Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS #5 Tilting at Windmills
Gary Hunt - Outpost of Freedom
Freedom of the Press #5 – “Tilting at Windmills”
January 31, 2017, 3:36 pm
Freedom of the Press #5
“Tilting at Windmills”
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ndmills-02.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 31, 2017
Well, it has been almost three weeks since the government’s most recent effort to suppress Freedom of the Press. Not really surprising, since they have nothing to go on; they just think that they do. However, Billy J. Williams (aka Don Quixote) and Pamala R. Holsinger (aka Sancho Panza) have spent a bunch of taxpayer’s money on “Tilting at Windmills”. They just do not seem to believe that the Constitution is the very document that created them, and the government that they represent. Well, it didn’t really create them, but it did create the positions that they hold.
Back on January 10, 2017, the government filed the “Government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1689)“. This was discussed in Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, published on January 11. That same day, just hours before #3 was published, the Court filed an “Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1691)“. This, of course, led to my response, on January 12, with Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order. Rather a hectic pace, for three days.
Apparently, the government had some heavy homework, for it wasn’t until January 30 that they made their next move. They filed “Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1788)“, and, not to be out done, they filed an “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1789)“. The Motion (1788) is only 6 pages, but the Affidavit (1789) is 14 pages, 8 of which are actually entering my Article #4 into the record. I sure like it when they expand my readership. Thank you, Don and Sancho.
So, let’s look at the Affidavit (1789), first. The first three paragraphs are explanations of Ronnie Walker’s qualifications. In that third paragraph, we find this rather curious limitation of her authority:
I am an “investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States” within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510(7), authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.
Now, it says that she is “authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.” It does not say that Walker cannot investigate other allegations, but if Walker could, would not Walker have made the point clear. It kinda makes you wonder, since nobody has found the time to provide a statute that I am in violation of. This was first discussed when I received the “Letter- Demand to Cease and Desist“, which I reported on in Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI, when “I asked the agent what statute bound me to the Cease and Desist portion of the letter?” I received no reply. Since they have not provided me a statute (federal law), I am just wondering if maybe SA Walker is moonlighting for the US Attorney.
Now, here is the kicker. In the next paragraph in the affidavit, Walker states:
4. This affidavit is intended to show only facts pertinent for the requested motion and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter.
So, let’s see some facts. In paragraph 15, Walker states that I received:
a Supplement to the original Protective Order, court record #1692, which prohibits any individual or entity from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefromto any other individual or entity by any means.
Well, that is a fact. Any individual or entity that disseminates those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity[,] by any means. Now, that would make almost any person who has read and shared certain of my articles, and presumably, even if you did not read them and only shared them, you have been brought into the “long arm of the Protective Order”, and are subject to the very same punishment that they want to try to hang on me. And, as Walker said, that’s a fact.
Do not let that scare you, because we still have to see if the Court can find some way to reach out of their jurisdiction and grab me, or you, unless, of course, you live in Oregon. But, even if you do live in Oregon, unless you are party to Ammon Bundy, et al, the trial, which will start, again, with Group 2, on February 14, it would not apply to you, either. The reason I say that it can’t reach you is that you have to have aided and abetted a party in the action. That condition exists when two parties work together. We’ll touch on that, a little later..
Then in paragraph 17, we find:
On January 23, 2017, I reviewed the Outpost of Freedom blog at http://outpost-of-freedom.com and observed that HUNT not only had not removed the protected material but had posted new additional discovery information subject to this Court’s original Protective Order (#342), January 11, 2017, Order (#1691), and January 11, 2017, Supplement to Protective Order (#1692). The new CHS discovery information was posted January 23, 2017, in an article by HUNT titled “Bums Chronicles No 55.” In this post, HUNT alleges two individuals are FBI CHSs. HUNT fully identifies one of the individuals and refers to the second individual only by first name and physical description. HUNT draws conclusions based on five FD-1023 reports provided in the CHS discovery. HUNT quoted verbatim text from the CHS discovery reports.
Now, we can move on to the Government’s Motion (1788).
From that Motion:
Hunt told SA Catalano that he did not intend to comply with the terms of the letter. Hunt stated he had two more articles outing CHSs; those articles were in their final review stage before he planned to upload them.
Now, the Affidavit confirms that I had added the one article naming two people, though in the Motion, Catalano’s report indicated that I had informed them that I had two articles nearly completed. Even if the Order were valid, I had advised them of two articles that predate the Order, though they had not, yet, been published.
The Motion then states, after going through the various events that led up to January 30,The Order states that in the event Hunt fails to comply with the Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings.
How very nice of the Court to authorize the government to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings. However, the Order was issued, “in part“. The “in part”, though it had other parts, did address the problem of jurisdiction. As explained in Article #4, the Order clearly states:
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. 1
And, the referenced footnote (1) says:
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.The question was NOT before the Court. The Motion does NOT address that touchy little matter of jurisdiction. So, no ruling has been made with regard to jurisdiction. Nor has the government offered anything within the Motion to suggest that jurisdiction exists for this Court to proceed any further than simply mouthing off, hoping to intimidate me into the Oregon federal District’s jurisdiction.
The Motion ends with the following:
Accordingly, the United States asks that this Court order third-party Gary Hunt to appear in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and show cause as to why this Court should not hold him in contempt.
Well, I doubt that the Court can do any more than the government has done, to ask me to visit Oregon. Unfortunately, my last visit left a bad taste in my mouth. Just two days after I arrived, LaVoy Finicum was murdered on the side of the road. Certain events that occurred just moments before, and shortly after, the murder took place have been left in the hands of the government to investigate. Those events include two shots fired by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the removal of evidence from a crime scene (removed brass), and the failure to report weapons fired by the HRT members. And, that investigation has allegedly been going on for over a year. I say “allegedly” because the government has been so silent on the matter that we do not know for sure.
So, if the government cannot do their job, unless it suits them, it must be left to the Press to inform the people of the misdeeds of that government.
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Ammon Bundy, Burns Oregon, Constitution, courts, FBI, Freedom of the Press, government, Harney County, Honor, informants, intimidation, law, patriots, press, public, US Attroney
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Judge Anna J. Brown had a private meeting with Ammon Bundy's jury panel after the acquittal. It appears she was "fishing" for advice, suggestions additional charges for the prosecution that may result in convictions. That ought to be sufficient to cause an impeachment hearing.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...4598350419706/
Bill Goode uploaded a file.
2 hrs
This document, Document 1804, Filed 02/01/2017, is a motion for Anna Brown to recuse herself from the 2nd trial coming up on 14 February in Portland. I just received this document tonight from Jon Ritzheimer. The meeting described is absolutely unconscionable.
From page 3 - 4 of this document:
"This motion is based upon a private meeting the Court held with the September 7, 2016 jurors after the verdict was received. The Court not only answered questions the jurors had, but also discussed the merits of the case with specific reference to potential misdemeanor offenses that could have been used by the government, including trespass and the perceived inadequacy of a sentence to the government for misdemeanor criminal trespass in reference to the acquitted defendants’ conduct.
"Further, during this private meeting which lasted over an hour, the Court invited “advice for the prosecution” knowing that there still remained seven (7) defendants whose trial was scheduled to begin just a few months thereafter and a trial over which the Court was scheduled to preside."
This judge, Anna Brown, knows zero about judicial ethics. Her prejudice in this entire case is absolutely beyond question.
https://www.facebook.com/rsrc.php/v3...IJdJuO43aG.png
MNWR Doc 1804, 1 Feb 2017 .pdf
Portable Document FormatDownloadPreview
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Defendant files motion to have Judge Amma Brown remobed from Malheur Mosdemeanor Trial
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...emeanor-trial/
Oregon occupation defendant asks court to remove judge from misdemeanor trial
Posted on February 2, 2017 by Doug Knowles
By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown shouldn't preside over the trial of defendants facing misdemeanor charges in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge because she met privately with jurors who acquitted Ammon Bundy after the first Oregon standoff trial last fall, one of the defendants argues in a motion filed late Wednesday.
"The Court not only answered questions the jurors had, but also discussed the merits of the case with specific reference to potential misdemeanor offenses that could have been used by the government, including trespass and the perceived inadequacy of a sentence to the government'' if it had pursued such a charge, Duane Ehmer's lawyer, Michele Kohler, wrote in a motion to recuse the judge.
Kohler argued that Brown also invited jurors' "advice for the prosecution'' during her private meeting that lasted more than an hour after the Oct. 27 acquittals of Bundy, his older brother, Ryan Bundy, and five other defendants on felony conspiracy and weapons charges.
Twenty-six people were indicted on conspiracy and weapons charges in the 41-day occupation of the federal wildlife sanctuary in eastern Oregon last year. Eleven have pleaded guilty. Seven were acquitted last fall of felony charges. Seven, who face both felony and new misdemeanor charges, are set for trial Feb. 14. Charges were dropped against one person.
Kohler's motion follows a recent ruling by Brown that the remaining seven defendants don't have a right to a jury trial on the new misdemeanor allegations. The judge ruled that she would hold a bench trial on those charges once a jury is deliberating on the felony charges of conspiracy to impede federal workers, possession of weapons in a federal facility and depredation of government property.
It's not unusual for judges to meet with jurors after a trial ends to answer questions they may have and personally thank them for their service.
After the acquittals in last fall's five-week trial before Brown, the jurors met with the judge, according to Juror No. 4, who spoke to The Oregonian/OregonLive after the case concluded.
He said he and his fellow jurors didn't feel prosecutors proved the elements of the conspiracy charge and questioned why other charges weren't filed against the defendants.
Ehmer's lawyer argues that the judge's discussions with the jurors should disqualify her from serving as the arbiter of the misdemeanor charges, which include trespass, tampering with vehicles or equipment and destruction of government property.
"The defendant believes that the actions of the Court in discussing the merits of potential misdemeanor offenses with the discharged jurors ... calls into question it's ability to be impartial,'' Kohler wrote.
Brown, in her ruling late last month that the remaining defendants don't have a right to a jury trial on the less serious charges, also wrote that she doesn't find any reason she couldn't preside over the misdemeanor prosecutions.
"This Judicial Officer is not aware of any basis in the record for recusal, and does not find there is anything about presiding over this case to date that would necessitate disqualification,'' Brown wrote.
Yet Brown said she'll refer any request for her recusal to Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman for consideration, who will decide if he'll need further legal filings or oral argument on the matter before issuing a decision.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
Five page motion viewable at source
Page 1 / 5
Zoom 100%
source
Share this:
[/COLOR]
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Teresa Bookshire, Bundy supporter from North Carolina who took time from work to attend a few days fo the first Malheur trial has posted this interesting bit of information on facebook:
Join this group to post and comment.
News Feed
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...b5&oe=59005470
Teresa Brookshire
11 hrs
This is being discussed openly on Facebook, so I will post about it. Darryl Thorne posted an email from his attorney discussing a plea agreement. He states in it that all charges would be dropped, except the misdemeanor trespassing. This includes dropping the conspiracy. The sentencing would be bench probation (which is basically policing yourself) for one year and a nominal fine. He stated that Sandy, Sean, and Dylan Anderson were taking the plea and would go before the judge on Monday or Tuesday. They will not lose their gun rights.
I have believed all along they would drop the conspiracy charges before it went to trial. If you cannot convict the "leaders", it would be even more difficult to convict the supporters. There a couple of reasons I feel they have offered a reasonable plea deal, one being that to just drop the conspiracy charge with an unknown verdict on the trespassing plus charges makes them look pretty bad. The prosecutors WERE upset that the judge was doing a bench trial. By severing the cases, the government knew they were going to be handed a clear cut not guilty verdict. The additional charges were their saving face. A jury is more likely to convict on the lessor charges if they feel the defendants did SOMETHING but they aren't convinced with the BIG charge. Next comes the motion Duane Ehmer filed. When Judge Brown decided she would hear the lessor charges on a bench trial, my first thought was the Oregonian article where she had discussed with the jurors the verdict and charges from the first trial. And I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. If it was a concern for me, judicially it should be a concern. So now this case becomes even more complicated. If a bench trial is upheld, a new judge would have to hear it. But, he would not have been in court for the conspiracy trial. Judge Brown had indicated she would hear additional evidence for the additional charges after the conspiracy trial, assuming most of what she needed to know would be revealed in the conspiracy trial (or relying on her memory from the first trial). All of this testimony and witnesses would have to be recreated for a new judge, on misdemeanor charges.
My next thought was the sudden changing of the winds. The investigation into Love started in 2015. Now, suddenly, right before the Nevada trial, he is found guilty of misusing his position. Then, almost tripping over each other, the enhancement charges in Nevada are dropped. Add in a sudden reasonable plea offer. We have a new administration, and with the public outcry that has been going on for over a year, I believe it is possible all of this is being directed by a hand we can't see (and of course, the might hand of God).
There will be some that will not be pleased that some will accept the plea offers. I ask you to still stand will all of our P3's and whatever decision they make. I will post what a very good woman and friend, Charlotte Sines, quoted:
Friends - I'm often reminded of James Monroe in times such as these..."There is a price tag on human liberty. That price is the willingness to assume the responsibilities of being free men. Payment of this price is a personal matter with each of us."
We have 3 that were not offered this plea deal for whatever reason. I know of one, Duane Ehmer, who says and repeatedly has said, that he would not take a plea deal as he was not trespassing. I will stand and support any that do not take a plea deal. To those that take them, well done-refusing all previous plea deals. It has been a long and hard year standing. My prayers continue for all of our men and women and their families.
2 Likes2 Comments
LikeCommentShare
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1553...5490819099412/
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
More on the plea bargain from Kelli Stewart
To see more from Kelli Stewart on Facebook, log in or create an account.
Sign UpLog In
English (US) · Español · Português (Brasil) · Français (France) · Deutsch
Privacy · Terms · Advertising · Ad Choices · Cookies · More
Facebook © 2017
News Feed
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...12&oe=590C8C1D
Kelli Stewart
11 hrs ·
Just hung up with Sandy and Sean. THEIR CONSPIRACY/FELONY CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED UPON THEIR FORMAL MEETING NEXT WEEK-----Dillon, Daryl and the Andersons (only those 4) were offered a KILLER plea deal and are all moving forward with it. (Duane was offered a deal but unsure of what the plea offered was- he said no) Trespassing charges only .. no loss of 2nd amendment rights 1 yr probation instead of the 5 they could get of Brown finds them guilty .. No conspiracy charge either .. They prayed and debated and counter offered and in the end felt peace about moving forward. Sandy and Sean are truly the most bad *#% couple I have ever met (along with Jeff and David). I trust them completely and know that when death was at their door, they still stood. Each person has to look at their offers and do what is best for them. Sean was offered from day 1 a plea of 5 yrs in jail and Sandy walks free.. they both said NO! Had it been me, I would have considered that just to see my spouse walk. They have held out and made the government come to their terms and I say, do what you feel peace about doing. They know first hand how it feels to be abandoned in the middle of war and they themselves stood to the very end .. I have nothing but respect for their patriotism.
We still have Jake, Duane and Jason heading to trial on the 14th. Please do what you can to show up to trial and stand with us as we await the next NOT GUILTY verdict.
#stand
Sandy Anderson III.. more grit than most men.. https://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...1/16/1f602.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...1/16/1f602.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...1/16/1f602.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.png xoxoxo
Roger Roots
(Along with the conspiracy charge, They want Jake and Duane for digging the ditch, Duane on gun charges and they want Jason because he has been a very vocal Patriot who speaks up for his rights and they are hoping to silence these 3 with jail time.. lets show up and remind them they have NO CASE!!!!)
81 Likes 32 Comments 54Shares
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00011813922844
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Arizona State Senators invite Finicum family to a special meeting on their day off
Arianna Brown with Jeanette Finicum and Tierra Belle Collier.
1 hr ·
I just had an incredible day. Yesterday, my family attended a meeting with some members of the Arizona State Senate regarding my dad’s killing and other actions of misconduct and abuse from our over-reaching Federal Government.
Senator Sylvia Allen heard what happened to my father and called this meeting to session, inviting my family to attend. She and eight other members of our senate met together, on what would have been their day off, and discussed several instances where our own Federal Government were acting lawless.
The main talking points were my father’s killing, BLM abuses, and the Patriot Act (and it’s successful shredding of our constitution) These senators were shocked and upset and it was heartening to see members of my own senate want to take a stand. They are writing letters and requesting a congressional hearing, they want the State of Arizona to be behind my family in the wrongful death suit when it comes to court. It was incredible to witness!
51 Likes 13 Comments 45 Shares
https://www.facebook.com/arianna.m.b...10475482816170
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Amazing photo of LaVoy's saddled horse in the funeral procession. A shaft of sunlight through the opening of two juniper trees across the empty saddle
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Collusion or Conspiracy - Gary Hunt - Outpost of Freedom.
Gary Hunt says Anna J. Brown is an Article III judge. She may be, but Dr. Trowbridge has cast much doubt on her court being an Article III court. From his research and writings it is an Article IV administrative court. She may also be an administrative law judge. Both the court and the judge must be Article III to hear constitutional arguments.
According the the President her compañero en trabajo in the neighboring state of Washington is a "so called judge".
Burns Chronicles No 57 – Collusion or Conspiracy?
February 4, 2017, 9:40 am
Burns Chronicles No 57
Collusion or Conspiracy?
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ponse-Team.jpgGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 4, 2017
On October 17, 2016, shortly after the very just verdict of “Not Guilty” was announced in the Ammon Bundy, et al, Group 1 trial, a meeting was held in the Mark O. Hatfield Federal District Courthouse. The 12 jurors, Judge Anna Brown, and a court reporter, attended the meeting. It lasted about one and a half hours.
It is my understanding that such a meeting is not unusual. However, circumstances surrounding this particular meeting are, to say the least, quite unusual, considering context. That is exactly what we are going to do.
The first irregularity occurred when the Prosecutor moved to have the trial declared “complex”, which allowed the Court to circumvent the right to a speedy trial and to break the defendants up into two groups. The first Group (mostly leaders) was tried in September and October 2016, and the second Group to be tried beginning in February 2017. While the delayed trial date was agreeable, as the Defendants needed the additional time to prepare their defense, one drawback is that many of the Defendants were held in custody until the verdict was reached, in the first trial. The latter trial date made the government’s case easier, as they had smaller groups to try, and it gave time to elicit plea bargains, thereby reducing the number who would be prosecuted at trial.
Next, during the pre-trial “paper chase”, with hundreds of motions filed, answered, and finally ruled on, there is no doubt that bias existed on the part of Judge Anna Brown. Behind the scenes, many of us followed this legal maneuvering for months. It seemed that even when the arguments presented by the defense were well supported, Judge Brown would still rule against the defense and in favor the Prosecution.
During the trial, there were rather strict rules imposed on the defense, especially when they sought to call additional witnesses to testify. Judge Brown ruled that to allow that would be “repetitive”. However, the prosecution showed a 1-minute video of approximately twenty of the occupiers firing across a canal. The fact that the Prosecution showed that footage four times, however, was not considered “repetitive”.
Finally, and here we get to the meeting, Judge Brown called all of the participating jurors into the meeting, after dismissing the alternate jurors. In that meeting, she explained that she would answer their questions, if they had any. She also asks some questions, and explained that the answers would help the prosecution and the defense. So, just how could it help the defense? The Defense prevailed. It could only help the Prosecution gain insight into the jurors’ minds in order to determine what they would need to overcome to obtain guilty verdicts in the Group 2 trial.
Some jurors indicated that had the charges been less serious, like simple “misdemeanor trespass”, it would have been much easier to render a guilty verdict.
Let me interrupt, for a moment, and point out that the Judge holds office under Article III (Judicial Branch of Government), and is, in essence, an impartial referee. Her job is to “administer law in a court of justice”, “to control the proceedings”, and to make “decisions of questions of law or discretion”. Her job is not to favor one side over the other, but rather to stand aside, interjecting only to the extent necessary to assure a fair trial.
There is no doubt that Judge Brown, confounded by the not guilty verdict, passed the insight she obtained from the meeting with the jurors to the Prosecution. The Prosecution, after waiting a few months, charged some of the remaining defendants with several misdemeanor charges, though all seven defendants were charged with “misdemeanor trespass”.
Remember, the jurors said that they might have convicted if the charges were to lesser offenses. So, the likelihood of getting a conviction, no matter how small the charges, would be a sort of redemption for the dismal failure in the first trial. After all, the government has spent, according to some with access to such information, over one-hundred million dollars on the persecution, with nothing to show for it. So, Judge Brown adds these new misdemeanor charges to the trial docket.
Concerned that even though the first jury might have found them guilty on lesser charges, Judge Brown, in a rather patronizing manner, asks both sides to present arguments as to whether the misdemeanor charges should be heard by the jury or treated as a bench trial, where the Judge would rule on innocence, guilt, and punishment. Of course, we knew what her decision would be, even before the arguments were presented. With total disregard for the Constitution, as explained in “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, she used her “discretion” to hold the trials at the same time, in front of the jury. When the jury goes to deliberate the felony charges, she will continue with the bench trial, and find them guilty as charged and will withhold any sentencing until after the jury verdict has been rendered.
Now, there are three parties in a trial. There is the Judge, a member of the Judicial Branch of government. Then, there is the US Attorney, a member of the Executive Branch of the government, and, finally, the defendants, members of the “We the People” Branch of the government.
Judge Brown, the supposed neutral party, has already crossed the line that is to separate the Branches of government, in our tripartite system of government. And, that is an illegal act, defined as collusion.
collusion An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or an object forbidden by law. It implies the existence of fraud of some kind, the employment of fraudulent means, or of lawful means for the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose. A secret combination, conspiracy, or concert of actions between two or more persons for fraudulent or deceitful purposes. Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition
Under this circumstance, the collusion between the two separate branches of government, to defraud the defendants of their rights, we can find a more apt descriptor for what has transpired throughout, though even more so, in these waning days of the legal battle between government and the occupiers. Since both parties to the collusion are officials of government, the higher descriptor of conspiracy (Yes, that same charge brought against the defendants) is far more appropriate.
[T]hough individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.
Alexander Hamilton – Federalist Papers #78* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Epilog
As this article was being written, the Prosecution offered four of the seven remaining defendants a plea deal that they chose not to refuse. They will be found guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, sentenced to time served, given one year of “bench probation” (meaning no reporting, etc., simply stay out of trouble), and will not lose their right to bear arms. The only stickler is that “restitution” will be determined at a later date.
So, the government did get some of the defendants guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, perhaps assuming that the charges of “misdemeanor trespass” will flow more easily from the lips of Judge Brown, when she will surely convict the remaining defendants of the same “misdemeanor trespass” charges.
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Anna Brown, Bundy, Burns Oregon, courts, demonization, FBI, government, Harney County, Honor, Judge, judicial tyranny, jury, law, Moral Values, patriots, Prosecution
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Epilog
As this article was being written, the Prosecution offered four of the seven remaining defendants a plea deal that they chose not to refuse. They will be found guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, sentenced to time served, given one year of “bench probation” (meaning no reporting, etc., simply stay out of trouble), and will not lose their right to bear arms. The only stickler is that “restitution” will be determined at a later date.
So, the government did get some of the defendants guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, perhaps assuming that the charges of “misdemeanor trespass” will flow more easily from the lips of Judge Brown, when she will surely convict the remaining defendants of the same “misdemeanor trespass” charges.
Could be a lot worse but it isn't justice!
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cebu_4_2
Could be a lot worse but it isn't justice!
The restitution could be in the 100s of thousands of dollars.
