Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
This video was put together from a series of photographs 8 months ago, A tribute to Lavoy Finicum and the Malheur Protest
http://youtu.be/lVhpD6Q2IrM
https://youtu.be/lVhpD6Q2IrM
This is a compilation of pictures from various people. This is the first time I have ever put something like this together, I do apologize if it runs too fas...
YOUTUBE.COM
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Double Standard? Shawna Cox copied government documents to investigate unconstitutional acquisition of land at Malhuer Reserve, Hillary destroyed 30,000 emails to hide her influnce peddling. . . . . .
http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...-standard.html
Double Standard
Posted by Scott Rohter on Monday, October 24, 2016
http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...ns-of-2014.jpg
Double Standard
By Scott Michael Rohter, October 2016
“Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.” – US Code 18 Part 1 Chapter 101 Section 2071
http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...Shawna_Cox.png
Shawna Cox
As a private citizen, Shawna Cox copied government documents and stored them on a thumb drive in order to investigate the government’s unconstitutional land transfers that created the Malheur National. Wildlife Refuge. She was charged with stealing government documents and prosecuted as part of a conspiracy…
http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...te-300x225.jpg
Hillary “Rotten” Clinton
In her official capacity as Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton stored over 30,000 government emails on her own private server. Then she deleted them all in a deliberate attempt to conceal the evidence of her influence peddling when she was Secretary of State. The FBI didn’t even bother to charge her with a crime…Hillary Clinton may be above the law but she is not above your vote and your condemnation. Send Hillary Rotten Clinton and the entire Democratic Party a strong, clear message, Vote for Donald Trump…. Truth, justice, and the American election depends on it.
Be Sociable, Share!
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Unfortunately she will move out of the US to avoid prosecution, but sometimes it does suck when in hiding.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
This facebook poster is responding to an article written by Cheri Roberts who I was told by a reliable source is a paid gov't. troll and possibly has a criminal record, https://challengingtherhetoric.wordp...y-deliberates/. I didn't read it because I don't like the way she twists the facts. Some say she is attempting to exhonerate Mark McConnell
Quote:
Bill Goode It seems this author is attempting to exonerate McConnell. It was McConnell that organized the trip to John Day. He was urging people to get into the vehicles and get going. He was in some sort of hurry to get the convoy on the road. Perhaps he did...See More
This lady tells it like is:
Judy Lee
Giving 3 hours more thought to this article I cannot go without pointing out this for comment, "One informant stands accused, by Bundy supporters, as being responsible for Finicum’s death." I have not heard this from any supporter and I do think I have been around enough. What bothers me about this writer's 'observation' is that it points away from the actual perpetrator in Lavoy's murder. And my objection falls in line also with my obejction to one of the Bundy women posting an FBI 'feel good' article about the FBI's recent arrest of 82 alleged sex traffickers.
Here is the problem I have with this writer's observation that coincides with what I think of a Bundy posting some 'feel good' about the FbI, and it is as follows.
The ones who chose the informants (what I will also call the instigators) was the FBI. We have seen before in other situations, like that of Schaeffer Cox's, where the FBI has surrounded a target (for no HONEST reason) with informanats and provocateurs who have entrapped people.
This is undeniable. And what makes matters worse is that the FBI not only does this but the courts and law enforcement (and very obviously media) has its backs.
Furthermore anyone who objects is labeled anti government, gun huggers, terrorists, zealots, and even worse...MILITIA! I am none of those things. I am tired of the soft shoe attitude and the pussy footing around, and especially I am tired of the desires of cowards to paint the government as nice guys, just victims of their subordinates (contractors, hired instigators, paid provocateaurs, etc) when the FBI is far from being the victim.
All of my life I have watched the government operate, and I have always believed what it says. I have thought if I am a good little citizen then I will never befall what came down on the student protestors at Kent State, Ohio, or what befell Randy Weaver's wife and young son, or what happened years ago in Waco, Texas, or what was done to Schaeffer Cox, and now about what has been done to LaVoy Finicum.
And the idea of this article suggesting anyone is responsible for the incarcerations and the deaths of many of the people referenced herein is someone other than the FBI employees is absurd and it is pandering to a very violent FBI that is rife with corruption and arrogance (not unlike many other government corporate entiries including the I.R.S. and the D.O.J, too, I don't care who does not like what I am saying, because what I am saying is true.
Schaefer Cox is in the Federal Penitentiary, and the FBI (taking care of what D.C. referred to as the Schaeffer Cox problem - because he had taken 35% of the Alaskan vote for cleaning up government corruption) wanted to have him dead instead (ask me about Bill Fulton) because of what D.C. called Schaeffer's having committed a thought crime.
What is a thought crime? It is when the FBI thinks something that scares them or someone else in the government, so they think of a reason to make their own thoughts happen, which ends up involving a targeted person for them to frame and harm. I don't care if the FBI likes me or not for saying it. either. I've been insdie the Beast to see how it operates, and what it thinks. Better us then them, right? Take one for the team, right? And I am very aware if the FBI doesn't like someone they will kill us, just like they killed LaVoy Finicum.
There is NOBODY to blame for LaVoy's death but the murdering FBI, and I am sick and tired of everyone pussy footing around and feeling sympathy for the FBI employees who dream up their crap against Americans then set out to trap and to kill us because its just their jobs. And I am sick and tired of the (in)justice system that suports their crimes. And now that we are learning who has set up the FBI and who fills its rank and file, and more than ever it past time for the natural born Americans to put the FBI (and other government corporate agencies) under the magnifying glass for getting pink slips with a note on them they may be called back to stand trial before the Grand Jury for treason.
It is a pity anyone with guts ends up dead or in prison. But, then, that's just those nice guys at the FBI doing their jobs to keep all of us safe right? HA! Safe. Not hardly. God help us. If I am killed, start first looking first at the FBI, because killing those of us who object IS what they do best. And this is why everyone uses supportive adjectives and helps the FBI to deflect from the sheep the truth. Just ask their Special Unit out of Atlanta, Georgia who shot those two first blanks to get the action going on the road to John Day?. :/ So how many do the FBI get to kill while everyone keeps turning away from the truth? And ask yourselves when it is your friends and/or family what you could have said or done to stop them. Stand up free people. Stand up!
https://www.facebook.com/WithChastit...17269758596030
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Jury has questions for the Judge. One juror announces at begininng of deliberarions that he has extreme bias.
http://youtu.be/U3lOdXLlDkQ
https://youtu.be/U3lOdXLlDkQ
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom "the law as I give it to you"
« Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – I – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute
Burns Chronicles No 35 – From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”
October 25, 2016, 6:50 am
Burns Chronicles No 35
From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 25, 2016
Having obtained a copy of the Jury Instructions, as given to the jury in the U. S. v. Ammon Bundy, et al, by Judge Anna Brown. I had sought them, as I was curious as to whether the instructions, at least, conform to the laws. In Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute, an example of what is referred to as “Pattern Jury Instructions”, and how the wording of the instructions is contrary to the wording of the Statute. So, let’s delve into Anna Brown’s mental state and cognitive abilities in advising the jury on the “letter of the law”. (A PDF format of the Jury Instructions. References will be to {page} number.)
What is the Law?
Regarding the obligation of the jury, with regard to their deliberations, on {4}, she says:“Upon your return to the jury room, it is your duty to weigh and to evaluate all of the evidence calmly and dispassionately and, in that process, to decide what the facts are. To the facts as you find them, you must apply the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with the law or not, which is just as you promised to do in the Oath that you took at the beginning of the case.”
John Peter Zenger was tried in a New York court, in 1735. He had violated the written law on sedition by an article he had printed. Though in violation of the working of the law, the jury acquitted him, and in so doing, vacated the law.
Later, when the Constitution was written, the jury’s action in that trial provided an understanding that the People were the final arbiters of the laws enacted by Congress, as the colonists did with regard to Crown written laws.
Now, I do not intend to discuss FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), though I would suggest that you would find them a source for what was intended to be the role of a jury in our justice system. I am going to provide an historical context as to what “jury” meant in the age of the Founders, and what one State did to assure that the original intent would be adhered to.
Maryland ratified their Constitution on November 11, 1776. From that Documents Declaration of Rights, we find:III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstancesXVII. That every freeman, for any injury done him in his person or property, ought to have remedy, by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.XIX. That, in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the indictment or charge in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; to be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses, for and against him, on oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.
Now, those are the only references to juries, and I will suggest that it was understood by everyone, in all of the colonies, that the jury could judge both facts and law. To support this, we also find that the People are the ultimate authority under that Constitution.I. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.II. That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof.
But, I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it, so let’s look at their 1867 Constitution. This was ratified after the chaos and turmoil created by the Civil War. Apparently, concerns over the acceptance of the past understanding of both the jury process and the authority of the People, we find these changes in the new Constitution, ratified on September 18, 1867. Again, from the Declaration of Rights:
Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
So, they have the right (not the Legislature) to alter or reform. However, it does not say how that would be accomplished
So, since the power resides with the People, they have provided, and reinstituted, a means by which those laws enacted by the legislature can be judged by the people.
Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.
For a final affirmation of what was intended, and readily understood, back in 1852, we have an “Essay on Trial by Jury“, by Lysander Spooner. We find Spooner’s explanation of the right to judge the laws in Chapter I, Section I (page 4 of the PDF.):
“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”
He goes into a greater explanation, though I believe that this is sufficient for our purposes. Unfortunately, today, the Rules being used by the Court allow the Judge to deny that which is in the Constitution, by the intent of the Founders, and clearly what was understood to be the right of the jury, without question.
However, as we see by the instructions, the Rules and the words of Judge Anna Brown obviously circumvent the intent of the Constitution. And, isn’t that what this trial is about?
Later, on {4}, she says:“
Because you must base your verdicts only on the evidence and on the Court’s instructions, it remains essential that you not be exposed to any information about the case or to the issues it involves beyond what has been received here in open court in your presence and the presence of the parties.”
She reaffirms that her “instructions” must be obeyed, and, by the way, don’t think very hard. I’ll do that for you”.
Government’s Use of Informants
On {12-13)}, we have the Judge vindicate some characters that are far more unscrupulous than any of the Defendants — by a long shot.
“You have heard evidence that one or more informants may have been involved in the government’s investigation in this case. In order to investigate criminal activities, law enforcement officials may engage in stealth and deception, such as using informants who may assume the roles of members in an alleged conspiracy.”
I find it interesting that the “informants may have been involved“. Heck, it has been admitted (stipulated) that they were involved. Why couch that instruction in language that defies the testimony and evidence? It seems likely that she does not want the jury even to think of the ramifications of a police state, where paid individuals infiltrate and spy on Americans, and then have the audacity to claim it is gospel. The question as to whether their efforts are rewarded on performance, and the more dirt they get the more compensation they receive. Nor does it preclude the possibility, since they have already given up their integrity in favor of the police state, and be willing to lie to increase that payment.It is also worthy to note that the Court, in a sidebar, acknowledged that there were 15 informants, though by stipulation, the Defendants could only acknowledge nine of them. After all, it would look far worse if informants numbering over twice their number, instead of a paltry 2-person advantage, outnumbered the seven people on trial.
The Written Word
Given that the law is composed of written words, it should be those words and what they intended that controls the Jury. It is those words that, of themselves, should be the objective of the determination of the Jury as to the validity of the law.
So, let’s look at some of the Counts that the jury is charged with determination as to whether each of the parties is guilty, or not. If someone is named in a Count, then that person, and any others named therein is a separate deliberation. In some instances, we will have to look to the past to understand the intent, and we will also have to look at a legal definition that applies to us, though the government redefines that same word when it works to their benefit.
The General Charges:
On {13-14}:THE CHARGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANTSThe government has charged the Defendants, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, and Neil Wampler, with committing various crimes in violation of three different criminal statutes as follows:
In Count One the government charges each of these Defendants with “Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States” in violation of 18 United States Code § 372.
In Count Two the government charges Defendants Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, David Lee Fry, and Jeff Wayne Banta with Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation of 18 United States Code § 930(b). You may recall at the beginning of this trial I told you Count Two was also pending as to Defendant Shawna Cox. Count Two as to Shawna Cox is now no longer before you. Do not speculate about why that charge is no longer part of this trial.
In Count Four the government charges Defendant Kenneth Medenbach with Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.
In Count Five the government charges Defendant Ryan Bundy with Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.
Please note that Count Three is not pending in this trial.
Now, you will note that Count One has seven Defendants, Count Two has four Defendants, Count Four has one Defendant, and Count Five has one Defendant. Therefore, the Jury is, in a sense, deliberating on 13 different cases — Each Defendant, singularly, to each Count that he is charged with.
Note, also, the wording of the violation within each Count. There will be even more detail, below, but, then, this is where it gets really interesting.
However, a final comment, before we proceed:
On {16}, we find a simple statement:
An informant may not be considered a co-conspirator. Thus, the acts and statements of an informant cannot form the basis of an illegal conspiracy or be attributed to any Defendant.
So, these are not even law enforcement officers, yet they have immunity from being charged with criminal activity that you or I could be charged with. Now, that is police state reasoning.
Count One
From {17-19}:
As noted, each of the Defendants are charged in Count One with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States in violation of 18 United States Code § 372. In order for any Defendant to be found guilty of Count One, the government must prove as to that Defendant each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, beginning on or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through on or about February 12, 2016, there was an agreement between two or more persons, and an object of that agreement was to prevent an officer or officers of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of his or her office by force, intimidation, or threat; and Second, the particular Defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of that objective and specifically intending to help accomplish it.Now, we have all heard the legal expression, “on or about”, but here we have three months and one week in which the alleged crime occurred. I understand that her instructions sort of, kind of, explain it, but if someone is charged with a crime, shouldn’t the day, with reasonable tolerance, be necessary to establish that a crime had been committed? Or, is it sufficient to just sort of throw the whole darned calendar in and say that it happened on one of those days?
Now, is arrival at the Refuge proof of involvement in the conspiracy? If so, would that date, or at least the day that the accused became hardcore is indispensable to the charge? How can the jury determine if someone did something, when the jury really doesn’t know exactly when they did it? Or, is our justice system based on the guess/opinion of law enforcement officers?However, this gets even better. There is an article that covers this aspect more extensively at “Officer? What Officer?“. However, we will address the short version, here. To do so we must first look at the wording of the Statute:18 U.S.C. § 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If etwo or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
Now, we are a nation of laws, and those laws are written so that we can, as the People, read and understand just what the law is. Not what some judge wants it to be, since then we would be a nation of men, not of laws.You will note that the law says “officers”, it does not say employees.
However, on {19}, she provides a redefinition of officers:
The term “officer of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management” means any person who is employed either full-time or part-time by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or Bureau of Land Management.
So, she has redefined “officer” to include secretaries, custodians, and even part-time employees, as officials of government. However, if you decide to read “Officer? What Officer?“, you will see that “officer” is a much higher level of employee than what the Judge has decided (rule of man) to force upon the jury, in their deliberations {21-22}.
ELEMENTS OF COUNT TWO: POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES
As noted, Defendants Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, David Lee Fry, and Jeff Wayne Banta are charged in Count Two with Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation of 18 United States Code § 930(b). In order for any of these Defendants to be found guilty of Count Two, the government must prove as to that Defendant each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, beginning on or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, the particular Defendant possessed or caused to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon;
Second, in a federal facility;
Third, the particular Defendant acted knowingly;
andFourth, the particular Defendant — or someone the Defendant intentionally aided and abetted — acted with the intent that the firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime (in this case the Count One charge of Conspiring to Impede Officers of the United States) at least in part within that federal facility.
A defendant may not be found guilty of Count Two unless he or she is found guilty of Count One. If your verdict on Count One is “not guilty” as to a particular Defendant, then your verdict on Count Two must also be “not guilty” as to that Defendant.
The term “federal facility” means a building or part of a building owned or leased by the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
She then further defines this Count Two in more detail {23-24}:
First, Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities, as defined in these Instructions, was committed by someone;
Second, the Defendant aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured that person with respect to at least one element of Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in FederalFacilities;
Third, the Defendant acted with the intent to facilitate Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities, as defined in these instructions;
andFourth, the Defendant acted before the crime was completed.
Note that the second set seems to suggest “aiding, counseled, commanded, induced or procured“, however, we find no such wording in the Statute (below). We have to wonder just how Judge Anna Brown makes this stuff up.
So, let’s look at what the Statute says, though with irrelevant paragraphs omitted, and qualifying paragraphs included:18 U.S. Code § 930:
Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d),
whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law;
or(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
By omission, the Judge has left the jury with a total misunderstanding of the law. Some information can be found in “Firearms Not Allowed“, which will explain that the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in their brochure, stated that firearms come under State law.
Now, the Indictment addresses only paragraph (b), and the instructions, in both First and Second, say:
“possessed or caused to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon… in a federal facility”
The Third and Fourth give us:
“Defendant acted knowingly… acted with the intent that the firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime (in this case the Count One charge of Conspiring to Impede Officers of the United States).”
I believe it was rather gracious and surprising, that the qualifier of having to be found guilty of Count One was included. However, she leaves the jury with an impression that it is illegal to possess a firearm in a federal facility.
For example, (a) makes it illegal, without the crime aspect, subject to the exceptions in (d)(3), which makes that “other lawful purposes” demonstrates that possession in such a facility is an accepted practice. Then (h) provides that the property must be posted.
If the jury had such information, would they be less likely to find someone guilty? After all, the Second Amendment, as was attested to in Court, provides that the Defendants had every right to possess those firearms, providing a completely different standard to the jury, upon which to weigh any aspect of firearm possession.
At least, given the entire Statute, the jury could determine, supposing that someone was found guilty of Count One, whether their possession of a firearm at the Refuge would have been within the acceptable provisions of the Statute, or was specifically with criminal intent. As the Judge gave it, if they were Guilty of Count One, they would also be guilty of Count Two.
Count Five
This Count charges Ryan Bundy with theft of a camera, or cameras. However, the evidence shows that the cameras were retained and made available for the FBI to pick them up at a press conference, or at any other time, at the Refuge.
So, perhaps we should start with “theft” in common legal usage — which would apply to you, or to me. This is from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:
Theft. A popular name for larceny. The taking of property without the owner’s consent. People v. Sims, 29 III. App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, 179. The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.
It is also said that theft is a wider term than larceny and that it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession of property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker’s own use is guilty of a “theft”. Kidwell v. Paul Revere Fire Ins. Co., 294 Ky. 833, 172 S.W.2d 639, 640; People v. Pillsbury, 59 Cal.App.2d 107, 138 P.2d 320, 322.
Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.
See also Auto theft; Embezzlement; Extortion; Intimidation; Larceny; Robbery; Theft by false pretext.
There was never any intent to convert the property to the use of Ryan Bundy, or any other person at the Refuge. The offer to return the property was made within hours of the removal of the cameras.
Now, as far as consent, well, there was no name on the cameras, so there was only an assumption that they were owned by, or under contract to the FBI. However, let’s look at what you might do if someone were spying on you. Suppose you found an audio “bug” in your house. You don’t know who it belongs to, but you assume that it is either a private contractor (private eye) or the government. Now, if you took it down, is it stolen? Suppose you put a sign on your front door, “Bug Found, will return to the owner upon proof of ownership. Please enquire within.” Have you stolen it?Now, if you sold it, or managed to connect it to your Smartphone, for your own use, then, well, you have stolen it.
However, let’s, once again, look at the Statute that Ryan Bundy is charged with:
18 U.S.C. § 641: Public money, property or recordsWhoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof;
orWhoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted –Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
Well, I can find nothing in that Statute that is applicable to the circumstances of the charges made against Ryan Bundy.
So, now, let’s look at how the Judge decided to instruct the jury, with regard to his Count {25-26}.
First, the Defendant knowingly stole or converted to his own use or the use of another cameras and related equipment, with the intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of this property;
Second, the cameras and related equipment belonged to the United States;
andThird, the value of the cameras and related equipment was more than $1,000.00.
A person acts “knowingly” if the person is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. You may consider evidence of a Defendant’s words, acts, or omissions, along with all of the other evidence, in deciding whether a particular Defendant acted knowingly.
A person acts “with the intention of depriving” the owner of the property if the person has a purpose or conscious desire to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property.
Now, note that in the First, it begins with the “stole or converted to his own use or the use of another”, while the Statute says, “Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another.”
So, both the instructions, which were somewhat ambiguous, and the Statute are contrary to the word “theft”, as it would apply if something were stolen from you or me. However, we can look to the definition of “with the intention of depriving“, which was never the purpose of the actions by Ryan and others. Their sole purpose was to protect themselves from intrusive spying being conducted on them, and nobody has come forward with a warrant to allow that spying by the federal government.
Comtinued:
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
continuation . . . . .
For a final thought on the legality of the government spying, the camera was mounted on a public road. To install those cameras, it would require both a “right-of-way utilization permit” and permission from the owner of the poles that they were mounted on, to be legal. The government has shown no proof of either, nor have they shown proof that the cameras were owned by the government. They simply want not to have to answer those questions to the jury, so the issues are obfuscated in the Jury Instructions.
How did we convert (not for our own use or the use of another) the Rule of Law into a system that has become a Rule of Man? Or, in this instance, woman, who converts the written word into something that it was never intended to be the law that was enacted by the Legislative Branch of Government — the Congress?
Deliberations
In the final portion of the 30 pages Jury Instructions, we find what is probably the most problematic portion of the document.
We have all taken multiple-choice quizzes. So, what happens when you find that your answer lies somewhere between two choices, or not at all? Now, when the courts decided to give a simple yes or no worksheet for determination of guilt, what happens if your answer is somewhere between the two? So, here is that Instruction {29-30}:
A separate verdict form has been prepared for you to complete as to each Defendant. After you have reached a unanimous agreement as to the verdict for each Defendant, your Presiding Juror should complete the verdict forms as you have agreed, sign and date them, and then advise the Courtroom Deputy that you are ready to return to the courtroom.
In the forms I have seen, before, it would have a statement such as, “If you find that Mr. X did hold a weapon, you must find him guilty”. Have we become so dumbed down that we cannot, as a jury, rely on the law and the facts, and then judge both?
Let’s look at it this way. We are supposed to obey the laws. The laws are written in English. Those few remaining Americans who speak English should be able to understand the laws, as they are written. So, if they are the laws that we are supposed to read, understand, and then obey, why does the Jury have to have someone interpret them into terms that the Defendants are bound by at trial? Bottom line is that the Jury is not judging the by the law, rather, by what the government wants the law to be.
Challenging that same government for subversion of the Constitution and denial of the enumerated rights of speech, assembly, and redress of grievances has resulted in the government, through chicanery at trial, proving the point that was being addressed when those Americans entered the Refuge back on January 2, 2016.Share this:
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Judge Anna J. Brown didn't have her way, Juror #11 was dismissed and replaced with Juror #18. Deliberations will begin anew.
http://youtu.be/niTscU0spF4
https://youtu.be/niTscU0spF4
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...85d269e2aac87f
Scott Rohter58 mins
Now what about the "other occupation"?
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902)]https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...fs=1&upscale=1[/COLOR]
Ammon and Ryan Bundy – The Other Occupation and the Other Trial « Less Gov is the Best
In case you don’t already know it there are actually two trials going on right now involving the Malheur…
http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...her-trial.html
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
Ammon and Ryan Bundy – The Other Occupation and the Other Trial
Posted by Scott Rohteron Wednesday, October 26, 2011http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...es-300x222.png
Oregon Standoff Trial
The Other Occupation and the Other Trial
By Scott Michael Rohter, October 2016
In case you don’t already know it there are actually two trials going on right now involving the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. One trial is about the occupation of the Refuge which lasted for 41 days and resulted in one death and at least fourteen persons charged with conspiracy. The other trial concerns the occupation of 700 million acres of land in twelve States by the Federal Government. This occupation has been going on for over a century. In some cases it has been going on ever since the end of the War Between the States. This occupation involves 25 % of the land in the whole country.
One trial is being held in Federal District Court in Portland, Oregon where Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five other defendants are being prosecuted on charges of conspiracy to impede federal officers. The other occupation trial is going on in the court of public opinion all across the world where the United States government is on trial for its unconstitutional land use policies in the West, for the way it prosecuted two Oregon ranchers named Dwight and Stephen Hammond for a controlled burn they set on their land to eradicate weeds, and for the violent way in which it brought the 41 day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to an abrupt end, by shooting Lavoy Finicum in the back and leaving him to die in the snow.
In the court of public opinion the liberal news media acts as a kind of filter so you don’t hear the whole story, while in Federal District Court a liberal magistrate acts as a filter so the jury doesn’t get to hear all of the corroborating evidence that defense attorneys want the jurors to hear. So much for “THE TRUTH… THE WHOLE TRUTH… AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP US GOD”… According to Judge Anna Brown so much of the truth is just “too cumulative” to waste the jury’s time with it. She doesn’t want to waste the jury’s time with too much of THE TRUTH!
There is a bitter irony here that hasn’t escaped my observation… If you occupy Wall Street the liberals will sing your praises. If you occupy the waterfront across from downtown Portland they will support you and give you all of the publicity you want.
If you occupy 700 million acres of State land the liberals will defend your motives, extol your virtues, and they will even erect a monument to you out of stone after your death like they did with Teddy Roosevelt. Later they will encourage other Presidents to seize even more State land…
But if you occupy a remote Wildlife Refuge and your name happens to be Ammon or Ryan Bundy and you dare to challenge the Federal governments ownership of State land then that is labeled a conspiracy and the liberals will castigate you and throw you in jail without bail and without a trial. They will deny you the presumption of innocence which is normally afforded even to murderers who do not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community. They might even shoot you in the back with your hands up in the air while you are attempting to surrender.
Pointing out that the government isn’t following the Constitution is a very serious crime worthy of the most severe retribution, including long prison sentences, solitary confinement, and even death. Welcome to a liberal’s view of America.
Categories: International, National, Oregon Tags: Ammon Bundy trial, Coalition of Western States, Sagebrush Rebellion
