware of it by now.
Possibly the most egregious of Brown’s many instances of injustice is her micromanagement and hostility during defense testimony. She is continuously speaking, leading, countering, cutting, and blocking the defense. One observer told me she had counted 89 objections from the prosecution (interrupting Ammon Bundy’s testimony) in only one morning session. “Brown sustained [allowed] all of them but eight” she marveled. Conversely, defense attorneys rarely objected. When they did, they were generally ignored, while the prosecution continued merrily along.
Constitution Taboo
The US Constitution is taboo in Judge Anna J. Brown’s courtroom. Even sidewalks surrounding the federal building where people are threatened with arrest for passing out copies. It seems to cause hysterical reactions. The jurist flat-out blocked any portion of the Constitution to be read or recited on several occasions, which brought audible gasps of disbelief from the gallery. Even reference to the Constitution, as well mentioning specific Oregon laws (which defendants are charged with breaking), is discouraged.
Brown orders them to consider all references to the document solely as a matter of the “state of mind” of the defendants, as if it inspired criminal acts. Inference that the defendants share mental problems stemming from belief in the powers of the Constitution, comes across loud and clear. Since many of the defendants base their actions and motivations on the Constitution, their defense is effectively knocked out at first base.
http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C168
Clockwise, from left: Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Jeff Wayne Banta, Neil Wampler, David Lee Fry, Kenneth Mendenbach.
Seven defendants currently being tried in Brown’s courtroom.But Brown doesn’t stop her censorship with only the Constitution. Malheur defendants are denied everything from witnesses to time. The lengthy prosecution case against them went on without a hitch and no complaints from Anna J. Brown. Now the judge is in a rush, reminding Ammon Bundy’s lawyers Marcus Mumford and J. Morgan Philpot, of all the time their client wastes while they attempt to put up a defense. Bundy has been charged with numerous crimes and would be expected to address them all.
Some witnesses for the defense fared better than others. The Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) took the stand to testify for the defendants on September 29, 2016. He wasn’t interrupted or threatened, undoubtedly due to his celebrity status. Graham praised the non-violent nature of the last remaining four occupiers at the Refuge and convinced them to leave. The evangelist also described defendants’ terror and his personal fears for their safety at the hands of the government.
Un- Constitutional Political Manuvering
Political machinations were evident early on. On July 15, 2016, months before the actual trial, Brown ruled that Ammon Bundy and the others were not allowed to discuss any number of things that occurred, before, after, or during the occupation. Specifically, they denied pretrial evidence of FBI agents who had [falsely] claimed to be militia with the occupation. Caught in the act of ratcheting up conflict and fear in Burns, Oregon, the FBI was instrumental and possibly took the lead in killing spokesman LaVoy Finicum. It is reported that the DOJ is currently investigating this. The apparent murder of LaVoy Finicum at what is euphemistically labeled a “traffic stop” is the other forbidden subject in Brown’s court. His name alone sends prosecutors into reactionary objections. On September, 23, 2016, Brown threatened Mumford with $1000 fines and “contempt of court” citations for each mention of LaVoy, including testimony on the government informant driving Ammon Bundy’s car during the fatal ambush.
LaVoy, An ‘Off Limits’ Subject
Brown insists LaVoy’s death is not “related to the refuge occupation” although his actions there are clearly the reason he is dead. Also, FBI malfeasance is a reasonable defense for several defendants, who claim they remained at Malheur for fear of being gunned down. As occupation spokesman, LaVoy was present in several scenarios of which defendants are required to testify, but are hamstrung by inability to refer to him by name. Brown’s arbitrary restrictions are especially onerous, since prosecution made it clear that “intention” of occupiers is central to whether they are considered to have committed crimes.
Since then, Brown routinely changes rules and instructions to the jury, mid-stream. Mumford challenged her jury instructions to disregard his objections over tagging defendants “terrorists.” This was in discussion over the imprisoned Oregon ranch family, the Hammonds, who are being charged under the “Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.” Early on, the Malheur group were labeled “militia” or “terrorists” in legal communications and by much of the press. None of this has been substantiated. Some Malheur occupiers/visitors were unarmed and others are even members of religions believing in pacifism. Defendants are “using the term [terrorist] improperly,” Brown instructed, as she is apparently an authority on linguistics.
http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C170
Atty.s J. Morgan Philpot & Marcus Mumford represent Ammon Bundy.
Questioning the Bench a Threat?
At this point Mumford charged the court with “taking sides” and accused Brown with not allowing him to present evidence. Perhaps running out of rationalizations, Brown claimed to then be “threatened” by Mumford, as she apparently interprets questions over legal matters as menacing.
Government is allowed to enter all exhibits, data, video or witnesses, from any place, any source or time. Defendants are given no such latitude. Brown denied them discussing the killing of their spokesman LaVoy, because it didn’t happen on Refuge grounds, but a few miles down the road. Attorney Mumford risks the rage of Brown as he obliquely slips his points into questions, such as how close police were when they “shot Finicum three times in the back” on January, 26, 2016.
Restrictions on defense access to prosecution evidence in discovery and later was so extreme that Ammon Bundy’s original lawyer, Mike Arnold, resorted to crowd sourcing and social media appeals to gain the evidence refused him in court. This only led to censoring by the Oregon State Bar and his resignation from the case.
Presenting defendants as rational actors is paramount to defense because occupiers and supporters are portrayed as terrorists and right-wing zealots. But they have friends in high places. Donald Trump wrote a scathing opinion piece in the Reno Gazette Journal during the occupation in January, 26, 2016. “How is it that we have a president. . .who encourages faceless, nameless bureaucrats to manage public lands as if the millions of acres were owned by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy?” Trump asked. He also noted the “draconian rule of the BLM” in damaging local economies. All are subjects defendants are not allowed to bring up for various pretexts.
Defense was not allowed to play several videos. One was of Senator Harry Reid calling the original ranch protesters in Nevada “domestic terrorists” in 2014. Reid’s insult seems to have inspired the FBI and Homeland Security to become heavily involved in ranch and farm land disputes. They’ve also borrowed his terminology. Current Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Neil Kornze was previously a Reid aide. He was appointed almost to the day that the original “Bunkerville” land dispute began in Nevada in April, 2014. Only a coincidence. Another banned video, backed defendant Jeff Banta’s declared purpose for his visit to the Refuge. The video was made in 2012 of BLM initiated fires in French Glen, Oregon (BLM is one of chief plaintiffs.) The BLM fires raged out of control, consuming farms, livestock and a home. For making controlled burns, ranchers are currently imprisoned with serious charges. This BLM policy and government prosecution since 1989 was one of the major motivations for the Malheur occupiers. Ironically BLM is lodging suits against the ranchers in civil court as well and have first claim privileges against their ranches. BLM signs are up on Bundy land at this time. The Hammonds previously sued and won cases against the BLM, and there is bad blood between the agency and many ranchers and farmers in Western states.
According to several defendants, their central purpose was to force court battles over the government’s procurement and property rights of the Malheur Refuge and other federal properties. Proximate cause of the occupation was the re-imprisonment of the Hammonds: Dwight (74) and son Steven (46). This came after they served time, had already released and for the same crime. Judge Brown barred defense lawyers from bringing up any questions over “who owns the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” even as she instructed the jury seek to understand the “state of mind” and motivation of the seven current defendants.
Defense objected to the presence of FBI agent Ronnie Walker in the courtroom as an observer, although he was on the prosecution witness list. When this was brought up to Brown, she failed to remove him, although no other witnesses are allowed to watch court proceedings. This is a general rule from official US Department of Justice materials, but apparently not required in Judge Brown’s court.
Michele Fiore for the Defense
http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C228
Michele Fiore, a defense witness for Malheur Refuge occupiers, is also a Nevada Assemblywoman
Michele Fiore, a defense witness and Nevada Assemblywoman, refused to be intimidated by Brown on October 6, 2016. Fiore visited the Refuge in January, 2016, as a representative of the Coalition of Western States (C.O.W.S.). Fiore claimed that she determined “through Oregon officials” that “no laws were being broken” at the Refuge. Brown berated Fiore, ordering her to “stop making statements before the jurors and interpreting law.” Although Fiore is a lawmaker and Brown is not, Fiore’s statements are only “her opinion” Brown insisted. The Assemblywoman made a dramatic turn when she defied Judge Brown and passionately spoke of the “murder of LaVoy Finicum."
The farcical nature is almost comical, if not for the high stakes. A federal court is making a case their agencies may confiscate private land, deny speech and assembly, challenge gun rights, control local police, supplant state and county laws and terrorize people while imputing it to targeted groups. It’s a big deal with surprising little publicity, although it is picking up steam. Early on, there were surprisingly few observers at the trial and this is no accident either.
A remarkable small chamber was used for this titanic trial. Defendants are allowed only two seats each for family or supporters. The public gallery is tiny, requiring observers and media to queue up an hour or so in advance for a chance at a seat. A larger public overflow area is available via video, but even that is threatened with closure at times and it is apparent the state resents public observation.
In one of Judge Brown’s more monomaniacal declarations, the gallery folk forgot themselves and snickered after a sarcastic remark by Ammon Bundy. An agent ordered silence, warning the possible loss of viewing privileges. Brown declared her ire over such offenses as “page turning”, throat clearing or clicking pens. Yet Brown jokes around on the stand and not only allows the courtroom a chuckle, but appears to enjoy it.
Brown’s delusions of grandeur in her little Federal fiefdom are growing as this case waxes on. Sometimes she forgets there are witnesses and appears to be losing control. On Oct 4th, while defense questioned Chris Briels, Brown suddenly exclaimed “sustained.” But there had been no objections. Rather than recuse herself or allow a mistrial, Brown rationalized her erratic behaviour and continued her dogged work for the prosecution. “I’m not going to let the witness speculate” she insisted as an excuse. The sheer autocratic attitude of the woman and her aversion to civil rights is spectacular. Brown appears a perfect face of the contempt some of these Federal agencies have for the people they are prosecuting.
Ammon Bundy’s attorneys are seeking a postponement until there is a ruling on appeals over Brown’s inconsistencies, and asserted mistreatment of their client in jail. They claim Bundy is malnourished and not being allowed access to materials to prepare for his defense, such as the internet. Their requests have been disregarded, which are becoming a theme in this courtroom. The Judge Anna J. Brown show goes on.
SOURCES:
US District Court, Portland, OR. / Interviews with other observers and witnesses
Redoubt News http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/07/br...t/#comment-996
Reno Gazette-Journal http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voi...-law/78422530/
Scribd https://www.scribd.com/document/3034...on-Bundy-et-al
Share this:
Malheur Protest Trial - Week 2 - THURSDAY *Updated*September 12, 2016In "BLM"
Malheur 7 – The Defense RestsOctober 17, 2016In "BLM"
Judge Anna Brown vs the ConstitutionOctober 9, 2016In "BLM"
