150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Pete Santilli's Co-host Deb Jordan with an update on the court proceedings 38 minutes

http://youtu.be/T96S97P_dkQ

https://youtu.be/T96S97P_dkQ

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Re...ur_hunting.pdf

Quote:

---

Weapons and Ammunition – Possession of weapons follows all State regulations on the Refuge. Discharge of weapons is allowed only on hunt areas shown on this map during the hunt seasons. Only nontoxic shot may be possessed or used.

---

Arizona Rancher, LaVoy Finicum portrayed as one of the leaders of a "HEAVILY-ARMED OREGON MILITIA" by NY Daily News

LaVoy's widow, Jeanette Finicum has retained California attorney Brian Claypool who plans on filing lawsuits against Oregon State Police and the FBI in about a month. Claypool is also planning on filing a lawsuit on behalf of Ryan Bundy for the bullet in his shoulder.

Quote:

---

The wife of a staunch militia leader killed by police earlier this year plans to sue the FBI and Oregon State Police, claiming her husband’s shooting death was politically motivated.

Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, one of the leaders of a heavily-armed Oregon militia that occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County for 40 days, was shot to death on Jan. 26 as he tried to flee from cops.

---

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2768026

According to this facebook poster the explosives found at the Malheuer Reserves were there before Ammon Bundy's protest. I think this is irrelevant. There are no explosive charges in the indictment so far as I know.

Video of Ammon on the facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/sarah.reddb...74481536312773

Quote:

---

The truth about the "explosives". Nobody brought them. They were already at the refuge. Now why would Fish and Wildlife employees need explosives? As we have so adequately learned, this area of land is so sacred and explosives would most definitely destroy this sacred artifact site. Anybody can testify whatever they want to get a better plea deal or a bigger informant paycheck now but this powerful evidence took place DURING the peaceful protest before anyone knew the devastating outcome. What kind of American would destroy good people's lives for a paycheck? And what kind of government would hire these people to purposely try to destroy good American life and families? The guilt and shame for being involved in such corruption caused my uncle's hired informant, Ted Gardiner, to take his own life after my uncle passed away before trial. No amount of money would be worth the guilt for life.

---

Quote:

---

Ammon Bundy on the phone with the FBI negotiator at the FBI complex. I know crazy right? You're asking yourself...wait a minute...Ammon went to the FBI complex? Why didn't they just arrest him there? Why did they need to set up an ambush to kill days later? Good question. And why would the FBI negotiator not negotiate with Ammon? Because they wouldn't do it if cameras and recordings were around. Why? For this exact reason. It's too hard to cover up all your lies when there is video evidence.
FBI: "So what kind of projects have you been working on at the refuge?"
Ammon: "there was some fire hazards actually in the fire house. Believe it or not. One of the guys out there was a fire inspector for most of his career so we have identified those things and we are getting some of those things cleaned up and getting some of the EXPLOSIVES cleaned up and out of the way. And we promise you, we will not use them."

Amanda Rodgers

---

Quote:

---

The wife of a staunch militia leader killed by police earlier this year plans to sue the FBI and Oregon State Police, claiming her husband’s shooting death was politically motivated.

---

The counterargument is his intentional suicide-by-cop was politically motivated.

:(??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eTVrSpYuIo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewboo

The counterargument is his intentional suicide-by-cop was politically motivated.

:(??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eTVrSpYuIo

---

Why did he walk (drive) into an ambush? Are these people really that stupid? Clive Bundy flying into PDX was the height of stupidity, as well.

A revolutionary never puts himself in a compromised situation willingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

Why did he walk (drive) into an ambush? Are these people really that stupid? Clive Bundy flying into PDX was the height of stupidity, as well.

A revolutionary never puts himself in a compromised situation willingly.

---

Stupidity does what stupid does !

Growing outside of ones hat size !

Outside influences can do that !

Will explain later my thoughts!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

Why did he walk (drive) into an ambush? Are these people really that stupid? Clive Bundy flying into PDX was the height of stupidity, as well.

A revolutionary never puts himself in a compromised situation willingly.

---

I believe they were naive about who and what they were facing. This issue of grazing and land rights has been going on for years between the communist/bolshevik/Jew owned government satanists and ranchers. More than 50 of Cliven Bundys neighbors had been put out of business by this government. There were controls put on Lavoys grazing rights that were impacting his ability to hold on to his ranch. The Hammonds have land the government wants and this corrupt government has been trying to force them out of business.

Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys here? The Bundys and Lavoy were on there way to a neighboring county to meet with the sheriff there and speak to 400 people about the constitution. The government set up an ambush to shut them up. They have a license to kill and they used it.

Those two pieces of shit that commented after that video interview of Lavoy posted by Jewboo on the young turks was disgusting to listen too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

I believe they were naive about who and what they were facing. This issue of grazing and land rights has been going on for years between the communist/bolshevik/Jew owned government satanists and ranchers. More than 50 of Cliven Bundys neighbors had been put out of business by this government. There were controls put on Lavoys grazing rights that were impacting his ability to hold on to his ranch. The Hammonds have land the government wants and this corrupt government has been trying to force them out of business.

Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys here? The Bundys and Lavoy were on there way to a neighboring county to meet with the sheriff there and speak to 400 people about the constitution. The government set up an ambush to shut them up. They have a license to kill and they used it.

Those two pieces of shit that commented after that video interview of Lavoy posted by Jewboo on the young turks was disgusting to listen too.

---

I have 100% sympathy for the cause of the Bundys and their allies. I just don't understand how they could be so naive to not know what they were facing. Probably a lingering belief in "government of, by, and for the people." Surely they knew what the Federal regime did to a mother holding her infant. It's a lesson for us all, to never give the Enemy any benefit of the doubt, or, think for a second that the regime gives an iota of a shit about what we think or say...or whether we live or die.

I would have advised Finnicum to expect an ambush (and act accordingly, either staying put or going in in a defensible manner), and I would have advised Clive Bundy to never fly again after what happened at his ranch.

Ryan Bundy to keep metal fragments in his arm to preserve evidence. Attorney Brian Claypool reports his client will keep the fragments in his arm.

Ryan Bundy to keep metal fragments in arm to 'preserve evidence'


http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...tal_fragm.html

The Bundys

Posted on August 29, 2016by David Robinson
https://mainerepublicemailalert.file...anna.png?w=640 Anna von Reitz
Many people have asked me what our Living Law Firm has done or is doing for the Bundys and others involved in the Oregon Wildlife Refuge Stand-Off.
.
Even I have wasted time and money writing letters and making phone calls and posting on Facebook to no avail—- and just like Thomas Deegan in West Virginia, you can’t help Stubborn and Wrong.
.
Just recently I have had word that one of the Bundys might be starting to listen, but only because they have run out of money to pay “real” attorneys.
.
Sigh.
.
The Bundys are being prosecuted under the false presumption that they are
“United States Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” when they are not.
.
United States Citizens have never been protected by the guarantees of The Constitution, so, as long as you agree that you are a United States Citizen— guess what? There’s no use arguing any “constitutional” defenses. And there is no use arguing that they are being wrongfully prosecuted, because as “United States Citizens” they are subject to every little jot of Federal Code and Statute. That includes “federated” State Statutes, too.
.
Now, have you ever seen a snake try to eat something grossly much bigger than itself so that the intended food gets stuck on its fangs? Unless some kind soul comes along and unlocks its jaws, the snake will thrash around and starve to death.
.
What should happen is that the Bundys and their friends should go into court and say, “Your Honor, there’s been a mistake here, and we made it. We were misinformed about several things. We were told that we had to sign up for Social Security, that it was mandated for us by our government—- and that turns out not to be the case. We were told we had to have Driver Licenses, too, and that turns out not to be true, either. We aren’t United States Citizens. We are United States Nationals so far as international affairs are concerned, and here at home we are what you call American State Nationals. We are sorry about the confusion.
.
Here’s the Social Security Cards we were given and the Driver Licenses, too. And here’s the Birth Certificate our parents were given as the insurance indemnity receipt guaranteeing the well-being and safety of our “cargo”. We were never told what it was until very recently. We thought it was just a record of us being born.”
.
All that should take about 30 seconds, cost virtually nothing, and requires only three documents.
.
“Now, your Honor, this has all been a big mistake— a case of mistaken identity. We must be set free and our losses made whole.”
.
Remember that old snake trying to eat the world? That’s the look on the judge’s face right about now. He and his cohorts have knowingly prosecuted their employers under false presumptions. Their court and the corporation they are working for are on the stick for it.
.
Unless they want to commit war crimes in open court—- crimes that carry the death penalty— they truly do need to do a double flip spin in the air, 180 degree flip-flop in front of God and the whole world— and release the Bundys and their friends and return all their losses, plus damages.
.
The Bundys and their friends actually are the Landlords who are owed the Wildlife Refuge and every other particle of land in the western states. The Federales are just employees, working under contract as property managers.
.
But as long as you put up with this crappola and let the Feds pretend that you are one of them and subject to their rules, you look like a small and tasty bite.
.
Let’s take this a little bit farther—
.
What if there was a man in your community who was known to be a murderer, a bully, and a thief? What if he was also so slick, so cunning, and so adept at pressuring people and buying them off and threatening them, that no matter what he does—- even murder in broad daylight— like Waco and Ruby Ridge
he continues to get away with it?
.
Okay, what if it isn’t a man? What if it is an organized crime syndicate, set up like the mafia, operating as a corporation? And what if that corporation is operating under color of law, pretending to be part of your legitimate government simply because they have a contract to provide “governmental services”?
.
Hmmm?
.
That’s what we’ve got here. That’s what we are dealing with.
.
The private, for-profit corporation literally calling itself the “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” —- this is no joke—-is listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. And under “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” you find numerous subsidiaries including the “BLM” and the “FBI”.
.
“NORTHERN TRUST” is listed as the owner/operator of the “IRS” and the “AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION”.
.
Now, you can go up against these groups of criminals with fists and pitchforks, or you can object to their criminality and liquidate them—-expose them for what they are and how they are operating, bring charges against them, and “pull their charters”. Suddenly, they have no funding, no way to pay for their mercenaries, and no way to harm anyone, unless their shadowy bosses have grit enough to go one on one with Clive Bundy.
.
And I really don’t think they do. That’s why they are hiding behind legal pretenses and false fronts in the first place. That’s why they are so scared of guns.
.
So what I am very broadly suggesting—-again—-to everyone concerned, is to take a bit of advice from George V, the British Monarch primarily responsible for this latest round of thuggery on our soil—–don’t get mad. Keep calm and get even.
.
If any of my readers have direct contacts with the Bundy Clan, or Thomas Deegan, or Schaeffer Cox, or others facing federal prosecution, please forward this blurb to their attention.
.
It’s a very simple, direct, and effective solution. It costs virtually nothing. It’s peaceful. Almost effortless. What more could you ask for?
.
And what do you have to lose?
.
If I am right, you get your freedom— freedom like you have never had before; you get your losses repaired, plus damages, which after what you’ve gone through would be very nice, indeed.
.
If I am wrong, well, there will be some British Subjects set up for the gallows of the new Nuremburg Tribunal, and you can hardly be worse off than you already are.
.
If you have already been tried and convicted “by mistake” submit the paperwork for a mis-trial hearing based on new information and challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
.
Please note that this will not work for people who legitimately are United States Citizens or “citizens of the United States”—– which includes federal civilian and military employees, African Americans, federal welfare recipients (Retirees— remember you are retired and those aren’t Social Security “Benefits” you are receiving if you paid in and were vested in the Social Security System.) or political asylum seekers or if you are knowingly and willingly operating a federal franchise corporation.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

The Bundys

[FONT="]Posted on August 29, 2016by David Robinson[/FONT]
https://mainerepublicemailalert.file...anna.png?w=640 Anna von Reitz
Many people have asked me what our Living Law Firm has done or is doing for the Bundys and others involved in the Oregon Wildlife Refuge Stand-Off.
.
Even I have wasted time and money writing letters and making phone calls and posting on Facebook to no avail—- and just like Thomas Deegan in West Virginia, you can’t help Stubborn and Wrong.
.
Just recently I have had word that one of the Bundys might be starting to listen, but only because they have run out of money to pay “real” attorneys.
.
Sigh.
.
The Bundys are being prosecuted under the false presumption that they are
“United States Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” when they are not.
.
United States Citizens have never been protected by the guarantees of The Constitution, so, as long as you agree that you are a United States Citizen— guess what? There’s no use arguing any “constitutional” defenses. And there is no use arguing that they are being wrongfully prosecuted, because as “United States Citizens” they are subject to every little jot of Federal Code and Statute. That includes “federated” State Statutes, too.
.
Now, have you ever seen a snake try to eat something grossly much bigger than itself so that the intended food gets stuck on its fangs? Unless some kind soul comes along and unlocks its jaws, the snake will thrash around and starve to death.
.
What should happen is that the Bundys and their friends should go into court and say, “Your Honor, there’s been a mistake here, and we made it. We were misinformed about several things. We were told that we had to sign up for Social Security, that it was mandated for us by our government—- and that turns out not to be the case. We were told we had to have Driver Licenses, too, and that turns out not to be true, either. We aren’t United States Citizens. We are United States Nationals so far as international affairs are concerned, and here at home we are what you call American State Nationals. We are sorry about the confusion.
.
Here’s the Social Security Cards we were given and the Driver Licenses, too. And here’s the Birth Certificate our parents were given as the insurance indemnity receipt guaranteeing the well-being and safety of our “cargo”. We were never told what it was until very recently. We thought it was just a record of us being born.”
.
All that should take about 30 seconds, cost virtually nothing, and requires only three documents.
.
“Now, your Honor, this has all been a big mistake— a case of mistaken identity. We must be set free and our losses made whole.”
.
Remember that old snake trying to eat the world? That’s the look on the judge’s face right about now. He and his cohorts have knowingly prosecuted their employers under false presumptions. Their court and the corporation they are working for are on the stick for it.
.
Unless they want to commit war crimes in open court—- crimes that carry the death penalty— they truly do need to do a double flip spin in the air, 180 degree flip-flop in front of God and the whole world— and release the Bundys and their friends and return all their losses, plus damages.
.
The Bundys and their friends actually are the Landlords who are owed the Wildlife Refuge and every other particle of land in the western states. The Federales are just employees, working under contract as property managers.
.
But as long as you put up with this crappola and let the Feds pretend that you are one of them and subject to their rules, you look like a small and tasty bite.
.
Let’s take this a little bit farther—
.
What if there was a man in your community who was known to be a murderer, a bully, and a thief? What if he was also so slick, so cunning, and so adept at pressuring people and buying them off and threatening them, that no matter what he does—- even murder in broad daylight— like Waco and Ruby Ridge
he continues to get away with it?
.
Okay, what if it isn’t a man? What if it is an organized crime syndicate, set up like the mafia, operating as a corporation? And what if that corporation is operating under color of law, pretending to be part of your legitimate government simply because they have a contract to provide “governmental services”?
.
Hmmm?
.
That’s what we’ve got here. That’s what we are dealing with.
.
The private, for-profit corporation literally calling itself the “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” —- this is no joke—-is listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. And under “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” you find numerous subsidiaries including the “BLM” and the “FBI”.
.
“NORTHERN TRUST” is listed as the owner/operator of the “IRS” and the “AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION”.
.
Now, you can go up against these groups of criminals with fists and pitchforks, or you can object to their criminality and liquidate them—-expose them for what they are and how they are operating, bring charges against them, and “pull their charters”. Suddenly, they have no funding, no way to pay for their mercenaries, and no way to harm anyone, unless their shadowy bosses have grit enough to go one on one with Clive Bundy.
.
And I really don’t think they do. That’s why they are hiding behind legal pretenses and false fronts in the first place. That’s why they are so scared of guns.
.
So what I am very broadly suggesting—-again—-to everyone concerned, is to take a bit of advice from George V, the British Monarch primarily responsible for this latest round of thuggery on our soil—–don’t get mad. Keep calm and get even.
.
If any of my readers have direct contacts with the Bundy Clan, or Thomas Deegan, or Schaeffer Cox, or others facing federal prosecution, please forward this blurb to their attention.
.
It’s a very simple, direct, and effective solution. It costs virtually nothing. It’s peaceful. Almost effortless. What more could you ask for?
.
And what do you have to lose?
.
If I am right, you get your freedom— freedom like you have never had before; you get your losses repaired, plus damages, which after what you’ve gone through would be very nice, indeed.
.
If I am wrong, well, there will be some British Subjects set up for the gallows of the new Nuremburg Tribunal, and you can hardly be worse off than you already are.
.
If you have already been tried and convicted “by mistake” submit the paperwork for a mis-trial hearing based on new information and challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
.
Please note that this will not work for people who legitimately are United States Citizens or “citizens of the United States”—– which includes federal civilian and military employees, African Americans, federal welfare recipients (Retirees— remember you are retired and those aren’t Social Security “Benefits” you are receiving if you paid in and were vested in the Social Security System.) or political asylum seekers or if you are knowingly and willingly operating a federal franchise corporation.
.

---

Yeah right, this won't work, at all, ever!

Burns Chronicles No 26 – Firearms (Not) Allowed

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...mouse-trap.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 29, 2016

What happens when one law says that you can and the other law says that you can’t? Well, let’s enter the world of Perplexity and see what we can find.


To begin, we have to look at Count II of the Superseding Indictment. In the Indictment, it reads like this:


(Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities)
(18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)
On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants
[lists names of Defendants], and aided and abetted by each other and by others known and unknown to the grand jury, did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof, with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2.


So, let’s put that into English, in simple terms, “On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016… [The Defendants] did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372.


The first cited statute, 18 US Code §930(b) reads:


(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.


Did those who occupied the Refuge “intend” to shoot anybody; use firearms to force people to leave their duties (18 US Code §372); or, have any other intent than to protect themselves? They had no intention of robbing the place, they had no intention of damaging the facility (instead, they improved it), and, there was no one present for them to impede. This was discussed in a previous article, “Burns Chronicles N^o 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“. From all appearances, and absent any evidence to the contrary, their purpose in having firearms was solely one of self-defense (But more on that, later.). Civil Disobedience, and even Civil Defiance (See Resistance Has Begun), might put one at risk, but then that person has every right to defend himself against an overzealous attack by an overarching government. Absent a lawful warrant: not even the government is justified in shooting someone except in self-defense.


After all, we have about 41 days in which the government claims that something was done, though we are not sure what was done. But, before we get into what was, or was not, done, let’s look at the location, “in a federal facility”.


Then, let’s look at what 18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2 says. Now, understand that US Code is structured in an outline format, such as:


(a, b, c) (1, 2, 3) (A, B, C) (i, ii, iii)


There has to be a lower case letter before any subsequent subparagraph. As written, the “(2)” would be subordinate to the “(a)”. However, “930 (a)” has no subordinate. It is followed by “(b)”. Now, I don’t want to say that the US Attorneys are stupid, so I won’t. But, how can someone know what they are charged with when the citation doesn’t make sense?


Now, (b), (c), (f), and (h), have no subordinates (See bottom of the article), but (d) does, in fact, it has a (2), but those are exclusions (does not apply to-). Then, (e) is rather circular, but (e)(2) is exceptions to (e)(1).


However, (g) has a (2), which may be what just might have been intended, if the US Attorneys knew what they were doing. It says, “(g) As used in this section… The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.” Gee, did they mean “(g)”, and just forgot to say it?


Perhaps they wanted to, but did so rather poorly, to assure that the “or other dangerous weapon” was properly defined.


So, now that we have had to assume (You know what that is) what the (2) might have meant, we can go on to the primary element of the charge, which reads:


(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.
Well, wait just a minute. It says that “whoever knowingly possess… in a federal facility”, but exempts, “as provided in subsection (d)”. So, let’s look at the pertinent portion of subsection (d):


(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—


(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.


Oh, I see. If I take a firearm or other dangerous weapon into a federal facility, so long as it is “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes”, then it is okay.


So, now that we think that we understand the law, after playing legal hopscotch, we can begin to look at what might be lawful, and what might not be lawful. To do so, we have to understand that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) are probably more qualified to make that determination than some FBI geek in Portland. In fact, under the

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ice-300x82.jpgauthority of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, MNWR published a brochure that is made available at the Refuge and other locations in the area. Now, here is what it says about firearms (not to mention “other dangerous weapons”, which it does not).


I can’t say much for the grammar, but we are concerned with intent. It says nothing about any federal regulations; it simply refers to “State regulations“. So, let’s look at what “State regulations” have to say about firearms.


To understand the Oregon statutes, we need to know the foundation. And, what better place to start than with the Preamble to that Constitution:


PREAMBLE


We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution. —


I do like that wording. “Liberty perpetuated” has a very nice ring to it. Now, onto the Bill of Rights, specifically, the right to bear arms:


Article I – Bill of Rights
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.


It says that the people “have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State“. No problem, as with the Second Amendment, in a question of a distinction between militia and people. The right to self-defense and defense of the State is unquestionable.


So, now we go to the Statutes, particularly Chapter 166, but with the understanding that nothing need be granted, since the Constitution does that. Instead, we find only limitations. Though the Statutes address Concealed Carry, there is no reason to venture into that realm, as there is no mention of concealed, only possession, in the Indictment.


Chapter 166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.


(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void


Simplifying (2), we see clearly that “no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, restrict or prohibit the possession of firearms… Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void.” This is consistent with Section 27 of the Oregon Bill of Rights. Now, the statute does grant some specific authorities, such as in,


166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.


Note that what is allowed to be regulated is a loaded firearm, though Harney County has no such ordinance.


166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both.


This, then, would be what amounts to no more than brandishing. You may not, without penalty, point a firearm at someone, “except in self-defense“. Now, that is the very reason that those who occupied the Refuge and set up means of assuring that they could, if necessary, respond, but only in self-defense.


166.220 Unlawful use of weapon. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:


(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015; or


(b) Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge.


(2) This section does not apply to:


(a) Police officers or military personnel in the lawful performance of their official duties;
(b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219;


Here, we see exception for “Persons lawfully defending life or property“. Once again, we see lawful authority to possess the weapons, as was the intention of the people that occupied, peacefully, the Refuge.


So, let’s recap what we have learned.


The federal government, in 18 US Code §930, says that firearms were in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and were intended to be used in a crime, though no crime was committed, and the government is relying on their belief of the intentions of those who intended only to defend their lives. All of the acceptable under Oregon Revised Statutes, which the government deferred to in their brochure. Now, if the government didn’t mean what they said in the brochure, then it is nothing more than a trap in which to ensnare people, if the government really wants to ensnare someone.

But, if that is the case, then the dishonesty of the government is far more egregious than the actions of people that occupied the Refuge (I would suggest “Three Felonies a Day“, by Harvey Silverglate).
I know that the federal government believes that federal law trumps state law. This doesn’t account for the fact that often state law is contrary to federal law (See Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws), but states continue to pass such laws, as it is not contrary to the Constitution. So, if the federal government specifically acquiesces to state law, can they come back, later, and decide that it was okay for them to lie to people?


To me, having covered the misdeeds of government for over two decades, I am not surprised that they have done so. It is wrong for them to assert an undue and unconstitutional authority over both the people and the states. And, as more and more people realize this, the more likely we will see a positive change.

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1633

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

Yeah right, this won't work, at all, ever!

---

In very basic terms Dr. John Parks Trowbridge Jr. is saying the same thing, "you don't have jurisdition over state nationals within the Union States", in his Objection to denial of Due Process of Law and Demand the Court show Constitutional Authortiy to take jurisdiction and render orders, judgments and decrees. . .

Marriage licences, Drivers Licences, Social Security Cards fraudulently issued do not make one a US PERSON or US CITIZEN


Filed last September 14 and yet not answered. The difference is Dr. Trowbridge put the demand in a format acceptable by the court.

https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...e-property.pdf

The prosecution's motion and order to vacate and sell the property of March 3, has has not been signed by the judge. In two weeks it will be a year and still no answer.

Dr. Trowbridge sued the judge in Texas state court to quiet title. The case against the judge was closed and a new case filed against the magistrate. The case was removed to the US District Court against the Magistrate Judge Giblin. 3:16-cv-00086 Trowbridge Jr. v Giblin

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/...e,_Jr_v_Giblin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

I have 100% sympathy for the cause of the Bundys and their allies. I just don't understand how they could be so naive to not know what they were facing. Probably a lingering belief in "government of, by, and for the people." Surely they knew what the Federal regime did to a mother holding her infant. It's a lesson for us all, to never give the Enemy any benefit of the doubt, or, think for a second that the regime gives an iota of a shit about what we think or say...or whether we live or die.

I would have advised Finnicum to expect an ambush (and act accordingly, either staying put or going in in a defensible manner), and I would have advised Clive Bundy to never fly again after what happened at his ranch.

---

These two audios two days before Lavoy was murdered may give you some insight in to their thinking and actions.

The Bundys and Lavoy Finicum weren't revolutionaries. They were trying to work through county sheriffs to protect the people of their counties from the Federal government.

In this first video Lavoy discusses what they were trying to do. The second video is a recording of a call after the first one about the seriousness of their situation and moving to another county with a constitutional sheriff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-m23-7gH9w



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHvO_W8Txfk

The Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury filed papers in the United States District Court 8/22/2016.
Will the Court Clerk put them on the docket? The past filings by these people have been ignored. This latest batch appears to have been written with much thought and research.

The affidavits of LaVoy Finicum reveal the mans character, his knowlege, determination, honor and difficulties with the feds. There are about 245 pages in that file, about 45 are LaVoy.

one of them contains affidavits from Chris Briels, Ammon Bundy, Lavoy Finicum (submitted on his behlaf), Shawna Cox and others.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...to%20clerk.pdf

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...risdiction.pdf

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(the motion to release contains several affidavits)

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(includes Ammon Bundy's affidavit of Ryan Bundy's beating)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

The Bundys and Lavoy Finicum weren't revolutionaries. They were trying to work through county sheriffs to protect the people of their counties from the Federal government.

---

Not thinking of themselves as revolutionaries was a mistake. When you directly challenge the unilateral "authority" and monopolistic lethal power of the Federal regime, you are engaging in "revolution." Perhaps "counter-revolution," but revolution nonetheless.

I concur that the elected County Sheriff should be the relevant county's chief peace officer for all purposes, but the Federal regime doesn't operate under authority, but merely on what power they have assumed. They claim power over all people in all states and subdivisions (counties), no matter what legal theory is offered contrary. They have the deadly force to back it up, too. To date, not a single county sheriff has effectively stood up to the Federal regime on a meaningful issue, either. Look at what the Bolsheviks in Washington are about to do to Joe Arpaio. It may eventually come to pass, but right now, it's suicide for a sheriff to oppose the Federal regime in anything but words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

The Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury filed papers in the United States District Court 8/22/2016.
Will the Court Clerk put them on the docket? The past filings by these people have been ignored. This latest batch appears to have been written with much thought and research.

The affidavits of LaVoy Finicum reveal the mans character, his knowlege, determination, honor and difficulties with the feds. There are about 245 pages in that file, about 45 are LaVoy.

one of them contains affidavits from Chris Briels, Ammon Bundy, Lavoy Finicum (submitted on his behlaf), Shawna Cox and others.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...to%20clerk.pdf

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...risdiction.pdf

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(the motion to release contains several affidavits)

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(includes Ammon Bundy's affidavit of Ryan Bundy's beating)

---

Some people are totally clueless. The "justice system" is a club, and you people aren't part of it. (apology to George Carlin)

I suspect that the people filing these "documents" will soon be put in a cage by the Federal regime. "You can't do this, we have the authority of the Unified United States!" as they are dragged off.

"Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."

-- Mao, and all allied Bolshevists (most of the Federal regime)

Act accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

Some people are totally clueless. The "justice system" is a club, and you people aren't part of it. (apology to George Carlin)

I suspect that the people filing these "documents" will soon be put in a cage by the Federal regime. "You can't do this, we have the authority of the Unified United States!" as they are dragged off.

"Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."

-- Mao, and all allied Bolshevists (most of the Federal regime)

Act accordingly.

---

I expect the Clerk will file the documents like she did the previous one, in the round file.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

Not thinking of themselves as revolutionaries was a mistake. When you directly challenge the unilateral "authority" and monopolistic lethal power of the Federal regime, you are engaging in "revolution." Perhaps "counter-revolution," but revolution nonetheless.

I concur that the elected County Sheriff should be the relevant county's chief peace officer for all purposes, but the Federal regime doesn't operate under authority, but merely on what power they have assumed. They claim power over all people in all states and subdivisions (counties), no matter what legal theory is offered contrary. They have the deadly force to back it up, too. To date, not a single county sheriff has effectively stood up to the Federal regime on a meaningful issue, either. Look at what the Bolsheviks in Washington are about to do to Joe Arpaio. It may eventually come to pass, but right now, it's suicide for a sheriff to oppose the Federal regime in anything but words.

---

I agree and that is my reason for thinking they were naive. Resisting the Federal government gets you killed. Not resisting also gets you killed in the end just as it did in Ukraine when the land, livestock and tools were taken away from the white christian farmers.

I've urged people to read Miron Dolots book "Execution by Hunger" because history repeats and what happened there can and is happening here. It's a look in to the future for what's coming here for us at the hands of our Bolshevik Jew controlled government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Keep an eye on this folks. This could be potentially explosive.. Stay tuned..

---

• Thread Replies: 1,180
• Thread Views: 27,837

This must be one of the longest, well-managed, still-on-topic threads in internet forum history.

Bravo Monty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

I agree and that is my reason for thinking they were naive. Resisting the Federal government gets you killed. Not resisting also gets you killed in the end just as it did in Ukraine when the land, livestock and tools were taken away from the white christian farmers.

I've urged people to read Miron Dolots book "Execution by Hunger" because history repeats and what happened there can happen here. It's probably a look in to the future for what's coming here for us at the hands of our Bolshevik Jew controlled government.

---

I concur: Dolot's work is essential to understand what nearly all governments mean to decent people. Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow is another.

Unfortunately, my grandmother lived it, so I know too much about it.

The Rosenfeld regime "recognized" the USSR during the height of this real "holocaust."

As for resistance, always be at the ready, but once you commit, never make the mistake of thinking you can go back or "negotiate" with the anti-humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

I concur: Dolot's work is essential to understand what nearly all governments mean to decent people. Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow is another.

Unfortunately, my grandmother lived it, so I know too much about it.

The Rosenfeld regime "recognized" the USSR during the height of this real "holocaust."

As for resistance, always be at the ready, but once you commit, never make the mistake of thinking you can go back or "negotiate" with the anti-humans.

---

Your words I've bolded are one of the reasons I've urged people to read Dolots book. Knowing that resistance or even non resistance to the Satanists will bring you death can help you make the decision of whether to die fighting and take some with you or die slowly in a prison beaten, tortured, worked or starved to death.

The Bundys, Lavoy Finicum, the Hammonds and the farmers in Ukraine didn't go looking for trouble, it came to them with the government trying to take their land, livestock, water and grazing rights. All of them just wanted to be left alone to grow their crops, take care of their livestock and raise their families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

The Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury filed papers in the United States District Court 8/22/2016.
Will the Court Clerk put them on the docket? The past filings by these people have been ignored. This latest batch appears to have been written with much thought and research.

The affidavits of LaVoy Finicum reveal the mans character, his knowlege, determination, honor and difficulties with the feds. There are about 245 pages in that file, about 45 are LaVoy.

one of them contains affidavits from Chris Briels, Ammon Bundy, Lavoy Finicum (submitted on his behlaf), Shawna Cox and others.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...to%20clerk.pdf

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...risdiction.pdf

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(the motion to release contains several affidavits)

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(includes Ammon Bundy's affidavit of Ryan Bundy's beating)

---

This is more of stupid and stubborn as national liberty alliance is trying to act as US CITIZENS and run a common law grand jury where they have NO STANDING.

http://annavonreitz.com/meandnla.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/replytodaresh.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/nlaround2.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/amiworried.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

This is more of stupid and stubborn as national liberty alliance is trying to act as US CITIZENS and run a common law grand jury where they have NO STANDING.

http://annavonreitz.com/meandnla.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/replytodaresh.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/nlaround2.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/amiworried.pdf

---

Because they have no standing the documents will be filed in the trash. I am not supporting the NLA; like you I believe they are misguided.

The reason I posted this was to call attention to Ammon and LaVoy's affidavits, as the information contained may reveal their thinking and answer the question why they drove into an ambush. I should have stated that when I made the post.

Tumblweed has provided an excellent expalanation to that question.

Michele Fiore has done things that have made me question her motives, I am not alone. She also made statements about a great legal team to represent Bundys that never materialized.

FIORE, FRAUD, AND THE UNION CARDS

Posted on August 30, 2016 by The Oath with Chastity
By: The Oath
Malheur Wildlife Refuge Occupation

Not long after the final four left the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in handcuffs, Michele Fiore of Nevada showed up at the jail in Portland with LiUNA (Laborer’s International Union of North America) http://www.liuna.org/ blank sign-up union cards. She was able to pass them to the defendant’s housed at the Multnomah County Jail, through a slot beneath the viewing window. The inmates were instructed by Fiore that an attorney would be provided to them via the union at no charge. Many of those incarcerated believed the assemblywoman and signed them and passed them back to her. A few wisely saw this as a ridiculous proposition as none of the prisoners actually worked in the laborer’s industry and the union clearly did not apply to them. One of these cards was ultimately sent to a member of the Oath and we now have one of the actual cards.

https://theoathwithchastity.files.wo...19.jpeg?w=1268

Interestingly enough, several months later when one of the defendants who had signed the card was out on pretrial release, he decided to go ahead and claim that big attorney he was promised for free. After a lengthy conversation with an agent of the union via telephone, he was assured that he was absolutely not listed in their database. The employee continued to ask him what union he belonged to, and when he stated none, she became angry.

The LiUNA union headquarters is located in New York City—Fiore’s native home. We have a source that spoke on the condition of anonymity, tell us that Fiore was able to secure these union cards from one of the big union bosses in New York, because he owed her a favor. What favor could a democratic union boss possibly owe an alleged conservative politician? One must also be made aware of the fact that this same union made a sizeable donation to Michele Fiore, to the tune of $10,000.00. Not a bad little score for having some indicted inmates fraudulently sign some union cards.

One must query, what was the purpose of these union cards? Why was Fiore owed a favor by a liberal union boss in New York, when she votes against the unions in Nevada? Is Fiore all that she professes to be in her pistol packin’ mama GOP routine, or do those New York roots run deep? How would the legitimate members of this laborer’s union feel if their dues were spent providing high priced lawyers for months on end for a complex case on the opposite coast? This union is pro Hillary Clinton and the patriots are upset about the Clinton connection to Uranium One and all of the uranium at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, so why would they want to do business with this union? Let’s not forget that it is illegal to represent oneself as being a memb er of a union, when one does not work in the industry of that union and has never paid a dime in union dues. What exactly is the motive behind the actions of Ms. Fiore, the C.O.W.S. member?

Please visit and like our Facebook page, The Oath for daily updates:

http://www.facebook.com/WithChastity/

^^now that's fucking weird, all of it.

Witnesses and residents of Burns, Oregon in a panic over Judge Brown allowing live video feed of Malheur trial.

Witnesses In Bundy Case Terrified Over Judge Ruling For Live Feed Of Trial Into Burns Oregon

Home › News › Witnesses In Bundy Case Terrified Over Judge Ruling For Live Feed Of Trial Into Burns Oregon
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...doff_Furm7.jpg
Witnesses for both the defense and the prosecution, set to testify in the controversial trial over the Occupation of the Malheur Refuge, are terrified by the idea of possible retaliation from the community, if Judge Anna Brown allows the BLM to move forward with their plans for providing a “live feed” of the trial, to what one Portland Paper (OPB) is calling the “VICTIMS” of the standoff.
In a frantic call to GMN this morning one witness expressed their concerns by saying, the Judge obviously doesn’t understand the dynamics of the situation in Burns, which brought hundreds of protesters there in the first place. The Government has gone to great lengths to protect informants and FBI agents from public scrutiny in fear of their safety — Why then are other witnesses not being allowed the same protection?


Burns Oregon is a community divided and the deck is stacked in favor on the “anti-Bundy side” making the life of over 40% of the population in Harney County a living nightmare.

Children are being bullied, business owners are being threatened and the fact they are going to add fuel to the fire by broadcasting this trial to what many perceive as aggressive employees of the United States Government is horrifying, said one witness.


“We are terrified; These people running the show in Portland are failing to protect the very people they say were terrorized by the occupation.”

The witnesses are quick to point out that it’s not just those who will be testifying for the defense who are concerned; Those set to testify against the Occupation are also expressing deep concern over their well being as the government prepares to put them on camera and blast their testimony out to a community thats already on the edge.

” I never wanted to testify in this trial, says another witness and the government is forcing me. What happens to me if somebody gets the wrong idea?” explained a witness for the Government

After the Occupation ended the media and the Judge lost interest in Burns and Harney County in general, and the witnesses say this ruling shows the complete disconnect between the court and her attorneys assigned to represent their best interest on both sides in this trial. Witnesses took note that not one Defense Attorney objected to the governments request for a live feed into Burns leaving them all to questions just who this trial is for, and just how much they care about them as human beings.


Whether you fall on the side of the government in this one, or the Occupiers, witnesses on both sides agree that a live feed of this trial is irresponsible and creates a terrifyingly dangerous potential for them in Harney County and definitely puts lives in danger.


GMN spoke to an attorney close to the case, but not representing any clients involved, and his opinion was as follows;

If you are going to allow a live feed it is appalling that it is going to be for those who are so openly bias. If we are going to allow a live feed for the obviously anti-protestor group then what is stopping the court from allowing the whole of America to watch this proceeding?


It is unfair that once again the government is allowed to run the narrative and does not allow for others on the supporting side to have an opportunity to watch in support of these witnesses who have so much much to lose in Harney County.


I too was shocked that not one Defense Attorney objected on behalf of the safety of their witnesses.

A message from Harney County went out to Judge Anna Brown and various Attorneys involved in the case this morning;

I just want to express my concern in regards to the news of a trial being live streamed to the local BLM office. I personally have a HUGE problem with this. Those of us who have been subpeoned will only be showcased as “domestic terrorist” sympathizers allowing the already bigoted community of government workers to ostracize, alienate, and ridicule us more than they already have. In my opinion this is a gross abuse of power by the judge and just shows an assignment of elitism to the government workers they have so loosely characterized as “victims”.


Unless you have lived in Burns, Hines, or Harney County it is difficult to understand what is really going on here. In January our community suffered from a spiderweb of fractures that have just grown deeper as the months have passed. Many of us have suffered in our businesses because of our actions and expression of our opinions during the occupation. The spread of hatred has even boiled over to our children who are suffering at school at the hands of these “victims” and their children.


Despite my feelings and or the reason I was supeonead, my concern is for the safety of my children and the ability to maintain my home and business in Harney County. My kids have to go to school with the wives of many BLM employees. My business is dependent on locals. What will Judge Brown offer as a solution when my children are slighted of an opportunity because their teacher is married to a BLM employee who watched my testimony live in the comfort of his office and he didn’t agree with me? What will Judge Brown offer as a solution when my business is forced to close its doors because of lost contracts with either government agencies or locals that have relation to disgruntled BLM employees?


It is my opinion that allowing and condoning the live stream of the trial to the local BLM office is is a blatant disregard for the safety and wellbeing of all witnesses that have been subpoenaed ~Witness Signed

Witnesses who will be testifying for both the Prosecution and the Defense are asking community groups and social media platforms, on both sides, to please call the Attorneys and Prosecutors in this case and ask them to respectfully ask Judge Brown to drop the plans providing a live feed into Harney County.


In a case where witness tampering through intimidation is already a problem, witnesses believe this ruling has opened the door for more of the same. It’s time officials in Portland base their decisions concerning Harney County on reality and stop making this about them and remember the people they are supposed to be representing.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/witne...-burns-oregon/

Opinion from Mike Arnold, Ammon Bundy's former attorney

Arnold Law Firm2 hrs ·
Is the LaVoy Finicum Shooting Relevant to the Conspiracy Defense?
snip.ly/finicum
Here's one possible argument: the reports of government overreach in the past doesn't even have to be true to be relevant to someone's state of mind in possessing firearms at a protest or driving away from a police stop. It just has to be reasonable for them to believe it. And whether it's reasonable to believe the stories and photos about the Bundy Ranch's government snipers is for the jury to decide.

Not knowing that there was an active cover-up of evidence in this case, after the shooting, I requested in open court to have an investigator present while the FBI was processing the evidence.

The government destroyed evidence and killed a witness in a high-profile case and defendants and defense counsel had to learn of it from journalists.

The FBI didn’t want the sun to shine in on their investigation, because it threatened their control of the narrative that these protesters were violent men that deserved to be shot at and killed.

http://snip.ly/finicum/#http://orego...-shooting.html

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vAuKurbk1...h-davidian.jpg
Branch Davidian fire at Waco, Texas, complements of Bill Clinton, Janet Reno et,al.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Witnesses and residents of Burns, Oregon in a panic over Judge Brown allowing live video feed of Malheur trial

---

This is a turning point in the state of mass consciousness in America.

The Federal regime is so confident in the Psychodrome control of Boobus Americanus, that it is not only permitting, but encouraging live coverage of its Kangaroo Court "justice" system.

I don't think for a second that the Federal regime will be holding a "trial" any more "fair" than the usual, with any rules changing, so we have reached a point in America where the masses, for whatever reason or motivation, no longer truly care if a miscarriage of justice occurs, in front of their eyes. Oh, sure, some of them will whine and moan, but, in the end, they will do nothing else.

At one point in time in America, it would be the "judge" and the persecutor whose heads would be in nooses for this.

Instead, now, they seek to demonize "enemies of the state," and surely, as fears support, Boobus will engage in, at least, Two-Minutes Hate, if not far more, against them at the encouragement of the "justice" system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

This is a turning point in the state of mass consciousness in America.

The Federal regime is so confident in the Psychodrome control of Boobus Americanus, that it is not only permitting, but encouraging live coverage of its Kangaroo Court "justice" system.

I don't think for a second that the Federal regime will be holding a "trial" any more "fair" than the usual, with any rules changing, so we have reached a point in America where the masses, for whatever reason or motivation, no longer truly care if a miscarriage of justice occurs, in front of their eyes. Oh, sure, some of them will whine and moan, but, in the end, they will do nothing else.

At one point in time in America, it would be the "judge" and the persecutor whose heads would be in nooses for this.

Instead, now, they seek to demonize "enemies of the state," and surely, as fears support, Boobus will engage in, at least, Two-Minutes Hate, if not far more, against them at the encouragement of the "justice" system.

---

Sad, but 100%'truth.

A comment from Mike Arnold's Blog:

Quote:

---

his was very well done. We have an obvious over reaching, over bearing government that is guilty of murder, lies and deception. Period.

I think it is very interesting how the media has vilified these people, and as usual the masses follow the social engineering masters at hand.

They fail to mention that the Bundy's tried to go through the courts prior to occupying the refuge. They fail to mention that the keys were given to them. They fail to mention that the refuge was vacant and they certainly fail to mention that this Judge is about as dirty as the Sheriff in this case and is in fact, involved in the land grab and profits off the minerals. Kangaroo Courts in a Banana republic. Sad we are here and most are too ignorant to even GET what Liberty is. They think the Government GRANTS it to us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

A comment from Mike Arnold's Blog:

Sad we are here and most are too ignorant to even GET what Liberty is. They think the Government GRANTS it to us.

---

"Please, Uncle Sam, may I have some more?"

"NO!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

"Please, Uncle Sam, may I have some more?"

"NO!"

---

https://s19.postimg.org/91g6r93vn/image.jpg

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...a1&oe=584DCFC9
TVOI News

Like This Page · 23 hrs ·

The sad part is that most "ordinary" Americans don't know what their Constitutional Rights are, let alone care about them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0QiaahwdcI&feature=


http://youtu.be/y0QiaahwdcI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

The Bundys and Lavoy Finicum weren't revolutionaries. They were trying to work through county sheriffs to protect the people of their counties from the Federal government.

---

When Ammon Bundy's attempts to work with Sheriff Ward and Steve Grasty failed, he and others secretly planned the takeover of the refuge. I don't think LaVoy had any knowledge of this until it was announced on January 2.

To me the whole refuge occupation appears to have been a steup. The Fish and Wildlife Workers were sent on vacation, the buildings were open and the keys provided. Sheriff Ward alerted the Narrows these guys were coming to the refuge and don't panic and call the police.

My gut tells me there were federal infiltraters in Ammon Bundy's inner circle of confidantes who engineered this trap. My gut also is telling me Harry Reid can shed some light on this.

Kelli Stewart's face book video on today's (Aug. 31) court proceedings


https://www.facebook.com/10001181392...PAGES_TIMELINE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Kelli Stewart's face book video on today's (Aug. 31) court proceedings


https://www.facebook.com/10001181392...PAGES_TIMELINE

---

Looks like progress to me.

LaVoy's daughter posted this photo from England

https://s19.postimg.org/c5wd4j7xf/image.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

He bought his Finicum flag on the family website:

https://www.onecowboystandforfreedom...oduct/lv-flag/

Judge Anna J. Brown's 26 page final per-trial conference order is posted on this facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/WithChastit...type=3&theater

Is the grand jury's indictmernt faulty? Perhaps so

Outpost of Freedom

when the government is pointing their guns in the wrong direction

• Home
• About Gary Hunt
• Copyright Notice
• Article Series Listings

« Burns Chronicles No 24 – To Plea, or, Not To Plea
The Bundy Affair #15 – Free Speech and Assembly v. Conspiracy »

Burns Chronicles No 25 – Juror Shopping & Secrecy

August 21, 2016, 12:25 pm
Burns Chronicles N^o 25
Juror Shopping & Secrecy

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ev-244x300.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 22, 2016

The government may have given the Grand Jury sufficient information to properly find “probable cause”. It is also possible that they may have simply convinced the Grand Jury to find “probable cause” based upon explaining to them that they had given them enough information for them to indict the 26 people charged in the final (third) Grand Jury Superseding Indictment. We will be looking at the Indictment, Case Law, the Grand Jury selection process, and the information provided to the Grand Jury.
.
Now, this case is being heard in the Oregon Federal District Court. That Court is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court. So, what better source to determine if the Indictment meets the standards set by that Ninth Circuit Court?
Case Law & the Indictment

To do so, let’s look at an Appellate Decision, held by the Ninth Circuit, in Cecil v United States 608 F.2d 1294 (1972). The case had to do with some people charged with conspiracy, to wit:
“That beginning on or before July, 1975, and continuing thereafter until on or after October, 1975, in the District of Arizona and elsewhere, LEONARD SILAS JOHNSON, FELIX DAN CECIL, DONALD LEE SCHAFFER, IVA LEE THUNDERCLOUD, LYNN RICHARD JOHNSON, RANDY DARRELL THOMAS, WARREN ARTHUR HAGGARD, KENNY ROBERT JAMES, SILAS BLAINE JOHNSON, TONY JOHNSON, and LIONEL JOHNSON, named herein as defendants, did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree together and with each other and with various other persons both known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit offenses in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).

It was the object of said conspiracy that one or more of the co-conspirators would possess with intent to distribute and would distribute quantities of marihuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).”

Now, the Burns Indictment reads similarly:
“On or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER, JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK, DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON, DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC LEE FLORES, and JAKE RYAN did knowingly and willfully conspire and agree together and with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury to prevent by force, intimidation, and threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, agencies within the United States Department of the Interior, from discharging the duties of their office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and other locations in Harney County, Oregon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.“

Now, back to the Cecil v. United States Appellate Decision, and the requirement for specificity. What follows are direct quotes from the Decision, and the reasoning for dismissing the Indictment (reversing the lower court’s ruling).

The appellants all raised timely challenges to the indictment proffering motions to dismiss based upon the indictment’s insufficient factual precision. The trial judge recognized the validity of these claims, commenting that, “this sort of indictment goes far beyond the leeway afforded by the Ninth Circuit.” However, initially indicating that the requested bill of particulars would remedy the indictment’s defects and later deciding that the Government’s “open file” discovery did remedy these problems, the court denied appellants’ motion to dismiss.

Now, in Burns, we have seen the “open file” discovery, however, the files are not really open, especially to the public. However, the judge did not dismiss the Indictment. Don’t be discouraged. Returning to Cecil:
We begin our analysis stating the established rule that a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment. The very purpose of the requirement that a man be indicted by a grand jury is to limit his jeopardy to offenses charged by a group of his fellow citizens acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge. If a bill of particulars were allowed to save an insufficient indictment, the role of the grand jury as intervenor would be circumvented. Rather than the assurance that a body of fellow citizens had assessed the facts and determined that an individual should face prosecution, the prosecutor would be in a position to second guess what actually happened within the grand jury and fill in the gaps with what he assumed transpired. The protection of a significant check on the power of the courts and prosecutors would thus be lost.

In Burns, motions had been submitted for a Bill of Particulars (a bill of particulars is a detailed, formal, written statement of charges or claims by a plaintiff or the prosecutor given upon the defendant’s formal request to the court for more detailed information), but those motions were denied. However, if they had been granted, they would still not make up for the lack of specificity in the Indictment.

This inquiry must focus upon whether the indictment provides “the substantial safeguards” to criminal defendants that indictments are designed to guarantee. Pursuant to this purpose, an indictment must furnish the defendant with a sufficient description of the charges against him to enable him to prepare his defense, to ensure that the defendant is prosecuted on the basis of facts presented to the grand jury, to enable him to plead jeopardy against a later prosecution, and to inform the court of the facts alleged so that it can determine the sufficiency of the charge. To perform these functions, the indictment must set forth the elements of the offense charged and contain a statement of the facts and circumstances that will inform the accused of the specific offense with which he is charged.

The Prosecutors admitted that as of April 20, 2016, “the government has produced eleven volumes of discovery that comprise approximately 25,000 pages of documents, 58,570 files, and over 360 gigabytes of data. The government continues to produce discovery in multiple formats including .pdf, text files, tiffs, etc.” However, rest assured that within those voluminous records, there just might be some substantial proof that crimes were, or may have been, committed. It seems, however, that the Court and the Prosecution have left it up to the Defendants, not the Grand Jury, to determine if there really was a crime committed. Returning to Cecil:
The present indictment is a rather barren document. Aside from tracking the language of the pertinent statutes in setting out the elements of the offenses with which defendants were charged, the indictment makes only two specific allegations concerning the conspiracies. It states that the conspiracies occurred in Arizona, Mexico, and elsewhere and offers the names of some of the alleged co-conspirators. The indictment fails to state any other facts or circumstances pertaining to the conspiracy or any overt acts done in furtherance thereof. More importantly, the indictment fails to place the conspiracies within any time frame. The language “beginning on or before July, 1975, and continuing thereafter until on or after October, 1975,” is open-ended in both directions.

The Indictment in Burns is equally a barren document. It is equally void of definitive dates, using the generality of a range, as in Cecil.
For example, when, how, and who, should be applied to the broad statement from the Burns Indictment,
to prevent by force, intimidation, and threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, agencies within the United States Department of the Interior, from discharging the duties of their office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and other locations in Harney County, Oregon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.“

When, and upon whom, did they use force? When, and upon whom, did they use intimidation? When, and upon whom, did they use threats?
If I kill someone, they have to, at least, say who I killed. If I rob a bank, they would have to say which bank I robbed, and what I robbed the bank of. There is nothing in the Indictment that provides any particular situation upon which the defendants can build a defense. It is nothing more than a thought crime, and the thoughts are solely within the minds of the Prosecutors. And, they have implanted that thought into the minds of the Grand Jurors, without sufficient substance to meet the requirements of the Ninth Circuit Court.

So, here is what the Ninth Circuit said:
In view of these deficiencies, we find that the indictment fails to allege sufficient facts to facilitate the proper preparation of a defense and to ensure that the defendants were prosecuted on facts presented to the Grand Jury. This indictment clearly lacked a statement of the facts and circumstances that would inform the accused of the specific offenses with which they were charged.
To allow a prosecutor or court to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jury at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection that the grand jury was designed to secure, because a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury that indicted him… The glaring lack of factual particularity of this indictment thus runs afoul of two key functions of indictments.
Similarly, the fact that an indictment may have tracked the language of the statute will not render it valid if it fails to allege an essential element of the offense or the minimum facts required to fulfill the purposes of indictments.
The requirement that an indictment contain a few basic factual allegations accords defendants adequate notice of the charges against them and assures them that their prosecution will proceed on the basis of facts presented to the grand jury. Such a requirement is neither burdensome nor unfair to the prosecuting authorities.

The Grand Jury Jurors

Now, a number of efforts have been made, by filing motions, for some of the Defendants to review both the Grand Jury Selection Process (Jury Wheel), and the transcript of the Grand Jury deliberation. The transcripts would the evidence and testimony submitted to the Grand Jury, to determine if the deficiencies, as outlined in Cecil, exist. Those motions have been denied.

It is a rather long and interesting chain of events that led to the pursuit of the Grand Jury information, and is worthy of note. Strangely enough, it begins in a prison in Texas where Kevin “KC” Massey is currently incarcerated. I had been keeping Kevin up to date on the Burns story, via telephone and mailing copies of my articles. Kevin, having plenty of spare time, ran across a book of motions by the renowned F. Lee Bailey. In so doing, he ran into challenges to the Grand Jury. He gave me the citations, which I passed on to Roger Roots. Roger, then in touch with Ryan Bundy, prepared a motion (481) that was filed, pro se. And, that is how this wonderful ball began rolling, hopefully, right over the Grand Jury, the Indictment, the Prosecutor, and the judge.

Then on May 11, 2016, Teresa D. Glover, Jury Administrator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon filed a Declaration (doc 538), which doesn’t satisfy the legal requirements as set forth in Ryan Bundy’s motion (481). So, let’s look at that “Declaration” (that also includes the “Juror Management Plan” – JMP) and see if the intent was to provide an impartial jury, as required by the Sixth Amendment. [Note: “538-nn” is reference to the PDF page number in the 28-page Declaration document.]

Now, we need to look at the Jury Management Plan (JMP) to see what is required, and maybe a bit of confusion.
Section 1.04 Policy(538-8)It is the policy of the Court that all litigants in this Court, entitled to trial by jury, shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the Court convenes…

Now, how do we provide “a fair cross section” unless the jury is selected from, primarily, from the division, not from the district? Especially when you consider how diverse the two divisions are.
Then, we have:
Section 1.11 (b) Systematic Randomized Process: (538-12)… Such random selections of names from the source lists for inclusion in the master wheels by data computer personnel must ensure that each county within the jury division is substantially proportionally represented in the master jury wheel…

Well, the way it reads, and this is where confusion might come into play, then the whole of the state, any Grand Jury, is at the mercy of those in Portland, as the population requires that each county is proportionally represented. So, we have to question the whole concept of impartial jury, since there is, without a doubt, much partiality in Portland, and there is no chance that the other divisions would ever hold even a token chance of having any impact on any Grand or Petit Jury decision. Especially considering that they would have to travel all the way from their remote region to the big city of Portland.

Now, if we desire to determine what the United States Codes says about where trials shall be held, we find a rather circular reference. First we find the statute, with reference to “district and division”, which refers us to the Rule that says “district”. Now, it would seem that divisions would be superfluous, if the intent was the district. So, it is probably safe, and more in line with what was just discussed, to presume that the statute is a higher level of law than a rule, therefore, division prevails.
18 U.S.C. § 3232 : US Code – Section 3232: District of offense – (Rule)

SEE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Proceedings to be in district and division in which offense committed, Rule 18.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 18:. Place of Prosecution and Trial
Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
The Statue says “proceedings”, while the Rule says “must prosecute”. If prosecution includes the Grand Jury, which is, in essence, the beginning of the prosecution of the case, is it the District, as stated in the Rule, or is it the “district and division,” as stated in the statute?

Let’s look at the various Grand Juries that have met to deal with the charges in this case. The first Grand Jury was convened, though the date is not given (538-3), and had this case presented to them on February 3, 2016. The makeup of the jury as described in Jury Administrator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon filed a Declaration :http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...1-1024x626.jpg

1. On February 3, 2016, the United States presented its case for the indictment… (538-3)
2. Twenty-one grand jurors from Grand Jury 15-01 were in attendance on February 3, 2016. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Portland Juror Management Division included six jurors from Clackamas County; nine jurors from Multnomah County; four jurors from Washington County; and one juror from Yamhill County. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Pendleton Juror Management Division included one juror from Umatilla County.

The second Grand Jury:http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...2-1024x633.jpg

1. On February 10, 2016, the United States presented its case for the indictment… (538-4)
2. Twenty grand jurors from Grand Jury 15-02 were in attendance on February l 0, 2016. Members of Grand Jury 15-02 in attendance from the Portland Juror Management Division included two jurors from Clackamas County; seven jurors from Multnomah County; six jurors from Washington County; one juror from Columbia County; one juror from Polk County; and one juror from Jefferson County. Members of Grand Jury 15-02 in attendance from the Pendleton Juror Management Division included two jurors from Umatilla County.

The Third Grand Jury:

1. On March 8, 2016, the United States presented its case for the superseding indictment… (538-5)http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...3-1024x552.jpg
2. Twenty-three grand jurors from Grand Jury 15-01 were in attendance on March 8, 2016. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Portland Juror Management Division included six jurors from Clackamas County; nine jurors from Multnomah County; four jurors from Washington County; one juror from Yamhill County, one juror from Polk County, and one juror from Clatsop County. Members of Grand Jury 15-01 in attendance from the Pendleton Juror Management Division included one juror from Umatilla County.

Now, it appears that all but one of the jurors were from what might be described as the Greater Portland Area. The counties where most of the jurors came from are on the west side of the Cascades Mountains. These are primarily city folks, who thinks that only police and actors can have guns, living in Portland or the numerous bedroom communities.

Grand Jury Transcripts

One of the other motions sent by Massey had to do with Grand Jury deliberations, the transcripts, the testimony, and the evidence that was submitted to the Grand Jury. Now, Grand Juries have always been guarded, since their purpose is only to determine probable cause, the possibility that a crime has been committed. And, since they don’t convict, they are not included in the realm of a public trial.
However, what if the public has cause to believe that false evidence was presented to the Grand Jury, simply to get an Indictment — to serve the government and harass the accused? What if the government had exculpatory evidence, evidence that would raise a question as to whether the alleged crime was actually committed, or not?
At some point, the determination of whether the ends of justice were being served by the Grand Jury, or if the Grand Jury was being used for political, unjust, or nefarious purposes, might warrant scrutiny. Absent such a remedy, we leave to the government the ability to target individuals for political purposes, and even if a conviction was not obtained in trial, the damage to the accused is immeasurable. It is destructive of family, work, and the mental state of those who are held in confinement, under false pretexts, and can even be destructive of one’s right to participate in his own defense against the charges.

When the information provided to the Grand Jury raises such question as to both evidentiary and motivation, justice would require that there be scrutiny in the process that resulted in the Grand Jury Indictment.

So, let’s look at what we do know. This is not speculative, it is factual, and it raises just such concern as to the possibility of impropriety in the presentation to the three Grand Juries, stacked with partial jurors, as described above.

First, let’s look at an outright lie that was presented to the Grand Jury. Now, it does not suggest that everything that was presented to the Grand Jury was also a lie, though absent knowing just what was presented to them (the transcripts, etc.), at least the suggestion of impropriety, and the justification for an open review of those elements, is surely in order.


This goes to the sworn statement in the “Redacted Criminal Complaint“. The Complaint, and resulting Search Warrants, were issued after the arrests were made and LaVoy Finicum was shot dead on the side of Highway 395. The Complaint was, undoubtedly, presented to the Grand Jury, as it was the initiating instrument for all that subsequently transpired.

Now, what is going to be presented was first discussed in “Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury“, though at the time, one piece supportive of the veracity of that article had not yet been submitted. However, a brief background of the event in question will be discussed, here, and the evidence in support can be found in the above linked article.

Jon Ritzheimer was in Phoenix, Arizona, on the morning in question. The government, in the Complaint, stated:
14. On December 18, 2015, a citizen (hereafter Citizen) of Harney County was shopping at the Safeway grocery store in Burns, Oregon. Citizen was wearing a BLM shirt. Citizen was confronted by two men, one whom she identified as RITZHEIMER. Citizen reported to law enforcement that she heard yelling, and when she turned around, the second individual shouted “you’re BLM, you’re BLM” at her. That person further stated to Citizen that they know what car she drives and would follow her home. He also stated he was going to burn Citizen’s house down. RITZHEIMER and the second individual left the area in a black pick-up truck with black canopy and no visible license plate. Since the incident, Citizen has observed a similar vehicle outside her residence. Citizen was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle when she later saw it. The following week, a second vehicle, described as a white truck with a pink license plate and a big rebel flag sticker on the back window, aggressively tailgated Citizen, flashing lights and driving erratically. Citizen believed the second incident was related to the first. Citizen also saw the black pick-up truck outside of her place of employment early in the morning hours of Christmas Day.

Jon had some work done on his truck and then went to Idaho, not Oregon. From there he went to Washington, then, on December 20, 2016, arrived in Hines (adjacent to Burns), Oregon.

The FBI, the very same people that found pieces of a radio bomb and then managed to determine who the people were that built the bomb, could not figure out, with all of their taxpayer funded resources, where Jon Ritzheimer was on December 20. So they lied and presented hearsay evidence, the identification of a “citizen”, in an attempt to secure the Indictment.

Now, what was not in the original article, though came out in a subsequent “GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RITZHEIMER’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR PRETRIAL RELEASE“, is in a footnote on page 10. It states:

Defendant presents his itinerary as an alibi for allegations that he confronted a citizen in Burns, Oregon, on December 18, 2015. At this point, it is not clear if the citizen falsely identified defendant or if the date of the incident was not accurately reported.

Now, the FBI has accessed Facebook pages, Dropbox accounts, phone records, and other records easily acquired by them, including surveillance footage. Could they not access the Safeway security camera footage to ascertain whether it really was Ritzheimer, or not? Now, going a bit further, isn’t their statement in the footnote, “it is not clear if the citizen falsely identified defendant or if the date of the incident was not accurately reported“, an admission that what was presented to the Grand Jury, couching this in ambiguous terms, a very questionable statement as to a fact? So, let’s call it what it is, considering the resources and reputation of the FBI, it is a damned lie propagated to encourage the Grand Jury to Indict the Defendants. So, this leaves us the question as to whether there were more, or perhaps, many more, lies presented to the Grand Jury to secure an Indictment.

What is our government doing? Only access to those Grand Jury records can answer that question — and, we, the people, have every right to know just what our government is doing both for us, and to us.

Now let’s enter the realm of exculpatory evidence. This is evidence that would raise the question as to whether there was probable cause”, or whether information suggests the contrary.

continued - - -

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1617

continuation - - - -

In an Oregonian article, published January 11, updated February 22, we find a very detailed account of the events preceding the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. One of those accounts, found on page 5 of the article, states:
On Dec. 30 — three days before the Jan. 2 rally — federal employees were nearing the end of their work day at the wildlife refuge when management told them to go home early. And for their safety, their boss said, they weren’t to return to the refuge until instructed.

“That was based on the culmination of our intel,” said Fish & Wildlife spokesman Holm, “and the start of the holiday weekend.”
Holm wouldn’t elaborate on details of the “intel.”


Now, wait just a minute. The Indictment says, in Count 1, that the Defendants,
did knowingly and willfully conspire and agree together and with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury to prevent by force, intimidation, and threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, agencies within the United States Department of the Interior, from discharging the duties of their office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and other locations in Harney County, Oregon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.

Can you rob a bank, if it is not there? Can you murder someone, if you can’t find them? It appears, by the information in the Oregon Live article that “management” told them to go home, and not to return until told to.

Now, is this exculpatory? Would it raise doubt as to whether it was the Defendants that kept the government “employees… from discharging the duties“? Shouldn’t the Grand Jury be apprised, by the government, of facts such as this?

Now, I hate to be a spoilsport, but I think that there is one more element regarding what the government told the Grand Jury, and what the facts are. Now, some will say that it is insignificant, but if laws are to have meaning, they must be written. When they are written, it is the very words in which they are written that is the law. How could it be otherwise? If laws are a rule of action, or a prohibition of action, then they should be clearly understood.

So, let’s look at the exact wording of the Statute cited in Count 1, above.
18 U.S.C. § 372 : US Code – Section 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If two 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, the Statute has a couple of elements, not just one. The first is by the use of force, intimidation, or threat, keeping “any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof“. This would be an act of preventing them for taking their office, or performing their duties. But, it requires “the use of force, intimidation, or threat“. So, did the Grand Jury consider whether these elements were met — to the letter of the law? It would seem that if they did, they would know which person was denied the abilities mentioned, who did it, and how they did it. Those elements have not been met.

The second element reads, “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.” Now, according to the Oregonian article, the “management”, who probably had authority to give employees time off, with pay, at our expense, are the only ones that could possibly be guilty of this element.

So, what would happen if the wording were from the law, rather than something that was probably presented to the Grand Jury as if it were the law? Would the jurors have a different perspective on what really happened and whether there was probable cause to indict the Defendants?

The only way that we can know just how the government operates — something that we have every right to know — is to be able to judge their actions, especially in a situation such as the one the 26 defendants have found themselves. That can only be accomplished if we, the public, have the legal remedy to review those actions. And, I speak not only for the due process rights of the Defendants, I also speak for every American who understands that we are self-governed, and not subjects, subject to the whim of those who imagine themselves as having absolute power.

Comments

• Brand Thornton says:
  August 22, 2016 at 12:25 pm
  Very informative and encouraging, thanks for the article. As usual you are right on top of things !
  Reply to this comment
  
  
  
• 
  Kerry Easton says:
  
  August 22, 2016 at 7:08 pm
  I’m sure that they “MISS”represented many things in this case. I have followed this and have not seen anything that makes me feel that the Goobermant has done anything correct. Thank you for this information.
  Reply to this comment
  
  
  
• 
  http://i2.wp.com/graph.facebook.com/...resize=48%2C48 Elizabeth Nelson says:
  
  August 22, 2016 at 7:46 pm
  I feel bad for those that are taking a plea deal, especially after reading your article. Thank you
  Reply to this comment
  
  
  
  • 
    
    http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...2220-48x48.jpg ghunt says:
    
    August 22, 2016 at 7:55 pm
    If the Jury Challenge is successful (A Notice of Appeal was filed with the Clerk this morning – more about that in a future article), it might raise the question of the validity of a plea agreement to what had been determined to have been unlawfully brought. Suppose they found that the bank had not been robbed, after you pled to robbing it?
    I don’t know the answer, though I trust that we may soon find out.
    

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1617