Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Judge Brown's order silencing Gary Hunt
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1691 Page 1 – 5
Share this:
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Maxine Bernstein, The Oregonion report on Judge Anna Brown's protective order
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...ia_man_24.html
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on January 11, 2017 at 4:12 PM, updated January 11, 2017 at 11:46 PM
Judge gives California man 24 hours to remove online posts about FBI informants in refuge case
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...4f1ed2befd.jpg
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, in a written order issued Wednesday, gave Gary Hunt 24 hours to remove all posts he shared online that contained information from sensitive FBI reports on informants used during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
The judge also ordered Hunt, a California man with ties to a network of militia groups who has posted articles about the informants and quoted excerpts of the FBI records on his Outpost of Freedom website, to stop doing so immediately.
If Hunt fails to comply with the judge's order once he is personally served with it by the FBI, prosecutors may pursue a contempt of court or other enforcement proceeding in the appropriate court jurisdiction, Brown wrote.
The judge said she did not rule on which federal court would be appropriate to bring such a sanction since she wasn't asked that question.
Should prosecutors figure out who provided the protected FBI reports to Hunt, the judge instructed them to seek appropriate enforcement steps "without delay,'' her ruling said.
While the judge acknowledged that the protective order she issued in March for the 246 pages of FBI reports on informants does not specifically say that it applies to people who are not party to the federal conspiracy case against refuge occupiers or their defense teams, she said it's well-established in case law that the court may prohibit a third party from violating a court order when he or she actively "aids or abets'' in the violation of the order.
Since the reports that prosecutors shared with the defendants and their lawyers did not identify the informants, yet Hunt has identified a handful by name based on his review of the documents, the judge concluded that Hunt has "aided and abetted the dissemination of materials covered by the Protective Order.''
Hunt was visited by an FBI agent on Jan. 5 and handed a "cease and desist order'' from a federal prosecutor to remove the posts on the informants and turn back the documents to the government. After that visit, Hunt said he did not believe the protective order applied to him because he's not a defendant nor a member of the defense team.
He said he was posting the material on his website because he believes it could help defendants who are set for trial next month. Ammon Bundy and six co-defendants were acquitted in late October of federal conspiracy, weapons and other charges. Seven other defendants are set for trial on Feb. 14. Eleven pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy and await sentencing.
On Wednesday, Hunt, who described himself as a journalist, said he received a call again from an FBI agent who wanted to meet him at a local restaurant to serve him with the judge's order. Hunt said he wouldn't even know how to remove the posts that he already placed online, if he decided to do so. He said he'll be consulting with lawyers.
"They insist I have the right to be heard, and they don't give me a right to be heard,'' he said.
And, he wrote in his latest online article, "For the record, I have never spoken with any of the defense attorneys or investigators in this case. The closest I have come to that is speaking with some of the defendants. However, I have heard that the defense attorneys do like my work, and some even look forward to my next article.''
The judge noted that she ruled previously that the government wasn't obligated to share the identities of the informants with the defendants. "Thus, the information in Hunt's postings should not be publicly available,'' Brown wrote.
Brown also issued additional language in the protective order to make sure there's no further questions about whether people who are not parties to the refuge case are covered by it.
It now says: "Any individual or entity that obtains materials protected by the Court's Protective Order is prohibited from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means,'' Brown wrote.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Free Range Report has an article on Ammon Bundy's attorney Marcus Mumford's treatment by the US Marshal's Service
http://freerangereport.com/index.php...er-acquittals/
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=840%2C200Ammon Bundy’s attorney dogged by federal prosecutors following October acquittals
January 11, 2017 editor Leave a comment
Moments after the stunning Oct. 27 acquittal of Bundy and his co-defendants, Mumford argued that Bundy should be immediately released to walk freely out of the courtroom. Half a dozen U.S. Marshals quickly closed in as Judge Anna J. Brown explained that Bundy was still under a custody hold over his pending charges in Nevada, related to the 2014 standoff at his father’s Bunkerville ranch.
Federal Prosecutors Plow Forward With Criminal Charges Against Bundy Lawyer Tased in the Courtroom
Other lawyers outraged by the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington pursuing the charges
Federal prosecutors pressed forward Friday with charges against lawyer Marcus Mumford that back up the claims of a handful of U.S. Marshals who tackled and Tased Mumford as he argued in court for the release of his client, Ammon Bundy.
Moments after the stunning Oct. 27 acquittal of Bundy and his co-defendants, Mumford argued that Bundy should be immediately released to walk freely out of the courtroom. Half a dozen U.S. Marshals quickly closed in as Judge Anna J. Brown explained that Bundy was still under a custody hold over his pending charges in Nevada, related to the 2014 standoff at his father’s Bunkerville ranch.
But Mumford grew increasingly impassioned, and the marshals ended up piling atop him and shocking him with a stun gun. They arrested him and charged him with failure to comply with a federal police officer and impeding government employees.
Some observers had expected the government to drop the charges. But prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington today plowed ahead on misdemeanor charges that could make them look ridiculous.
It’s a strategy of doubling down by federal prosecutors. The office of U.S. Attorney for Oregon Billy Williams was humiliated by the October acquittals of protesters who occupied Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Yet the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington—who took over the Mumford case from Williams—continues to pursue the prosecution.
That tack is also reflected in prosecutors’ plan to march forward in February with the conspiracy charges against the second round of Malheur occupiers—the same that they were unable to prove last fall.
Mumford today pleaded not guilty to the charges of disrupting government duties and failing to comply with a lawful order. His lawyer, Michael Levine, said he’d never heard of a similar courtroom situation.
“I truly believe it’s unprecedented and I’ve been practicing law for almost 40 years,” Levine said after the hearing. “I can’t recall an incident where an attorney in the midst of an argument on behalf of his client is tackled and Tased twice, surrounded by the force of the state.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.
The packed courtroom on Friday included most of the defense attorneys in the Bundy case, some of whom wore pins that said “Free Marcus Mumford.”
Defense attorney Matt Schindler, who represented Ken Medenbach in the Bundy trial and was standing about 10 feet from the scuffle on the day of the verdict, said after Friday’s hearing that no one from the U.S. Attorney’s office had contacted him or the other defense attorneys who observed the incident to hear their version of events.
“I’m embarrassed that no one from their offices has contacted me,” Schindler said. “They should contact all the witnesses before they make their charging decision. What the f***? That’s their job. To take the officer’s version of events and evaluate whether to pursue a charge.”
Schindler said he planned to directly challenge the marshals’ version of events outlined in the statement of probable cause issued with Mumford’s citation.
In the statement, U.S. Marshal Colin Fawcett describes Mumford yelling and taking up a “boxer’s stance,” which he called a “pre-assault indicator.” And the statement makes no mention of Tasing Mumford.
Schindler called that version of events “bulls***.”
Schindler said he introduced himself to Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Ohms after Friday’s hearing and offered to testify in the trial scheduled for April.
“I explained that it might make sense for someone in his office to contact me about what I witnessed in the courtroom before I’m a witness and calling all of his witnesses liars,” Schindler said.
“To the extent that someone says that Marcus Mumford took a boxer’s stance and attempted some kind of aggressive or violent action, they’re lying,” Schindler said after the hearing. “That’s just a fact. The guy was trying to make a f***ing legal argument to a judge. So that’s what I’ll say.”
After the hearing, several lawyers stood clustered in the hallway, discussing their surprise that the government didn’t drop the case.
“That’s what I was expecting to have happen and I’m stunned that it didn’t,” Schindler said. “Again, it’s a demonstration of poor judgment on the part of this office. They have made a series of these kinds of decisions and this is another one.”
Correction: This story originally stated the prosecution is being pursued by the U.S. Attorney for Oregon. In fact, the case has been handed to the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington.
Karina Brown
Willamette Week
Free Range Report
Related
Ammon Bundy's attorney tasered, tackled following Oregon standoff acquittalsOctober 28, 2016In "Government Run Amok"
"Very biased" former BLM employee on Oregon standoff jury gets called outOctober 26, 2016In "Bureau of Land Management"
Bundys acquitted in Oregon, face Nevada trialNovember 19, 2016In "Bureau of Land Management"
Share
Tweet
Share
Share
Share
Government Run Amok, Human Rights, In the Courts acquittals, Ammon Bundy, Federal courts, Malheur Refuge, Marcus Mumford, Oregon Standoff, the Hammonds
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom Freedom of the Press #4, The Order
« Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”
Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order
January 12, 2017, 2:23 pm
Freedom of the Press #4
The Order
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...lr-w-crown.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2017
I got a call from FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano, earlier today, January 11, 2017. He told me that he had an Order to serve. We made the same arrangements to meet at the restaurant in Los Molinos. The restaurant only serves breakfast and lunch, so it was closed, but I figured that this wouldn’t take very long.I arrived at about 4:15 pm, and he said that he had to serve me. He handed me the Order, I looked at it and said, “I refuse this service, it is for the District of Oregon, and I am not within that jurisdiction.” I held the paperwork out toward him, but he did not take it, so, I said, “I will keep this, but I want you to tell Judge Anna Brown that I refuse service, as I am not subject to the Oregon District’s jurisdiction.” He agreed to convey the message, and then he proceeded to read certain portions of the Order to me. When he was finished, I reminded him that I wanted Brown to receive my message, and he assured me that he would pass it on. I feel certain that he will. After all, that is his job. We shook hands, and we departed.
Though I had already received two copies of the Order from other sources, I hadn’t read it. The news traveled so rapidly that my phone was in near constant use. However, between calls, I read portions of the Order. As I did so, a smile crept across my face. Now, you may wonder why I would smile after receiving the Order, but my first thought was that Judge Brown had not had an opportunity to read my article, that had gone out just a few hours before. The Order had been docketed, and I received copies just minutes after posting my article. Judge Brown had not had the opportunity to read my response to the Memorandum that had refuted most, if not all, of what she was provided by the US Attorney in the form of the Memorandum to prepare the Order.
Quite frankly, when Brown filed the Minute Order (See Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You), there were two possibilities. First, that she really was holding the government’s feet to the fire, seeking real legal justification for issuing an Order. The other, that she simply wanted the government to give her the paperwork she needed, in the form of a Memorandum, to provide justification to issue such an Order. I decided to act on the former. I had said many things about Anna Brown in the past, few of them complimentary, but if she had turned to the right side, she was deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Her actions, in the past, had been nigh onto dictatorial, and had no foundation in law or justice.
So, let’s look at her Order, and I will comment, as we go. It is dated January 11, 2017.
This matter comes before the Court on the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order in which the government seeks to enjoin a third party, Gary Hunt, from further dissemination of discovery materials that are protected by the Court’s Protective Order (#342) issued March 24, 2016.Through the Affidavits (#1681, #1690) of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker, the government asserts Hunt published excerpts from protected discovery materials on his website beginning on November 15, 2016, and continuing through the present. In particular, the government contends the postings on Hunt’s website identify some of the confidential human sources (CHSs) that the government used during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This information is not only protected by the Protective Order (#342), but the Court also found in its Order (#1453) issued October 18, 2016, that the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense and, in particular, that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs. Thus, the information in Hunt’s postings should not be publicly available.
Well, that is cute. Have I not said, from the beginning, that I was not subject to the Protective Order? Now, she says that the “information is protected by the Protective Order.” That means that those subject to the Protective Order have an obligation to protect the information. She is right in line with my thinking. But, that will change a little later.
Then, she finds that “the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense.” That information was relayed to the defense on October 18, about ten days before the jury returned the not guilty verdict. She also stated, “that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs.”
So, let’s get real. The government gave out redacted copies of the 1023 forms. The defense could not call any witnesses who had been informants. Obviously the information the government, and Judge Anna Brown, were willing to allow the defense to have was totally insufficient for them to prepare their defenses, especially with regard to possible exculpatory testimony those informants might have provided. The Judge, well let’s just go with Brown, from this point on, disregarded the fact that two of the government’s informants testified. Terri Linnell came forward voluntarily, against the wishes of the Prosecution, and testified for the defense. A diligent effort by the defense teams in tracking down Fabio Monoggio, another informant, whose testimony also was beneficial to the defense. Both gave testimony, which may well have turned the tide on the jury’s verdict. This testimony would have been denied the defense under the enforcement of the Protective Order and the subsequent statement on October 18.
This is absolutely contrary to the right protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which says that the accused has the right, “to be confronted by the witnesses against him“. Now, some have claimed that informants, unless they testify, are not witness. However, that is not what the Protective Order (March 24, 2016) says. That Protective Order clearly states what the prohibitions are, to wit:IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Protective Order applies only to
(1) Statements by witnesses and defendants to government officials;
(2) Sealed documents; and
(3) Evidence received from searches of electronic media.
Now, there are only two human objects in the Protective Order. It applies to “witnesses” and “defendants”. Well, I am not exposing defendants, so if the informants are not witnesses, then I am not in violation of the Protective Order. Ergo, the informants are witnesses, so saith Brown.Therefore, Brown has denied the constitutionally protected right of the defendants to confront those witnesses.
The record reflects FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano met Hunt, who resides in Los Molinos, California, on January 5, 2017, and personally served him with a cease-and-desist letter from the government that demanded Hunt remove all discovery materials from his website. Special Agent Catalano also provided Hunt with a copy of this Court’s Protective Order (#342). According to SA Walker, Hunt stated he did not intend to comply with the cease- and-desist letter and did not believe that the Protective Order applied to him. It appears Hunt has not removed the protected discovery materials from his website.
Now, SA Ronnie Walker is quite a character. In the Affidavit upon which the government based the current Order, he uses a Facebook post to allege facts. Well, the fact that something was said is not really a fact, unless what was said was really a statement of a fact (See Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”.) Now, SA Walker does the same. I have never spoken with SA Walker, so, how could SA Walker know that I “[I]stated that did not intend to comply with the cease and desist letter…” At best, that is hearsay, and he probably heard it from Matthew Catalano. However, unlike the Facebook comment in the Affidavit, which was attributed to a source, albeit the fact was not verified, Now, he states a fact, but provides no attribution. And, Brown perpetuates that absolutely arbitrary method of creating facts out of thin air. I doubt, seriously, that the defense could ever get away with such an outrageous approach to evidence.
To the knowledge of the government, Hunt is not a member of the staff of any defense counsel representing any Defendant in this case.The Court issued the Protective Order in order to obviate “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery.” Order (#285) issued Mar. 9, 2016, at 2. The Protective Order (#342) states defense counsel may only provide copies of the discovery in this case to
(1) The defendants in this case;
(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and
(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.
Here, clearly stated, is Brown’s argument to deny the names of the informants to the defense, “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery.”
This brings to mind a couple of things. First, the Protective Order only addresses witnesses and defendants. Now, we have “other individual” added to this list. And, I suppose, rewritten, without hesitation. What gives? What is the fact about who is protected, and who is not?
This leads us to the most significant of these very duplicitous statements that have been advanced by Brown. If a risk of harm or intimidation really does exist, why did the government expose Mark McConnell as an informant back in September? The government set the stage for exposing informants, and now they tell me that I cannot expose informants. What sort of judicial double standard is this? It reeks of hypocrisy and extinguishes any concept of equal justice, under the law.Protective Order (#342) at 1. The Protective Order requires any person who receives a copy of the discovery to “use the discovery only to assist the defense in the investigation and preparation of this case and shall not reproduce or disseminate the discovery material to any other person or entity.” Id. (emphasis added). Defense counsel are further required to “provide a copy of this Protective Order to any person above who receives copies of discovery.”
Id.The Court notes although the literal terms of the Protective Order do not apply to third parties who obtain protected materials from a source other than defense counsel, it is well-settled that the Court may, nonetheless, prohibit a third party from violating a court order when that third party “‘actively aid[s] and abet[s]’” a violation of such an order. Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1995)(quoting Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985)). Moreover, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce its orders within the jurisdiction of the United States. Reebok Int’l, 49 F.3d at 1391.
Well, that is what I have been saying, all along. Thank you, Brown, for pointing out that the Protective Order does not apply to third parties. Since that is what is written, I have pursued my efforts, in total compliance with what was written — by you, Judge Brown, I might add. After all, we are a nation of laws, and we cannot be expected to live by house rules that can be changed at any time. If it is not written, how can one understand what he can, or cannot, do? I went into my efforts based upon what was written. Now, you sort of say that, “well, I didn’t mean what I said (wrote), now, here is what I mean, but failed to say.” It don’t work that way, Brown.
Now, as far as “it is well-settled“, let me suggest that it is only in your mind, and, further, that well-settled only came into existence in your mind when you realized that you screwed up. Your dictatorial highness still has the obligation to be honest, forthright, and to take responsibility for your actions. You are nothing more than a citizen of this country with a job that holds you to a higher standard than it holds me, as you work for the people. You may think that you have a higher privilege; however, really, you have a higher responsibility, especially to the defendants.
Let’s jump in to a little history. Back in the early 19th century, in a country, which lived under a government created by a new concept and a Constitution, it was rightfully stated that judges were the arbiters that the people could rely upon to keep the government within the government’s constitutional limits. They were considered the protectors of the people’s rights. Perhaps a bit more history and a little less arrogance might make you a decent judge. However, as explained above, I have lost hope in you.
In order to make clear in the public record that the Protective Order prohibits even third parties from disseminating protected materials and information, the Court is filing a Supplement to the Protective Order together with this Order.
Perhaps this should have been made clear in the first Protective Order. I believe that the legal term is estoppel. So, I had reliance from the wording of the Protective Order, and a pursued a course of action. Subsequently, as my efforts yielded results, I began, in October, writing articles that contained the information developed from documents I had received. There is no doubt that the US Attorney’s Office and most likely, nearly every judge and clerk in your courthouse, were aware of my articles, and I have that on good authority, should the need arise to establish the veracity of what I just said.
At the time, I received no notice from the Court or the US Attorney. That absence of action from October to January can be described three ways:
1) Silence;
2) Acquiescence;
3) Estoppel.
To more fully understand the implications and ramifications of this inactivity and subsequent activity, you have proven my point by, at this late date, after understanding my challenge to the recent activities of the Court and the US Attorney’s Office, decide that you had screwed up, and now you have now decided to file “a Supplement to the Protective Order“. Sorry, Brown, there are no “do‑overs”, you don’t even get a “participation award”. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw that possibility when they forestalled both legislative and judicial tyranny by incorporating Article I, § 9, clause 3, into the Constitution. And, if the legislative branch cannot enact ex post facto laws, then surely, a Court with limited jurisdiction has no less a prohibition.
Here is a rather interesting statement, “the Court may, nonetheless, prohibit a third party from violating a court order when that third party ‘actively aid[s] and abet[s]’.” Now, I will have to refer the reader to my previous article, Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, where I addressed this whole matter of allegations of “aiding and abetting“. This also extends to the cases cited in Brown’s Order. As explained in the above linked article, the US Attorney simply grabbed stuff, threw it in, and hoped that nobody would pay attention to the fact that the cases cited do not lead to the conclusions that have been suggested. Apparently, even Brown and her clerks, have fallen prey to the devious deception. However, I didn’t, as I pulled all but the obscure District Court citations, and have seen that they have no relevance to the subject at hand.
On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abetted the dissemination of materials covered by the Protective Order, and, therefore, the Court GRANTS in part the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order as follows:
Once again, the words flow wantonly. Aiding and abetting is a potential criminal charge, and, thusly, must be proven. Merely writing those words does not make it true, and cannot provide justification to imply that such an act occurred in order to impose punishment as a result of an activity that has not been tried, only applied. I’m going to toss out a phrase, where, there should be fair warning to the more astute players on the government’s side of the aisle. That phrase, simply put, is “prior restraint”.
1. The Court DIRECTS Hunt to remove all protected material and/or information derived from material covered by the Protective Order from his website(s) within 24 hours of the service of this Order;
2. The Court ENJOINS Hunt from further dissemination of material covered by the Protective Order or information derived therefrom to any person or entity.
3. The Court DIRECTS the government to serve Hunt personally with a copy of this Order together with a copy of the Protective Order (#342) and the Supplement (#1692) thereto as soon as possible and to file immediately in the record a certificate stating it has effectuated such personal service or otherwise ensured Hunt has personal knowledge of the contents thereof.
4. In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.
1Here, we are getting some rather interesting insight. Does She, or Doesn’t She? And, I am not talking about hair coloring, rather, jurisdiction. This will be discussed more, shortly.
5. In the event that the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source from which Hunt obtained the protected materials, the Court trusts the government will seek appropriate relief from the Court without delay.Now, this appears to be a disguised attempt to intimidate me into providing the source of the information, because they really have nothing on me. The Cease & Desist Letter had no effect; this Order has no effect, in my pursuit of bringing to the public, through the Freedom of the Press, their right to know the workings of their own government. This might be an appropriate place to quote from John Adams:
“[W]e have nothing to expect from their justice but everything to hope from their fears."
Adams to James Warren, July 17, 1774, “Papers of John Adams”
[Footnote]1 Because the question is not presently before it, the Court does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings.
I have made my case before you, the public. My case has not been lost on only you, since both the defense and the prosecution await my scribblings. The former with anticipation, the latter with dread. So, there can be little doubt that this sudden concession to the jurisdictional issue is a consequence of their dread.
Now, we can move to another aspect of my writings, that being as to whether the Protective Order extends to me, or stops at those named. This is the ex post facto violation. This is where the Court has now determined, at this late date, to incorporate, and I hate to say it, anybody and everybody that has read any of my articles and/or simply posted or shared them on Facebook. What follows is the Supplement to the Order:
BROWN, Judge.
For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order (#1691) Granting in Part the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, the Court supplements the Protective Order (#342) issued March 23, 2016, as follows:
Any individual or entity that obtains materials protected by the Court’s Protective Order(#342) is prohibited from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.
IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 11th day of January, 2017.
Now is the time to refresh your memory to what John Adams said, and I will repeat at the end of this article. We must decide not to be civilly disobedient, rather we need to stand strong and be civilly defiant — to challenge the presumed authority of the Court in their efforts to quash me, but, more importantly, to defend, at whatever cost, your absolute right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the Freedom the Press, and your right to know the workings of YOUR government.“[W]e have nothing to expect from their justice but everything to hope from their fears.”
Adams to James Warren, July 17, 1774, “Papers of John Adams”
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: administrative agencies, Burns Oregon, Constitution, courts, demonization, Department of Justice, FBI, government, Harney County, history, Honor, informants, jury, law, Moral Values, patriots, US Attormey
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
Leave a Reply
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Marcus Mumford's attorney wants all personell files on deputy U.S. marshalls who tackled, Tased his client
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...ed-his-client/
Marcus Mumford’s lawyer seeks personnel files of deputy U.S. marshals who tackled, Tased his client
Posted on January 12, 2017 by Doug Knowles
http://youtu.be/9JBIZN4ndUw
By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Marcus Mumford's attorney wants to review the personnel files of each deputy U.S. marshal who tackled his client and then stunned him with a Taser in the courtroom after the acquittal of refuge occupation leader Ammon Bundy.
The attorney also wants all emails between the marshals that mention Mumford during last fall's trial.
The requests are part of a wide-ranging motion by attorney Michael Levine for evidence as Mumford prepares to challenge charges that he didn't follow the lawful direction of a federal police officer and disrupted official government duties, both misdemeanors.
Mumford is expected to argue that there was a "pattern of overreaction'' by marshals who "initiated conflict unnecessarily'' during the case, according to court documents.
A hearing on pretrial motions is set for 9 a.m. Feb. 15.
Mumford, who represented Bundy during a five-week trial, was arrested Oct. 27 in U.S. District Court in Portland shortly after the judge announced the jury's verdict acquitting Bundy and six co-defendants of conspiring to prevent federal employees from doing their work at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Bundy and armed followers took over the refuge Jan. 2, 2016, in a protest of federal management of the land.
Marshals tackled Mumford as he questioned the government's authority to continue to hold Bundy on federal charges pending in Nevada and demanded to see paperwork to back it up. Once he was down on the courtroom floor, he was stunned with a Taser, he and his lawyer said.
According to a probable cause statement, the marshals said they moved to escort Bundy out of the courtroom when Mumford positioned his body to block them and began yelling in protest. When Mumford became more agitated, "flailing his arms and raising his voice even louder'' and exhibiting "pre-assault indicators,'' they moved in.
In his motion, Levine has asked for any photo taken of Mumford by the marshals after his arrest, all policies of the U.S. Marshals Service concerning use of force and the use of Tasers in the courtroom, all reports or memos relating to the use of the Taser against Mumford and courtroom security policies and procedures in place during Bundy's trial.
In his request for the marshals' personnel files, Levine asked for any information relevant to bias or previous reports of excessive use of force or lack of honesty.
The motion identified the marshals in the courtroom at the time and involved in Mumford's arrest as: Barbara Alfano, Brian Kelly, Troy Gangwisch, Erik Helsing, Luis Lopez, Timothy Barnard, Robert Endresen, Chad Myers and Colin Fawcett.
Mumford and his lawyer are also seeking any video or audio recording of the courtroom encounter as well as marshals' reports or emails in an earlier encounter on Oct. 17 during a break in the Bundy trial when marshals accused Mumford of "threatening them."
They're also seeking any records related to a meeting that U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown had with jurors after Mumford's arrest and the end of Bundy's trial "wherein Judge Brown described the events in the courtroom leading to Mr. Mumford's arrest.''
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
source
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Published on itmattershowyoustand.com The Scourge of the Patriot Community
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...iot-community/
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/informants.htm
The scourge of the Patriot Community
Informants
I have written a number of articles, under the heading of "Burns Chronicles" the have exposed informants that participate with the FBI in obtaining information about the goings on, both inside and outside, during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, near Burns, Oregon. https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...51%2C442&ssl=1
The government has, with a revised "Protective Order", made it near criminal to read or share some of those articles, as the may contain what the Court has deemed "illegal materials".
Warning: downloading these files may subject you to "Contempt of Court" or "other" legal proceedings. Download at your own risk and peril.
Informant articles as of January 5, 2017 (pdf format)
Informant articles as of January 5, 2017 (Kindle format)
I have also begun a series dealing with the Oregon District Court's efforts to silence information that you, the Public, have a right to know.
Warning: downloading these files may cause you to understand that the government doesn't want you to know some things about how they deal with those who don't comply. Reading this articles may cause serious risk and peril to the government.
Freedom of the Press articles from the first "Statement" through "Freedom of the Press #4" (pdf format)
Freedom of the Press articles from the first "Statement" through "Freedom of the Press #4" (Kindle format)
Freedom Of Speech (Gary Hunt) Defense Fund
If you can, please support Gary in this Important Battle
https://i1.wp.com/www.paypalobjects....ze=1%2C1&ssl=1
| Freedom of Speech - Gary Hunt |
| Option 1 : $5.00 USD - monthlyOption 2 : $10.00 USD - monthlyOption 3 : $15.00 USD - monthlyOption 4 : $20.00 USD - monthly |
https://i1.wp.com/www.paypalobjects....ze=1%2C1&ssl=1
Share this:
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt cease and desit order radio interview archived on Kate Dalley show
https://soundcloud.com/user-45749150...edom-of-speech
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
The investigative team that is turning over reports to the Trump Organization apparently contacted Gary Hunt
https://s19.postimg.org/pi09whxnn/IMG_1462.png
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
LaVoy Finicum's widow carries on his mission
http://www.tribtown.com/2017/01/15/u...idows-mission/
Widow of slain Oregon standoff leader carries on his mission
1/15/17 12:45 PM
SALEM, Ore. — Leaders of an armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in rural Oregon were driving to a public meeting a year ago when police shot and killed one of them at a roadblock.
Now, LaVoy Finicum’s widow and their children are planning to hold that meeting later this month in the same town, John Day. Speakers are slated to talk about the Constitution, property rights and other issues.
“It is the anniversary of my husband’s death. We want to continue with his mission,” Jeanette Finicum told The Associated Press. “The people within counties and states should decide how to use those properties, not the federal government.”
LaVoy Finicum was the spokesman for several dozen occupiers during the 41-day takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and has become a martyr for the movement to transfer ownership of federal lands to local entities. The U.S. government owns nearly half of all land in the West, compared with 4 percent in other states, according to the Congressional Overview of Federal Land Ownership.
Finicum’s cattle brand, an L connected to a V with a floating bar, adorns bumper stickers, black flags and T-shirts seen at conservative gatherings.
Jeanette Finicum has become something of a cause celebre in the year since her husband’s death. She spoke at a rally on the steps of Utah’s capitol. The Tri-State Livestock News, based in South Dakota, recently ran a story describing her dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees. The agency administers 245 million acres of public lands and manages livestock grazing on 155 million acres of those lands.
“It’s been a horrific year,” Jeanette Finicum said in a phone interview from her Cane Beds, Arizona, home. “There’s been so much going on that most people don’t have to deal with when they lose a loved one, like we did.”
She met LaVoy at a barn dance. He told her he was a bad dancer.
“He was right. He had no rhythm,” Jeanette Finicum said with a laugh. They got married 14 days later.
“There isn’t anyone like him that I met in my lifetime, and I don’t expect there will be anyone else who will measure up,” she said, choking up with emotion.
She was a stay-at-home mom all 23 years they were married.
“With him gone, all of the responsibilities have fallen to me,” she said. “I spent the year rounding up, branding and calving.”
Oregon State Police shot LaVoy Finicum three times on Jan. 26, 2016, after he exited a vehicle at a police roadblock in the snowy Malheur National Forest, held up his hands and then reached toward his jacket.
Authorities concluded the officers were justified because they thought Finicum was going for his pistol. But at least one FBI Hostage Rescue Team operator fired two shots at Finicum’s vehicle — shots that were not disclosed during the investigation.
In March, the inspector general of the U.S. Justice Department began investigating possible FBI misconduct and whether there was a cover-up. The inspector general’s office declined to discuss the investigation last week. The U.S. attorney’s office in Portland said it was ongoing.
Jeanette Finicum insists her husband was not a threat and that he was murdered. Her lawyer has said the family plans a wrongful-death lawsuit, and Finicum said she will release more details during the Jan. 28 meeting.
It’s being held at the fairgrounds in Grant County, which neighbors the county containing the refuge.
Public lands make up 66 percent of Grant County’s 4,529 square miles. Jeanette Finicum bristled when asked if those attending the meeting might be inspired to take over federal sites.
“That’s a ridiculous question,” she said. “We will peacefully demonstrate, peacefully teach and stand for liberty.”
Fairgrounds manager Mindy Winegar said local logger Tad Haupt rented a pavilion for the meeting that seats up to 500 people. Haupt, a vocal opponent of U.S. Forest Service management practices, is the one who invited the occupation leaders to speak in John Day, a town of about 1,700, on Jan. 26, 2016.
The FBI expressed no concern about the upcoming meeting.
“Everyone has a constitutional right to assemble, and to free speech,” spokeswoman Beth Anne Steele said.
Grant County Judge Scott Myers granted permission for the fairgrounds, a county facility, to be used for the event, saying rejecting the request could have had more repercussions than allowing it to happen.
Myers said he doubts it will pose a threat but then added, “I have steadfastly tried to convince myself that over the past few months.”
Follow Andrew Selsky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/andrewselsky .
