150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Opening Statements http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/13/op...protest-trial/

Opening Statements in Malheur Protest Trial

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C360Malheur Protest Trial defendant, Shawna Cox. Photo: Redoubt News

Opening Statements in Malheur Protest Trial

By Shari Dovale

The Malheur Protest Trial hit high points, and low points today.

The opening statements began with the government prosecution calling the protest a “dangerous invasion.” They tried to define the narrative from the very beginning, but the defense came back with a bang.

Each defense team had an opportunity to give an opening statement. They were all very good. Some of the highlights included Ryan Bundy keeping calm even in the face of opposition from the judge. Judge Anna Brown stopped him on multiple occasions but he didn’t let it rattle him. He was well spoken and made good arguments.

He did attempt to pass out pocket Constitutions to the jury members but the Judge did not allow it. She also did not allow him to read from a legal dictionary, insisting that only she can instruct the jury in the definition of the law.

It does strike us as more bias from the Judge. She will not allow the jury to do any research, even as far as looking up the wording of the laws themselves. She will instruct and interpret all laws for them. Ryan was very professional, did not let it phase him, and came across extremely well.

Shawna Cox had bouts with Judge Brown as well. However, she also came across very well, letting the jury get to know her and why she was there. She made valid points and had the witnesses in the gallery on her side in no time.

The real outstanding statement today came from Matthew Schindler, stand by counsel for Kenneth Medenbach. He was professional, passionate about his client, and spoke eloquently. He came across as truly caring for his client. I gained a great deal of respect for him today.

All of the defense statements were very good, and for the largest part, worked very well together, building on each other and complimenting the case.

I was concerned in the beginning when I saw so many court-appointed attorneys, knowing that they do not always provide the best service to clients. This is certainly not true in this case. These attorneys are putting forth their best efforts and we applaud them.

Another major concern is that Shawna Tells us that they have not yet received all of the discovery evidence. They are already into trial but the government has slacked again.

The judge and the prosecution must be seeing it as well. I don’t believe the bias has ended. The government is not showing their best, as yet, but there is a lot more to go.

Tomorrow begins the witness testimony, and Harney County Sheriff David Ward is up first. This will be interesting to listen to, as we heard him speak multiple times in Burns. I am curious to see how he comes across here.

A facebook post by Cliven Bundy's sister, Margaret Houston

​
Margaret Houston with Angie Huntington Bundy and Lisa Bundy.

8 hrs ·
Today was the first day of trial. It was a day of opening statements.

Oregon's U.S. Attorney Billy Williams sat through the entire day of opening statements. Oregon's FBI Special Agent-In-Charge Greg Bretzing attended the morning session of trial. They sat directly in front of us.

It started with the prosecution and afterwards went through each defendant. Either the defendant or the attorney was able to each stand. Ryan Bundy and Shawna Cox gave their own opening statements.

"When is it extreme to say that the Federal Government should obey the law?"

Barrow objected five times during Cox's opening statement, and the judge had to steer her back on course.

During the intros of defendants, Ryan Bundy told jurors:'I'm glad to be here, I guess...not really.'

Every one of the defendants re expressed WE ARE NOT ANTI GOVERNMENT in each of their opening arguments.

Ryan introduced his beautiful wife Angie in court and put up a picture of his family while he gave his opening statements. With a photo displayed to jurors of him standing beside his wife and seven of his eight children, Ryan Bundy described himself as a son of a rancher, member of the Mormon church and a family man who now "raises cattle, melon and children.''
Ryan Bundy said, "I believe we were there not to break the law," he said, "but to enforce the law, to uphold the law ... the Constitution of the United States.'' He said he was thankful to be in court. "It's a marvelous thing to see a jury and let you decide."

David's attorney gave a pretty good explanation on exactly what happened to LaVoy Finicum. I watched the faces of the jury during this part. As David's attorney explained that David Fry got word inside the refuge that LaVoy was shot with his hands in the air and demonstrated himself. You could see the shock on several of the jury's faces hearing for the first time that something so tragic had happened. The only intimidation by use of force spoken of today came from the FBI and OSP and that was explained very well by both parties.

Barrow, during opening statements in the long-anticipated Oregon standoff trial, used Ammon Bundy's own words viewed on video Jan. 2 to argue that Bundy and his co-defendants aren't being prosecuted for holding a political protest, but for leading an armed occupation of the refuge.

The prosecution played a video of Ammon speaking about what they were going to do at the refuge. He said to come, "it will be peaceful and we will take a strong stand." When the prosecution reiterated the video they simply, refused to mention the peaceful aspect and skipped right to the strong stand. Another aspect to the opening statements by the prosecution that was a little disturbing was that their information of what took place was very inaccurate. At one point they even mentioned that Ryan Payne and Ammon Bundy were in the Jeep when they were arrested. This is inaccurate. Mark McConnell was driving his jeep, Brian Cavalier was in the passengers seat and Ammon Bundy was in the back. They failed to make any mention Mark McConnell and Brian Cavalier.

Opening statements were completed today. Sheriff Ward will be first government witness tomorrow.

https://fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.ne...d897dc815cda94


https://www.facebook.com/11kidshoust...78963348781357

The women are left to right, Sara Redd-Buck, Angie (Mrs. Ryan Bundy) Margaret Houston, and Lisa (Mrs. Ammon Bundy)

Todd Macfarlane on the opening day

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...re-Logo-1B.jpg

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/theme...ages/ad468.png

ONGOING: OREGON STANDOFF TRIAL –LIVE COVERAGE & COMMENTARY

September 13, 2016 - Government/Politics, Oregon Standoff, Public Lands, Todd Macfarlane - Tagged: Bundy, federal government, Malheur, Oregon Standoff, Range, RANGEfire, trial - no comments


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x222.jpg
RANGEFIRE! is your source for live coverage and commentary regarding the Oregon Standoff Trial.
At RANGEFIRE! we recognize that there are multiple sides to every story. We believe there needs to be an alternative voice to mainstream media coverage of these issues.
Working in combination with a consortium of alternative media platforms, including Newsbud/BFP, RANGE magazine, Free Range Report, Oregon Standoff News, Rural Route Radio, Loos Tales, etc., RANGEFIRE! will be providing live coverage, deeper background commentary, and short video updates regarding the OREGON STANDOFF TRIAL.
Note: We will be adding video clips on an ongoing basis, so scroll down to find new clips.
INTRODUCTION — GETTING STARTED
http://youtu.be/gwmghXo9OTA

OPENING STATEMENTS — the Defendants and their Attorneys
http://youtu.be/9XtFYMWDt3s

OPENING STATEMENTS — One Size Doesn’t Fit All
http://youtu.be/VcL3aXnenvk

OPENING STATEMENTS — Public Lands Policy on Trial
http://youtu.be/5a352gb_LaI

OPENING STATEMENTS — It Was All About the Hammonds
https://youtu.be/XSFlhC6yUk0


RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback



http://rangefire.us/2016/09/13/ongoi...ge-commentary/

Bill Goode's comment on thenNew York Times report on the Malheur Protest Trial

Bill Goode

6 hrs

Not too bad for the NY Times. They get a lot of things right, but does need some cleaning up. Mainly I like the photo. It's great.

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...sw=1050&sh=549


Oregon Refuge Occupiers Were Protesting, Lawyer Says

The lawyer for Ammon Bundy, one of seven defendants on trial, said the group wanted to draw attention to the government’s mismanagement of public lands.
NYTIMES.COM|BY KIRK JOHNSON

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...0170480195827/

Youtube video, Ninth Circuit Court, we have the authority . . .



https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...9e6fac67ffd475


The Oath

33 mins ·

http://youtu.be/QIU56co9B5I

https://youtu.be/QIU56co9B5I

OREGON BUNDY CASE, EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS (9th Circuit Decission)
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY(9th Circuit Court, Oregon) Emergency Motion to Dismiss https://www.scribd.co…
M.YOUTUBE.COM
https://www.facebook.com/WithChastit...92198151103191

Hopefully these people know about the difference between the State of Oregon and Oregon State and that Oregon State is the State that holds jurisdiction.

The State of Oregon gets it's authority and police power from the Municipal Court of the District of Criminals. It owns NO land.

They say Dancing Sheriff Dave Ward. Pesonally, I don't think he is his own man. Probably his father in law Nasty Grasty wouldn't hesitate to throw him under the bus if push comes to shobe.

http://youtu.be/X22VKIsRJog

https://youtu.be/X22VKIsRJog

I hope, when the dust is all settled, Steve Grasty, Sheriff Dave Ward, the dyke Governor Brown and the others involved all pay their dues for the murder of LaVoy Finicum. They all have blood on their hands.

Harney County rancher Thom Davis and Rene Powers have published this to explain more about the fraud of land ownership at Malheur. Otley has been discussed elsewhere in these threads on the Malheur Protest and the Hammond Ranch debacle.

HAVE THE FEDS BEEN LYING ABOUT OWNING THE LAND AT THE MALHEUR REFUGE? THE PEOPLE “OTLEY TO KNOW”


THE COWBOY AND THE LADY·SUNDAY, MAY 1, 2016




HAVE THE FEDS BEEN LYING ABOUT OWNING THE LAND AT THE MALHEUR REFUGE????? We have created this article in order to share the information given to us by those who have done some research into the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. OTLEY case from the early 1940’s. The Malheur land has been in the crosshairs of controversy in so many stories and cases that one may want to do some research and thinking about any and all “stories” spewed from the mouths of ABC agencies/agents. It is seeming to us that the majority of words in declarations of land ownership are anything but the truth fed to the Americans today. Read this and think, read the links and uncover what stinks!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...d40b01f2eb7e94

"Oh, did we say WE owned the land? Sorry about that, we meant, "WE ARE STEALING YOUR LAND" says the BLM to the ranchers.

This is information from Dr Angus McIntosh. Thank you to a follower, Charmaign Edwards, for sharing this with us. DID THIS CASE SET TRUTH IN STONE THAT THE LAND WAS THE RANCHERS AND NOT FEDERAL?

An example of prior existing rights is the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. In 1908 President Roosevelt, established by presidential proclamation a Bird Reserve (subject to prior existing rights). Thirty four years later the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Otley, 127 F2d 988 (1942), that not only did the prior existing ranchers living adjacent to Malheur Lake have the absolute right to graze and cut hay within the reserve, but actually owned half of Malheur Lake itself. In 1942 the government paid for the right to construct roads, phone lines, plant trees, build fire towers, and build water control dams and structures. For the next thirty years these ranchers continued to graze cattle and cut hay. This all changed with a change in management at the Reserve/Refuge in the 1970's. I'm curious as to exactly what was in the original 1942 purchase agreements. What rights were reserved in those agreements? Why is this new generation of Feds trying to force out the Hammonds by ignoring 18 USC 1857 that exempts “allotment owners” from the criminal arson provisions? The biggest question Ihave is why do the people of Harney County believe anything the Federal employees tell them when there is a proven history of them lying to ranchers about prior existing rights (U.S.v Otley, 1942)?

"Did I mention to you folks interested in the Malheur Refuge Protest and subsequent Government assault, that in 1942 the Ninth Circuit ruled that most of the land withdrawn by President Teddy in 1908 and at least half of Malheur Lake did not belong to the US in the first place? The Court said it belonged to the prior established ranchers. The government had to condemn and buy the rancher's out under a 1933 conservation law, that only allowed for the construction of "projects". In that case it was 95 miles of roads, the construction of fire-lookouts, the planting of trees, and the building of certain water control structures. Under that act the ranchers still owned the improvements, grazing and hay/forage rights. There is a genuine question of fact as to whether or not the land upon which the so-called "occupied federal buildings" stand actually belongs to the government. Its my understanding the so-called "occupied buildings" were actually one of the old ranch headquarters. If that is the case the property still belongs to the original ranchers heirs (since the US cannot acquire property by adverse possession). The 1942 case is United States v Otley. Very interesting reading and available on the Justia website.

HE FURTHER COMMENTS: Here are further comments offered by Dr. Angus McIntosh.
"Actually they kept on ranching and grazing for over 30 years after that 1942 decision. It wasn't until about the time that Congress passed FLPMA that the Refuge managers started flooding out the ranchers. The original ranchers were all gone by then and the new ones simply assumed the Feds were acting lawfully."

MORE THOUGHTS BY DR. ANGUS MACINTOSH
AGRICULTURE April 11, 2016

From Preference Rights to Grazing Allotments: Why Ranchers Own their Allotments By Angus McIntosh PhD Director Natural Resource Law & Policy Research Land And Water USA Foundation

There are a lot of US Supreme Court decisions on the subject of “pioneer rights”, or settlers'rights of “possession” or “occupancy” and “use”. The case that specifically refers to "pioneerrights" is Lamb v Davenport, 85 US 307 (1873). Arguello v United States, 59 US 539 (1855),refers to a “cattle range” held in possession for 50 years (from prior to the Mexican cession tothe US) as sufficient evidence of ownership. Essentially, pioneer rights are equivalent to"possessory" or "occupancy" rights that typically have the sanction of State or Territorial legislation, or; local laws, customs and decisions of the courts; or “aboriginal” title” or“possessory” or “occupancy” rights dating from a time prior to US acquisition through “treaty” (ie. Gudalupe-Hidalgo, 1848, or the Oregon-Northwest Treaty with Great Britain, 1846). This same possessory or occupancy right of “actual settlers” gives the settler a “color of title” which has been referred to as the "preference" right. The preference is the preferred right to acquire the government's “legal title” when the land occupied or in the possession and use of the pioneer is eventually opened to settlement. (See Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869)). This pioneer right of possession and preference gives the occupant the right to sell his improvements as well as his possessory title, and such ownership will "relate back" to the first pioneer's date of settlement. This is important when you talk about establishing senior water rights and "land use rights" that predate later wildlife, fish, or environmental statutes. The Supreme Court has held that this pioneer/possessory right or title is good against all the world, accept the United States as the actual legal title owner. However, once the United States Congress by positive legislation recognizes, confirms, or sanctions a “use”, or grants a right or title, then it is no longer a mere preference or possession. Once recognized or granted to a settler by an Act of Congress, that right could not be defeated by an employee of the Executive Branch (i.e. Interior or Agriculture) who failed to perform their duty to survey and record the settler's claim, (Shaw v Kellogg, 170 US 312 (1898).

Regarding stock raising by bona fide settlers on “public lands” prior to passage of the Grazing Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat 481), stock grazing was merely at the sufferance or tacit consent of Congress under a color of title based on State/Territorial “range” laws. While this“possessory/ preference” right was good against all others, it was not good against the United States as legal title owner until validated by, or properly initiated under, an Act of Congress (Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869) and The Yosemite Valley Case, 82 US 77 (1872)). However, after passage of the Grazing Act of 1875, Congress validated the right of settlers to“graze” cattle, horses and other stock animals (even to the point of “destroying grass and trees”), on any land open to settlement under the homestead, preemption, or mineral landlaws. Of course this was often necessary in order to improve pasture or plant crops. By the Act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat 2530) Congress had already recognized, sanctioned and confirmed ranch settler's stockwater rights and stocktrail (“highway”) right-of-ways. Therefore, when land in the actual possession of a bona fide settler as a “range” was later incorporated into a federal military reservation, the ranch settler not only owned stockwater rights and stocktrail ROWs, but, had the “preference” right over all others to be “granted the privilege” to continue “grazing cattle, horses, sheep and other stock animals” (Act of 1884, 23 Stat 103).

Additionally, when the reservation was no longer needed for military purposes, any actual settler (if still in possession) had the preference right to acquire title through the homestead laws or by purchase (Act of 1884, supra).

A short list of key decisions pertaining to this principle of “preference/possessory rights” related to “range” rights would be:
Arguello v US, 59 US 539 (1855)50 yrs possession of cattle range under color of title gives title good against the United States government. Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869) Possession and improvement gives a settler a preference right to acquire title, which right land department officers are bound to protect. Lamb v Davenport, 85 US 307 (1872) Possessory rights and improvements could be sold even before any act of congress was passed allowing for disposal of that land. Atherton v Fowler, 96 US 513 (1877) Possession of an enclosed range and improvement of the forage was sufficient to establish possession and defeat later homestead claimants even if the enclosed land far exceeded the amount allowed under the homestead laws. The first settler was entitled to compensation as owner of the forage cut and removed by a second fraudulent claimant even if the legal title tothe underlying land was still in the US. Hosmer v Wallace, 97 US 575 (1879) Where a settler was in possession or occupancy of thousands of acres as a stock ranch the land was segregated from appropriation by later settlers.

Griffith v Godey,113 US 89 (1885) A settler in possession of thousands of acres of a cattle range, controlled by his ownership of water rights in key springs and of a homestead was the owner of a property right in the range. Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616 (1891)An expansive cattle range on the Republican river and its tributaries covering portions of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas was a possessory private property interest subject to recovery of damages. Cameron v United States, 148 US 301 (1893), Possession and improvement of thousands of acres as a cattle range gave color of title or a claim that removed the land from the class of “public lands” and therefore the enclosure ofsuch was not a violation of the Unlawful Occupancy act of 1885.Lonergan v. Buford, 148 US 581 (1893), An expansive cattle range together with all water rights, fences and improvements thereon covering portions of Utah and Idaho was possessory private property capable of sale and subject to contract enforcement.

Swan Land and Cattle Co. v Frank, 148 US 603 (1893), A large cattle range in Wyoming together with water rights, and improvements were possessory property rights subject to actions at law for recovery.

Catholic Bishop v Gibbon, 158 US 155 (1895) By treaty possessory rights of settlers in British Oregon shall be respected; Grayson v Lynch, 163 US 468 (1896) A cattle range suitable for pasturage, watering, and raising cattle in New Mexico was a property right such that the owner could recover for damages caused by diseased cattle being driven across his range.Tarpey v Madsen, 178 US 215 (1900) Possession implies improvement and settlement with intent to acquire title when land is opened for disposal, but cabins, corrals improvements for hunting, trapping, etc also allowed Ward v Sherman, 192 U.S.168 (1904) A large cattle range, cattle then on the range, and the desert wells were all private property subject to sale and mortgage. Bacon v Walker, 204 US 311 & Bown v Walling, 204 US 320 (1907) Idaho range laws recognizing settler's right to exclusively graze lands within two miles of their homestead did not infringe on United States' underlying title.

St Paul M&M R Co v Donohue, 210 US 21 (1908) All public lands were opened to settlement and entry after 1880 and a settlers' improvements were sufficient notice of his claim to defeat later claimants. Northern Pacific R Co v Trodick, 221 US 208 (1911) Until a local land office was established and a survey conducted the rights of settlers in possession of public lands could not be defeated by either subsequent withdrawal or grants to third parties.Curtin v Benson, 222 US 78 (1911) Where a settler owned seven scattered parcels of land connected with 1866 Act right-of-ways, intermingled with 23,000 acres of range rights, before the United States included that land into a national park, the possessory range owner did not afterwards have to acquire a permit prior to using his property rights.

Under the Forest Reserve/Homestead Acts of 1891/1897 (26 Stat 1102/30 Stat 33) all land withdrawn as Forest Reserves that was occupied by “actual settlers” (possessory range rights), and was valuable for “agriculture" (stock raising), not only had “preference” rights attached to them, but also had a network of easements, water rights, Right Of Ways, and improvements that belonged to the bona fide settlers (Act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat 253), Livestock Reservoir Site Act, 0f 1897 (29 Stat 484), and cases cited above). The Act of 1880had opened all the land in the West to settlement, and had recognized settlers' improvements and possession were sufficient to put any later claimants on notice that the land was already occupied (Cox v Hart, 260 US 427 (1922). The free homestead Act of 1900, (31 Stat. 179), opened all agricultural public lands acquired by treaty to settlement and entry free of charge (except for filing fees).

In1902 Congress enacted the Reclamation Act (32 Stat 388), which altered the policy of granting specific acreage amounts of Desert Land (i.e.160, 320, 640, etc.) and adopted the “Unit policy” which instead granted to a homestead entryman an “amount of land sufficient for the support of a family”. The same policy was followed when Congress enacted the Forest Homestead Act of June 11,1906 (34 Stat. 233, 35 Stat. 554) which included a “preference”right for actual settlers to enter any number of 160 acre tracts up to the amount of their actual settlement. In1910, Congress authorized the granting of “allotments” to Indians “occupying, living on, or having improvements on” land within National Forests “more valuable for agricultural or grazing purposes than for timber” (36 Stat 863).

This was the law as it existed in 1912 when Congress amended the 1880 Act For Relief of Settlers (37 Stat. 267) and recognized a “preference right” of settlers to an ”additional entry” under the “enlarged homestead provisions” of the Desert Land Laws to claim an amount of land to the extent of their occupancy and possession as long as their boundaries were plainly marked.

In1916 (after 17 years of debate) Congress finally passed the only homestead Act specific to livestock production, the Stock Raising Homestead Act. The intent of the SRHA was to make a permanent disposal of all the remaining approximately 600 million acres in the West "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops".(Stock-Raising Homesteads, 1916. House Rep. No.35. 64Th Cong., 1st Sess.) Section 10 of the SRHA provided for the withdrawal of 600 million acres under the 1910, Pickett Act for "classification" so the range could be surveyed, and allotted as “additional entries” under Section 8. Where an entryman had paid the required fees, made the required improvement and cultivation, and the size of the unit was determined and the plat returned, the entryman had done all required and the equitable title was vested in the entryman (Irwin v. Wright, 258 US 215 (1922)).

By an Act for the Relief of Settlers of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat 1445) Congress allowed settlers under previous homestead acts to convert their “original” or base property entries to either Desert Land (Enlarged) Homestead entries or to Stock-Raising Homestead Act entries in order to change their required “proofs” to $1.25/acre “improvements”. See also the Act of June 6, 1924 amending the SRHA (43 Stat 469). Both the Desert Land (Enlarged)Homestead Acts and the Stock-Raising Homestead Act also allowed “preferential” or “preference” right “additional entries” to the extent of the settler's actual possession (where his boundaries were clearly marked), of an amount of land “sufficient for the support of a family”

The Pickett Act in conformance with Section 10 of the SRHA provided authority for the creation of grazing Districts outside of National Forests, and the President began creating Grazing Districts in 1928. The Taylor Grazing Act provided for administration of Grazing Districts and provided a formalized process for establishing them. The TGA did not affect valid existing rights, and allowed for ranchers to complete their improvement requirements under section 8 of the SRHA.

This classification, adjudication and surveying was accomplished between 1916 and 1950. The SRHA Act was the grant from Congress, the survey of the ranges into allotments the recording of the maps, improvement of the additional entry to an amount equal to $1.25 per acre, and return of the maps to the ranchers in possession was all that was required by the statute, (see Sellas v Kirk, 200F.2d 217 cert. Denied 345 US 940 (1953). See also Shaw v Kellogg, 170 US 312 (1898).

Some bureaucrats would have people believe that somehow the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA) of 1976 somehow changed 130 years of Congressional grants and property rights. FLPMA itself contains 2 pages of “savings provisions” intended to “grandfather” in place all prior existing rights. FLPMA specifically states “All actions by the Secretary [of Interior] concerned under this Act are subject to valid existing rights”. If it was true that FLPMA was intended to extinguish all of ranchers (and anyone else's) propertyrights, then Congress the next year would not have provided for the protection of ranchers' property rights under the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1977. (91 Stat. 524, Sec. 714, 715 and 717).

An example of prior existing rights is the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge. In 1908 President Roosevelt, established by presidential proclamation a Bird Reserve (subject to prior existing rights). Thirty four years later the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Otley, 127 F2d 988 (1942), that not only did the prior existing ranchers living adjacent to Malhuer Lake have the absolute right to graze and cut hay within the reserve, but actually owned half of Malhuer Lake itself. In 1942 the government paid for the right to construct roads, phonelines, plant trees, build fire towers, and build water control dams and structures. For the next thirty years these ranchers continued to graze cattle and cut hay. This all changed with a change in management at the Reserve/Refuge in the 1970's. I'm curious as to exactly what was in the original 1942 purchase agreements. What rights were reserved in those agreements? Why is this new generation of Feds trying to force out the Hammonds by ignoring 18 USC 1857 that exempts “allotment owners” from the criminal arson provisions? The biggest question I Have is why do the people of Harney County believe anything the Federal employees tell them when there is a proven history of them lying to ranchers about prior existing rights (U.S.v Otley, 1942)?

Here is the 2nd. Yes just make sure you give Dr Angus McIntosh credit for these "These three statutes make it clear that the intent of Congress was that no state would lose its jurisdiction over any land included within a Forest Reserve, Grazing District (BLM), or a Land Utilization/Resettlement Project (National Grasslands) nor any citizen lose any of their State recognized rights (such as water rights or range rights). The comments about "offenses against the United states" refers to "subject matter" jurisdiction (i.e. counterfeiting, etc.). Also, while the Forest Act says the Secretary can make rules and regulations, it also says"Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of actual settlers...etc. or crossing the same to and from their property or homes; and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach there homes and to utilize their property under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed..." Also the reserves are open to settlement and appropriation of water rights. Bureaucrats make a big deal out of the allowance for the Secretary to make rules and regulations, but the Supreme Court said the authority to make rules and regulations does not allow the Secretary to prohibit or restrict the very thing authorized by an Act of Congress (United States v. United Verde Copper Company, 196 US 207 (1905)). 30 Stat 36 (Forest Reserves) 48 Stat 1269-1270 (Grazing Districts) 49 Stat 2035-2036 (Resettlement/Utilization Projects aka National Grasslands)"

Another interesting fact Angus has brought to our attention!! "OK folks listen up. The Antiquities Act of 1906 is the authority that Obama, Clinton etc have used to designate millions of acres of parks and monuments. But, guess what? First the Act states it must be some kind of artifact or oddity,something identifiable (not thousands of acres of land), next it is confined to the smallest legal subdivision necessary of the land survey system (40 acres), finally if there are any private lands or even unperfected claims the owner must sign a "relinquishment" before it can become effective. Allotments are property rights, so unless the rancher signs a relinquishment of his rights the monument designation is totally ineffective."

APPEARANCE AND BRIEF OF APPELLEES AND CROSS APPELLANTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER AND DIRECTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIThttps://law.resource.org/…/…/gov.uscourts.ca9.09696.b.03.pdf

READ US ARGUMENT: https://law.resource.org/…/…/gov.uscourts.ca9.09696.b.04.pdf

WATER BOUNDARIES: https://books.google.com/books…

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-otley-3#!

COURT QUESTIONS ITS OWN JURISDICTION!:https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-otley-2

We thank all the men and women who are seeking truth to bring real justice to America. We need to free the POW’s held who are Whistle Blowers who love America, God and their families enough to take a stand for Freedom!
FREE THE POLITICAL PRISONERS HELD AS POW’s!

TR/Thom & Rene’

email any news tips to: tr_thecowboyandthelady@yahoo.com
follow the Cowboy and the Lady: Twitter: https://twitter.com/trthecowboyand1 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ThomRene2016/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

Hopefully these people know about the difference between the State of Oregon and Oregon State and that Oregon State is the State that holds jurisdiction.

The State of Oregon gets it's authority and police power from the Municipal Court of the District of Criminals. It owns NO land.

---

Trowbridge, using many references to the United States Statutes at Large, exposes the fraud in his most recent lawsuit

https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...16-18-6-mb.pdf

Todd Macfarlane reporting

http://youtu.be/jgKvvDUgdRY

https://youtu.be/jgKvvDUgdRY

How long before Judge Ana J. Brown and the prosecution recognize Ammon Bundy's emergency motion to dismiss?
Will she maintain she has subject matter jurisdiction via USC Title 28 and continue to buldoze over these defendants? It appears she is forging ahead with trial ignoring her obligation to prove she has jurisdiction to try the case.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...7123999167142/

This post is refering to the Nevada case, but applies to all US District Courts.

Bill Goode

July 17







From Dan H. Bailey
**** DAVID VS GOLIATH ****
THINK ABOUT THIS! WHO IS THE BUNDY PROSECUTOR? DOES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL ACTION?

CAN A FAMILY THAT HAS SUED TWICE **** THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES **** AND THE AGENCIES “THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT” AND THE “DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR” AGENCIES **** UNDER **** THE PRESIDENT GET A FAIR HEARING OR TRIAL?

Think of it this way, your neighbor wants your land. YOUR NEIGHBOR IS A MAN POSSESSING GREAT POWER WITH MANY DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES UNDER HIM!

He sues you in a civil action to force you into submission to leave the land or pay a ransom fee (grazing fees) to use land you have had the right (via common pasture rights) to use for over one-hundred and thirty (130) years.
However, you (David) are an honest man and know what your neighbor is doing is not morally or legally right so you stand fast and oppose him (Goliath) every way you can.

Your neighbor used the JUDGE that is in a department under him (one he appointed the JUDGE and fire or demote at will) to say it is ok for your neighbor to take your cattle off the land.

Your neighbor shows up with great numbers of men, they have GUNS, TASERS, and DOGS to make sure you do not interfere with them as THEY STEAL AND SELL YOUR CATTLE!

In addition, they kill many of your cattle, run your cattle and separate the baby cattle and DESTROY WATER SYSTEMS that your family developed over the 130 years you managed the land in harmony with nature.
Either with these water systems destroyed the native wildlife that depended on the water source, either died of thirst, or migrated great distances to water.

As your neighbors marauders entered your land, friends and neighbors came (unarmed) to protest, by waving flags, taking pictures had verbally protesting the illegal actions.

THEN ONE OF THE ARMED THUGS CAME UP BEHIND A WOMAN TAKING PICTURES OF THE DRIVERS OF TRUCKS BRINGING IN EQUIPMENT TO AID IN STEALING YOUR CATTLE AND DESTROYING YOUR WATER SYSTEM.

THE THUG COMES UP BEHIND YOUR 57-YEAR-OLD AUNT AND GRABS HER FROM BEHIND AND VIOLENTLY SLAMS HER TO THE GROUND. THE EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE CAUGHT ON CAMERA IN PICTURES AND VIDEOS.THE EXCESSIVE AND UNJUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE AND THEN WAS POSTED ON FACEBOOK ANS SHARED OUT IN THE SOCIAL MEDIAL.

GOOD HONEST CITIZENS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY DROPPED WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND AS **** GOOD SAMARITANS **** CAME TO YOUR AID.

Some of them that came to your aid (un-solicited) were ex-military men that understood your neighbor and his marauders were armed and dangerous, so they came armed to stand with you and defend you.

By the sheer numbers of people who came to your aid as the result of the open public media attention; your neighbor and his marauders backed down and left you alone for approximate 2 years.

Then you hear of other ranchers in a neighboring state that is also having problems with your neighbor and his marauders so you go as GOOD SAMARITANS protest the oppression of fellow ranchers. To bring attention to the problems you and a large group of **** GOOD SAMARITANS **** decide to move into a property that your neighbors believes is his property and claim it under adverse possession.

Your neighbor is ferrous and sends more armed marauders and sets up and ambushes you and assaults and kills one of your friends (A GOOD SAMARITAN) THAT STOOD WITH YOU.

A RETALIATORY VINDICTIVE AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION IS FILED BY YOUR NEIGHBOR and you are in jail, along with many on your family members and many of the GOOD SAMARITANS (friends) that came to your aid.

Now you face criminal charges brought by your neighbor. Additionally you now face hearings and trial before a JUDGE appointed and paid by your neighbor, and a CLERK, a court reporter appointed by the JUDGE, and a MARSHAL appointed and paid by your neighbor, and a PROSECUTOR (some of the same prosecutors from the civil case) that were appointed and paid by your neighbor. Further, all the Public Pretenders (a.k.a., Defenders) are ALL PROSECUTING YOU TO SIMPLY FOR STANDING UP TO YOUR NEIGHBOR!

SUBSTITUTE **** NEIGHBOR FOR “PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE” **** and THAT IN A NUTSHELL, IS WHY THE BUNDY FAMILY, THEIR FRIEND’S, NEIGHBOR’S AND SUPPORTERS ARE IN JAIL TODAY!

https://fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.ne...2190b98489b5c5
https://fbcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.ne...5d1a2cac0a4a66


Note: EXECUTIVE, UNITED STATES DISTICT OF COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Ammon Bundy has filed another emergency motion today. This one for a mistrial. I haven't read it yet.



Remove
DID BUNDY PLAY THE LEAD AND WATCH THE FEDS PLAY OUT HIS SCRIPT AS PLANNED? WELL PLAYED AMMON, WELL PLAYED.


THE COWBOY AND THE LADY·THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2016




By: Thom Davis & Rene’ Powers, The Cowboy and The Lady

It is our belief that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), all federal agencies and state government involved in the Malhuer Refuge circus are all guilty of crimes against humanity. It is time to let all Americans know that the Federal Government is nothing more than a corporation with sub corporations who have usurped our country and destroyed many lives, estates, families and States of the people. Thank you to the Patriots who gave so much to bring this to light.

AMMON BUNDY MOTION FOR DISMISSAL/READ!

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Ammons%20Motion%20for%20Mistrial%20and%20Dismissal %2C%2015%20Sept%202016%20.pdf?token=AWyp0Z5_eUvU0C yqqKvU4pBj4yKrki_u_X_XYwBw12B8m_GI1nIzDqGK72rfgV3c rdC2pDbNWcYasV_1t05XrLdm6vr12QCBr2GfjYfDa8MhYzdF1X V1b0ss3-JrrnCiLMEJmvnBLpv4DJ5ldu8nDCgQ

AMMONS EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION, DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND OTHER RELIEF.

Ammon's Emergency Motion to ENJOIN PROSECUTION, Dismiss with Prejudice and Other Relief .pdf · version 1
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Am...

We have written since day one that the feds have no jurisdiction and Ammon Bundy and his supporters who stood by him at the refuge argued the same point. What we question is why the filing for adverse possession was not done from day one. It would appear that was a motion that could have made a lesser burden on all of Harney County and Americans following this story, but the actions of the Feds would not have played out to the extent of unbelievable lies, cover-ups, deception and fraud upon the court.
The Defendants are WHISTLE BLOWERS NOT TERRORISTS!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...f6fee10febe354

SEE STORY HERE:
https://www.facebook.com/ThomRene201...type=3&theater

Expert Witnesses Weigh-in on MNWR Title and Jurisdiction Issues
http://rangefire.us/2016/09/15/

"The current Malheur National Wildlife Refused is comprised of some 187,000+ acres of land, with very diverse ownership status and history. The original Refuge was set aside by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908, comprising just a small portion of the current claimed acreage. The Refuge has been vastly expanded since that time through a variety of means. United States v Otley, 127 F2d 988 (9th Cir 1942) makes it very clear that at the time that case was decided there were a wide variety of disputes regarding title to Refuge lands even as they existed at that time, including recognized adverse possession claims. This paper makes no attempt to examine all title issues applicable to the full acreage purportedly involved or included in the current refuge. The primary focus of this paper is on the Refuge headquarters and improvements located in the South half of Section 35, Township 26 South, Range 31, Willamette Meridian, and to some extent the adjoining Section 36, where the alleged adverse possession occupation occurred earlier this year. This paper recognizes factual and legal issues associated with title to both Section 35 and the adjoining Section 36, upon which some additional headquarters infrastructure, including a landing strip, is located, which property by Act of Congress should have been a state school section."

The reasoning for not filing during the stay at the refuge may be due to the fact that it allowed for the Feds to step on their ties and undo their corruption right before our eyes. Ammon was kind and very communicative, offered truth and even Obama said it was for local jurisdiction to handle. Whatever you believe was the right action or non action to take by Bundy, the one common denominator in every action related to this event was federal corruption. The light has been shown bright on the Federal corruption and we thank Ammon and his team for his tenacious efforts to bring out the truth.

From the local media, the production companies, the federal informants, the county courthouse, defense participants with rap sheets longer than a mares tail who worked with the feds, BLM, EPA, Bio Diversity groups, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ATF, FBI, Senators Wyden and Merkley, Gov. Kate Brown, Loretta Lynch, Oregon State Police, Sheriff Ward and Judge Grasty et al are ALL to blame for ignoring Ammons requests to see the evidence. They all must be held accountable to the crimes against the defendants & humanity, the public at large and the death of Lavoy Finicum. Good job Ammon and may we see the truth dismiss this case from further folly.

LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIU...

Shawna Cox adds fuel to the fire of truth! Keep it up as the light is shining bright and the truth is seen. SHAME ON THE FEDS! SHAME ON THE STATE POLICE! Shame on all who call
themselves public servants and continue to act under the color of law with fraud upon the court and American men/women.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...

Suspicious activity has been ongoing in Burns and all of Oregon for a very long time. Many deaths, suicides of children, opening of a juvenile detention center and others associated with child sexual abuse, a man who has every job and even ownership of the town of Harney all play into the crimes against humanity that is so prevalent and was kept in the dark caverns of the nation.

Do the means justify the end in this case as many folks have been harmed and put through hell as the story unfolded and the town was put under a microscope? The theater and productions we will see coming out of this will be many, but do you believe that the extreme measures were needed? Well folks, it may seem as though they were, sad but true, to stop the corruption known as the Corporation, US INC.

Ammon Bundy may just have had to create this theater and let the Feds show it's true colors. All the world is a theater and what character are you?
TR/Thom & Rene’


email any news tips to: tr_thecowboyandthelady@yahoo.com
follow the Cowboy and the Lady: Twitter: https://twitter.com/trthecowboyand1
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ThomRene2016/
HAVE THE FEDS BEEN LYING ALL ALONG ABOUT OWNING THE MALHEUR REFUGE
https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-cowboy-and-the-lady/have-the-feds-been-lying-about-owning-the-land-at-the-malheur-refuge-the-people-/1048146468588405

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...048e74725f633b
FREE THE HAMMONDS!

Share

Chronological

Sadie Thompson, Matt Louis, Darly Smith and 8 others like this.



1 Comment
41 shares


Comments

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...c21f17ba955e77

The Cowboy and the Lady Shawna Cox adds fuel to the fire of truth! Keep it up as the light is shining bright and the truth is seen. SHAME ON THE FEDS! SHAME ON THE STATE POLICE!
Shame on all who call themselves public servants and continue to act under the color of law with fraud upon the court and American men/women.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php...
1 · 56 minutes ago





https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-c...45136365556081

Cliven Bundy's sister Margaret Houston day 2 of the trial


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...e25cc7e5eefcd5


Margaret Houston

17 hrs ·
2nd Day of Trial

So this is about how today went......

out of 41 objections from the prosecution the judge sided with the defense 8 times. Out of 11 objections from the defense the judge sided with defense 0 times. Unfortunately, the judge seems like she has already made up her mind and at times we wondered why we were even having a trial. At one point the prosecution talked about 2 videos they wanted to be shown to the jury. One of which was an interview with a reporter. Mumford objected to the video because Ward was not in the interview and it had nothing to do with Ward. Judge over ruled. Directly after Mumford asked why Prosecution was able to have a part one and a part two. Judge explained to prosecution that she specifically asked when submitting evidence not to have subtitles but since it was already done we would just go with it. Bias? You decide. Also Ammon and Ryan mentioned that they were transferred from the jail free of handcuffs and as they were waiting by the courthouse door right before coming into the room they put handcuffs on them, escorted them into the room, and then removed them. What was the reason for that? Just for show?

Prosecution said Dave Ward would talk about the Hammonds so Judge wanted to read synopsis of Hammonds to give the jury a background on who they are.

Sheriff Ward was the first witness to take the stand. He came in looking very uptight and nervous. He mentioned that he met Ammon for the first time on Nov 5, 2015 and that He always had polite conversation with Ammon. He said he is an easy guy to have conversation with. At one point When Sheriff Ward was asked a question he said "I don't recall, my brain is like jello." Ward met in person and talked on the phone with Ammon several times. One meeting was with about 10 of the guys from the refuge. Even though the sheriff's office clearly states that guns are prohibited, the sheriff said he allowed the men to come in with their guns because he didn't want to have a second amendment argument. It was evident that the guns were allowed because Ward was not worried or concerned in any way about his safety or the safety of those in his office. Otherwise, he wouldn't have allowed it.

The video of the meeting with Sheriff Ward and Ammon was played for the Jury. In the video Ammon asked the sheriff 4 times in 4 different ways about addressing their redress of grievances. "what do you expect people to do if they are bringing up legitimate concerns and they are ignored?" Ammon Bundy

Sheriff Ward continued to beat around the question even while on the stand.

Prosecution asked Sheriff Ward if he was the Law of the Land. He responded yes. They then asked him as sheriff can you overturn the decisions of the federal government or the Hammonds or any of that for that matter? Sheriff Ward said, "no, I do not."

Earlier in his testimony Ward mentioned that he is the one who approves gun permits in his county and the permits have his signature. Towards the end of his testimony he was asked about what percentage of his community carry guns. Ward said he is unsure.

Infamous quotes today from Sheriff Ward. "We can't just arrest someone because we don't like what they have to say."
"You have to have a victim to arrest someone for a crime."

Butch Eaton took the stand briefly towards the end of court. Judge asked him to stay the night so that he could continue his testimony tomorrow. He briefly spoke of how he joined a group that headed to the refuge. His story was much different than what he had originally relayed to prosecutors but prosecution reminded him to only give testimony on what he himself saw and now what was relayed to him by someone else or anything he is just assuming. His testimony will continue tomorrow.

PS I am going to miss Sarah so much when I have to part from her tomorrow. No more cuddle time.

1.4K Views

https://www.facebook.com/11kidshoust...79984718679220

Ryan Bundy's Motion for Judge Brown to excuse herself


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...c794233d742e8d


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...db53ca9c9acb68



https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...e5386f13b433c4
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...a236b037ce769b

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...88&oe=5876201A

Ammon Bundy's emergency motion for mistrial


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...ca7f5d47d008e5


https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...cc&oe=58846FFD





https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...04&oe=5882288C


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...2181d0252e4dc5



https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...3c2f3afe5ceb22



https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...6b7042da5e3acd

Thursday Malheur Trial highlights

http://youtu.be/9a8Y-uPF9-o

https://youtu.be/9a8Y-uPF9-o

http://youtu.be/oYFMn4Xea5I

https://youtu.be/oYFMn4Xea5I

http://youtu.be/h1H7KGTpXSY

https://youtu.be/h1H7KGTpXSY

Gary Hunt, Outpost to Freedom discovered Judge Anna Brown ordered Ammon Bundy's motion to dismiss sealed.

There are copies all over the internet!

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...c6&oe=586D47A2

Ammon Budy wears blue jail scrubs to court


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

Oregon standoff: Ammon Bundy chooses to wear jail scrubs in trial

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...77f966f9e8.JPG

Ammon Bundy surprised the court Thursday when he showed up for trial wearing blue jail scrubs, with a pocket Constitution in left shirt pocket.

"Mr. Bundy desires to appear as he is, a political prisoner not free to dress as if presumed innocent,'' attorney J. Morgan Philpot said, reading his client's statement. "He would prefer to drop the facade and appear as the political prisoner he has been made.''

Bundy also bemoaned how he has been "shuffled around in chains," "molested like an animal," and not given the "utensils'' he needs to prepare for trial.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown asked Bundy to stand. She inquired whether it was his choice to appear in jail attire, and if anyone took his suit away.

"Your honor, I have no comment," he replied.

The judge told him she must know if his decision was voluntary.

"I have no comment," he repeated.

Philpot interjected, "Mr. Bundy feels he really has no choice — that that's been taken from him."

Controversy surrounding Bundy's attire began just before jury selection, when he objected to a U.S. Marshal's policy that he not be allowed to wear cowboy boots, a belt or necktie. In his objection to that policy, his lawyer argued that a juror could draw an inference that he was not presumed innocent as he was being held in custody and did not look like the other out-of-custody defendants.

The judge then denied his objections, and Bundy came to court in a tan suit jacket, white dress shirt and loafers.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight on Thursday said the government didn't have any objection to Bundy's choice of clothing now, but did note that Bundy had earlier been concerned about jurors drawing any inferences of guilt from his attire.

Defendant Ryan Bundy, Ammon's older brother, stood up in court, and said he supported his brother's assertions.
"Do you wish to change clothes too?" the judge asked him.

Ryan Bundy, wearing a dark suit jacket over a leather vest and blue plaid shirt, responded, "I'm fine with mine today."
The judge allowed Ammon Bundy to remain in the standard jail scrubs — blue shirt over pink T-shirt and blue pants.

She did, though, alert jurors to the change.

"You are not to draw any inference of any kind from his attire today or any day," Brown said.

-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian

Bill Goode believes LaVoy,Finicum was targeted by FBI for assasanation.

Bill Goode

1 hr

This 48 min interview has been posted before, but the significance of it causes me to repost it. In this interview Butch Eaton describes his interview / interrogation from the FBI in his home on 3 January. This is the VERY day after the initial occupation of the Refuge.

In this interview Butch Eaton describes how the FBI had singled out LaVoy Finicum for identification - THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE AMBUSH ON 26 JANUARY.

Until this interview, I have been unsure whether the shooting of LaVoy was a murder or an assassination. This interview confirms to me that the shooting of LaVoy was an assassination. The FBI had evidently been targeting LaVoy since before this interview / interrogation with Butch Eaton on 3 January.

Rural Route Radio April 7, 2016 Butch Eaton was at Malheur Refuge day one of ...
Butch Eaton lives in Harney County and this conversation took place on March 15, 2016 as the…
TRENTLOOS.PODOMATIC.COM




Trent Loos Podcast:

http://trentloos.podomatic.com/entry...08_17_44-07_00

This reporter must not be aware of the deed or the Otley case showing the Malheur headquarters was originally private property. She is reporting on what is happening in the courtroom regarding ownership. Also land under and around a federal courthouse or post office usually is land that was ceded to the USA by the state legislature, so this Anthony Bosworth case is like comparing apples to oranges. This lady also seems to be missing the subject matter jurisdiction issue not being addressed .

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/15/fe...hip-hot-topic/

Federal Land Ownership Hot Topic in Malheur Trial

September 15, 2016 BLM, DOJ, FBI, government, Oregon

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C407
(Photo: John Collins / Rural America In These Times)

Federal Land Ownership Hot Topic in Malheur Trial

By Shari Dovale and Aubrie Bosworth

As much as Judge Anna Brown is trying to keep out the issue of who owns the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, it keeps sneaking back into the testimony.
Judge Brown has repeatedly stated that the issues of Federal land ownership will not be litigated during this trial. She wants the subject to be buried as deeply as possible. However, it is intricate to the trial.

The defendants firmly believe that the Malheur Refuge does not belong to the Federal government. That goes right to the heart of their intent. If their intent is to be judged by the jury, they must first fully understand this.

Additionally, Brown does not realize that there is precedent for this issue. Anthony Bosworth was arrested in February 2015 for carrying firearms on federal property, specifically the Federal Courthouse plaza in Spokane, Washington.

Though he was in the public plaza and street, he was arrested as if he was inside the courthouse. His defense was that he was not on Federal property, but on public property.

This necessitated the prosecutors to prove that he was on Federal property. They had to dig up blueprints, etc to show their was a previously unknown parking garage under the street that was considered part of the courthouse. They were able to utilize this information to extend the land around the courthouse, and charge Bosworth.

The Malheur trial brings the issue forward again, and should at least require the discussion during the trial, if not a Motion for Dismissal for not allowing it.

The defendants believe they can prove that the Malheur Wildlife Refuge does not belong to the Federal government. They are being charged with crimes ON Federal land. If so, they charges they are being tried for would be moot.

This is not a given. It should not be treated as such. Let the Federal Government prove their ownership.

This is one of the articles linked by Shari Dovale in the preceding post. Donald Trump is not going to fix it, we need to fix it at home.

The biggest and most dangerous error people continue to make is refering to the public land as "Federal Land". The only
federal land is the District of Columbia and their enclaves.

This is the future the vultures have planned for us and is also the number one reason why the land ownership issue and the United States District Courts' (all 49 of them,,the Hawaii Court is an Article III court of limited jurisdiction) lack of constitutional authority to take jurisdiction inmthe states must be exposed. Without the courts (((they))) cannot advance their agenda. Also the public needs to be educated that Congress lacks power (Constitutional authority) to legislate in the states. Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, the guncontrol acts and other federal laws do not apply in the states. Only by dumbing down the population and usurping jurisdiction have they been able to achieve and continue this scam. Bundys and Trowbridge are shining a bright light on their evil ways. It is not just the western way of life under attack, it is all of America. Teach your kids at home what they won't learn in the skoolz

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/06/15/pu...ands-keep-out/



PUBLIC LANDS – KEEP OUT! by Representative Scott


EXPECT MORE RULES, FEES, RESTRICTIONS, MISMANAGEMENT AND ULTIMATELY, A FENCE AROUND YOUR PUBLIC LANDS.

June 15, 2016 BLM, EPA, government 1
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C402

PUBLIC LANDS – KEEP OUT!

WHAT IS THE REAL AGENDA FOR OUR PUBLIC LANDS?

Representative Heather Scott – District 1 – North Idaho

There is an obvious trend building even emotional liberals can’t deny. The western way of life is under full assault from our federal government and its multitude of federal agencies and policy pushers. Well known western ranchers like the Hammonds, Bundys, Hages and Joe Robertson, along thousands of unnamed ranching family members, are being forced to abandon this important American way of life. Why?? Federal bullies and their regulation quagmires. I'm

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=156%2C118

My question is, what is driving this trend and why?

After reading last week’s Redoubt News article about the U.S. Forest Service’s attempt to restrict a local gold club’s access to a mining claim, I decided to dig a little deeper into this growing problem. It didn’t take long to find three very disturbing documents that shed some light on the issue. These include:

1. “EJ 2020-Action Agenda-Environmental Justice Strategic Plan (2016-2020)” EPA
2. “Sustainable Development and its influence on Mining Operations on Federal Lands-A Conversation in Plain Language” from the BLM and the US Forest Service
   
3. “Sustainable Development-Minerals Applications” from the BLM and the US Forest Service.
   

A review of these three documents provides clear confirmation of planned cooperation by US federal agencies with the United Nations in an implement many Agenda 21 proposals. One of the three reports ends by stating “we heartily endorse the Plan of Implementation signed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development”!

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=474%2C297

Globalist and socialists have perfected the art of word twisting. This is an attempt to change the public’s perception on many national and world issues. Understanding their “meaning” of words often provides the first red flags for liberty loving Americans. The term “Sustainable Development” has morphed into a whole litany of confusing meanings and agendas. The definition of the word “sustainable” to an American patriot can be far different than the meaning to a UN global environmentalist.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=193%2C152

Colin PowellThe root of the issue goes back to the United States’ participation in the “World Summit on Sustainable Development” in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002. At the Summit’s closing ceremonies, then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, adopted the “Plan of Implementation”. This plan addressed activities relating to mining, minerals, metals and resources and how they would be managed.

Since then, those “sustainability principles” have been trickling into federal rules, regulations, fees and policies. These policies are then pushed onto the states by agencies like the EPA, BLM and USDA. I believe it is no coincidence that the public and private western lands we are seeing ranchers being bullied off of, being “acquired”, or being highly regulated with fees and restrictions, are same ones where important mineral or water resources occur.

Our federal bureaucrats continue to fall in lock step with the UN global thinking. Their brochures are now boldly proclaiming they will “support efforts to address the environmental, economic, health and social impacts using partnerships at international levels among interested governments, intergovernmental organizations”. This continues to promote their “idea” sustainability. They have obviously forgotten they work for the American people-not the United Nations and its global members.

Redefining and promoting social engineering ideas like sustainability is not an enumerated power of the federal government! We need to say enough is enough. I believe until we start standing up as a sovereign state and making our own decisions, we will continue to be locked out of our public lands, forest fires will continue to burn billions of dollars in homes and renewable timber resources, and the American ranching way of life will further falter under withering federal pressures.

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=210%2C112

Remember: We get the government we allow!

If this makes your blood pressure soar, then please join me in this battle to save our western way of life and gain state ownership of our federal lands. Otherwise expect more rules, fees, restrictions, mismanagement and ultimately, a fence around your public lands.

I am in the fight for the long haul. Please join me and help me be a strong focused voice for North Idaho’s western values and for liberty loving citizens across the state.

Rep Heather Scott District 1
www.repheatherscott.com
208-920-3120

People are saying the government's case is falling apart at the loosely tacked seams. But, remember,
we have a very corrupt judge, Anna J. Brown who works for the same entity as the very corrupt prosecutors.

Today the boss of the bird refuge changed his testimony admitting yesterday's testimony was all HEARSAY.

Refuge Manager Changes Testimony On Witness Stand


KARGES WAS THE ONLY ONE TO TELL THE EMPLOYEES TO NOT GO TO WORK.

September 16, 2016 BLM, Constitution, DOJ, FBI, Featured

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=620%2C381

Refuge Manager Changes Testimony On Witness Stand

by Aubrie Bosworth and Shari Dovale

The manager of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge south of Burns, Oregon, testified in the Protest Trialbeing held in Portland, Oregon. Chad Karges took the stand on the second day of testimony, spending most of the day being questioned by the government and defense attorneys.
Karges told of how he was concerned for the safety of his 16 employees after seeing a caravan of cars pass his house after a rally on Saturday, January 2, 2016.

He instructed his employees to “not report to work until they were instructed” by him. However, he stated contradictory dates for these instructions.
He admitted to telling to 2 maintenance workers to leave the refuge and go home on December 31^st, a full 2 days before the rally took place in Burns.
Though he first said that he learned of Bunkerville through internet stories, he admitted to reading ‘government reports’ after the incident in 2014, which held weight in his decision to empty the refuge of workers.

He attempted to say that his information came from rumors, or common knowledge, throughout the town of Burns. But, it seems to us that it would not be reasonable to empty a facility of workers based on rumors.

He told of how he went to the refuge on Friday, January 1^st, to remove a laptop computer from his office for a meeting he was attending. He testified that all the doors were locked at the refuge, but on cross examination, it was revealed that he never personally checked any door other than his own office. He relied on what he believed to have been true, based on general behavior of the employees.

He also testified that when Linda Beck asked him if she could go to the refuge on Saturday, January 2^nd, to retrieve paperwork from her office, Karges specifically told her not to go. He was concerned for her safety, even though no specific threats had been made by the protesters, and the rally had not even taken place at that time.

He was not concerned for his own safety, demonstrated by his personal visit on Friday, January 1^st. But, based on rumors within the town, he became concerned for the safety of his employees.

He also testified that $400.00 had been taken from the safe, but later confirmed that he did not know of this personally. Again, he testified to what someone else had told him.

So, this man testified to quite a lot of hearsay, statements from others, and reports from a 2014 grazing rights incident, to not allow his 16 employees to go to the refuge. He was the only one to tell the employees to not go to work. The defendants never spoke to them and never kept them from working.

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/16/re...witness-stand/

Todd Macfarlane on motion for mistrial

http://youtu.be/m8gb3rO9Q4Q

https://youtu.be/m8gb3rO9Q4Q

Lorri Anderson has a collection of videos on this trial

https://plus.google.com/collection/IdjybB

On a side note, Sheriff Glen Palmer, thanks to Les (((Zaitz))) has a hearing coming up shortly.





https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...31191377_o.jpg



https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...60769348_o.jpg

Todd Macfarlane Jeff Rose 1, BLM manager testimony.

http://youtu.be/_IobssiUdoA

https://youtu.be/_IobssiUdoA

Another video report from Todd Macfarlane 9/16

https://www.periscope.tv/NewsBud_/1OdKrYZDXWqxX

Todd Macfarlane video reporting from Portland 9/15

https://www.periscope.tv/w/1BRJjRrlWONJw

Here is the article "Addressing JUDICIAL BIAS, The Elephant in the Room" Todd Macfarlane referred to in one of his videos. I believe Macfarlane goes to great lengths to present an unbiased opinion, quite the oposite of the Oregonian and the other main stream media.

Quote:

---

I’m not completely naïve and inexperienced when it comes to judges. I don’t claim to be the greatest or most experienced trial attorney in the world. I am content to be a rancher first and foremost (as well as a writer, and a wannabe media mogul), but I have been an attorney for 25 years, and have been associated with the legal profession (first as a paralegal – back before there even was such a thing) for over 30 years. I have practiced law in two states, and worked a year as a paralegal in upstate New York, before starting law school. I have been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. I have tried plenty of civil cases over the years. I have known plenty of judges, and I have basically been around the block. My only reason for saying all that is that I’m not sure that in 25 years I have ever seen any clearer case of blatant judicial bias.

---

Todd Macfarlane


http://rangefire.us/2016/09/17/addre...dd-macfarlane/

Addressing JUDICIAL BIAS and the Elephant in the Room — Legal Reality Check — by Todd Macfarlane

What If You’re Viewed as the Red-Headed Step Child?

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...nderella-1.jpg

Have you ever watched the movie Ever After starring Drew Barrymore? It depicts Barrymore in a Cinderella role, as the French maiden, Danielle de Barbarac, who is treated very poorly by her step-mother. But in real life, for most stepchildren, life is not a Cinderella story.

After spending a week observing the Oregon Standoff Trial, and burning the candle at both ends to make short video clip commentaries about developments in the trial, I’ve got to take a break and do some writing. There is something I’ve got to get off my chest. I’ve got to address the elephant in the room. I’ve talked about foxes guarding the hen house in federal court generally. At this point all those analogies apply to the Oregon Standoff Trial.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...ep-Child-1.jpg

When it comes to the contrast between how natural children are often treated by their parents versus step children, although there are clearly exceptions to that and every other rule, many people can relate to this analogy. Whether it has happened to them or not, they have often seen families and situations where there is a stark contrast between how the natural and step children are treated, with marked preferential treatment for a parent’s own natural children.

Let’s face it, Bundys are also viewed and treated as redheated stepchildren by their siblings — the vast majority of the American People. If there is a derogatory label or characterization that can be found, it has been used to describe them. They and their associates are viewed to be the “bad,” misbehaving problem children. I had one U.S Marshall at the Portland federal courthouse tell me just that — when problem children misbehave, you have to get out the belt to send a message to everyone else.

That’s why having judges who are able to act impartially is so critical to the fair and just operation of our judicial system. And as a general rule, many of them probably are. It isn’t easy. Judges are human beings. The have opinions. The have inherent natural biases. Sometimes they can set those aside. Sometimes they can’t.

At this point I’m just going to interject and say that Oregon Federal District Judge Anna Brown does not appear to be an exception to the general step-parent analogy – at least not in this case. Before going any further, however, I also want to say that I have come to like Judge Brown, as I have observed her over the
course of a week, as she presides over the Oregon Standoff Trial.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...na-Brown-1.jpg

I have come to the conclusion that she is a very competent and efficient jurist, fully capable of handling a complex case like this with multiple defendants and other challenges. But her preferences and biases are really starting to show.

I have a former law partner who is now a judge. I have previously made reference to him, his observations, and my most recent discussions with him, in several of my previous articles about the Oregon Standoff. Back when we worked together in the same law firm, when I was first a paralegal, then (following law school) an associate, and eventually a partner, I used to tell people that he was the best lawyer I had ever known – as long as you were on his front burner. Based on my observations of this trial thus far, I’m going to offer a similar caveat about Judge Brown – as long as you are not viewed as a step child – possibly a bastard step child – she is probably a pretty darn good jurist.

But what if you happen to be viewed as that red-headed step child?

I mentioned this dilemma clear back in early February – before LaVoy Finicum was even in the ground – my concerns about finding a judge who could be impartial about this case. When people are viewed – as Bundys are – as problem children, and public enemy number one to the Federal government, which has become painfully obvious in such a myriad of ways, including the extreme security measures on display during the trial, how are they ever going to get a fair treatment by the vast majority of federal court judges?

I’m not completely naïve and inexperienced when it comes to judges. I don’t claim to be the greatest or most experienced trial attorney in the world. I am content to be a rancher first and foremost (as well as a writer, and a wannabe media mogul), but I have been an attorney for 25 years, and have been associated with the legal profession (first as a paralegal – back before there even was such a thing) for over 30 years. I have practiced law in two states, and worked a year as a paralegal in upstate New York, before starting law school. I have been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. I have tried plenty of civil cases over the years. I have known plenty of judges, and I have basically been around the block. My only reason for saying all that is that I’m not sure that in 25 years I have ever seen any clearer case of blatant judicial bias.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x240.jpg

To sit back and watch, it doesn’t take long for it to become painfully obvious. It’s almost as if there has been some sort of explicit collusion between Judge Brown and the prosecution. She is extremely defensive when it comes to any questions that relate to federal property title ownership and jurisdiction. She has said that she is going to allow the Defendants to explore subject matter that will help explain their purpose, intent, and state of mind, but she isn’t practicing what she’s preaching. She won’t let them lay the foundation for presenting that evidence. The prosecution is on a hair trigger to object when it comes to that subject matter, and she often sustains their objections without even hearing the grounds for the objections. As a general rule she sustains their objections almost before the word “objection” is even out of their mouths.

The examination and testimony of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Manager Chad Karges provided a perfect example. On direction examination, the prosecution asked Karges about the government’s ownership of the land where the refuge headquarters is located, including title to that property. This is a hot topic, because, as it turns out, that land was not part of the original refuge set-aside by President Roosevelt in 1908. That particular land had been originally homesteaded in the late 1800s, and had been reacquired by the Federal government in at least two separate transactions in the 1930s and 40s, based on specific congressional acts.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...OLC-Deed-1.jpg


The prosecution opened the door to cross examination on that subject by questioning Karges about it. But when it came time for cross examination, both the prosecution and Judge Brown were on hair trigger to shut down that line of questioning. Obviously, they didn’t want Karges to have to attempt to do any explaining when it came to the issues of title ownership and jurisdiction. A quote from the Shakespeare play Hamlet, seems more than apropos regarding Judge Brown’s treatment of the Defendants’ inquiries in this regard: “methinks she doth protest too much.”

After just a week of trial it has become painfully obvious that Judge Brown considers the government and the prosecution in this case to be her preferred natural children in the whole equation, who are entitled to overzealous protection against the probing questions and inquiries of the Defendants.

And at this point, I’m going to once again renew my pitch for greater judicial transparency, through some mechanism of live-streaming of cases and court proceedings, which are already being recorded via a variety of electronic means. This would give others a better opportunity to see what I am talking about, as well as help remove the mystery that continues to enshroud the judicial system.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-292x300.jpg

In this case, that would be very helpful for several reasons. One thing that most people probably don’t know is that Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Marcus Mumford, has a speech impediment. He stutters. Sometimes more than others. But, unlike many lawyers, he is no silver-tongued devil. He has to work very hard at what he does. When he introduced himself to the jury, he joked that when you call his house you better not hang up too soon if you don’t hear someone speak, because he may still be trying to get the first word out of his mouth.

It may not be politically correct to even mention this, let alone talk about such things – just like it isn’t politically correct to mention, let alone discuss, Ryan Bundy’s facial deformities. But, along with Judge Brown’s obvious attitude towards the Defendants’ and their attorneys generally, this has all become part of the elephant in the room. Judge Brown’s whole body language, demeanor, and repeated rulings leave little doubt about her preferences and biases in the case. There’s that old saying “the record speaks for itself,” and the record is really starting to speak in this case. Judge Brown does not like this Defendants, and their attorneys, who they are, what they stand for, and the arguments they are attempting to make. That has all become rather painfully obvious.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-2-300x222.jpg

Consequently, it was no real surprise when, even at this stage, early in the trial, after months of legal wrangling, Ryan Bundy made a motion to recuse Judge Brown. That motion was then followed by a motion for a mistrial, based highly prejudicial, unsolicited answers from the Government’s witnesses on cross examination, that Attorney Mumford argued had been coached, and that although they should have known better, they had “laid in wait for the opportunity to blurt this information.” According to Mumford, a pattern was starting to become readily apparent. Although the motion was initially sealed, eventually Judge Brown heard arguments on the motion and ruled on it. Her decision not to grant the motion was no surprise, but her failure to admonish the government against any such future outbursts was. In the meantime, neither the motion to recuse, nor the motion for mistrial have done much to curry her favor. In other words, it appears that situation is going from bad to worse.

I’m convinced that Judge Brown is a capable, competent judge. But she’s still human. The case has progressed to the point that she can’t hide her distaste for the Defendants and what they stand for. Attorney Mumford’s inherent challenges are also starting to grate on her. It’s a darn good thing that a jury will be deciding the case. If this were a “bench trial” (tried to the judge without a jury), the defendants would be in serious trouble. There is little question that regardless of what the constitution may say, in Judge Brown’s own mind there is no presumption of innocence. Influenced by, among other things, the multiple plea agreements that have been entered into, and processed through her court, she has clearly already long since reached the conclusion in her own mind that at least some of the defendants are guilty. But with the governments one-size-fits-all approach that becomes a real challenge. In the meantime even though the jury will be deciding guilt or innocence, there are a myriad of legal and evidentiary rulings that must be made by a judge. And anyone who might find themselves in the shoes of the defendants in this case would want an impartial judge to be in the driver’s seat. Any defendant accused of anything would naturally want an impartial judge. It’s a tall order in this case, but it’s not too much to ask.

Something else to consider are Judge Brown’s statements that she has a lot of confidence in this particular jury. She said they have already demonstrated that they will follow all her directions very carefully. Exactly what that means remains to be seen.

I don’t know what the final outcome will be regarding this issue. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic. I have a friend who says that really most pessimists are just optimists with experience. As an experienced realist, I am concerned about the writing on the wall. But in conclusion I will make a couple suggestions to the defense: Cross examination is an opportunity to make hay with the government’s witnesses. Tight, leading questions are fully permissible, and will help get around many of the prosecution’s objections, as well as do a better job of making and emphasizing some important points. And as lead defense counsel in the case, Ammon Bundy’s attorneys need to start changing things up, and better utilizing their full team, with Attorney Morgan Philpot playing a more active role in cross examination – which is a prime opportunity to shed some much needed sunlight in this case. It is not yet clear if Judge Brown hates all the red-headed step children equally, so if there is one who might find favor in some regard, it is time to figure that out, and utilize that person to play a bigger role in helping to work through this.

By the time it’s over, this case is going to be a full-fledged adventure.

RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback

I am posting Lazaro Ecenarro's opinion piece. He seems to make some interesting points. Whether or not they have any bearing on this case is questionable.

Lazaro Ecenarro

4 hrs

Under Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 803:

EXHIBITS

Directly and / or indirectly, does a “Conflict-of –Interest” exist; between Judge Anna J. Brown and Governor Kate Brown, as member’s of the OWLS (Oregon Woman Lawyers) ? If so, should Judge Brown have removed / recused and / or disqualified herself from ruling on Ryan Bundy’s subpoena for Gov. Brown ? If so, does this mean that Judge Brown ruling an “squashing” Ryan’s is “null and void” ?

Directly and / or indirectly; Does a “Conflict-of –Interest” exist between Judge Anna J. Brown, Judge Ann Aikens, Senator(s) Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, Representative Peter Defazio and others for the following reasons and limited too:

A. Members of the Federal BAR Association
B. Lewis and Clark Law School

SEE EXHIBIT: April 21, 2014: Oregon BENCHMARKS

NOTE: Judge Anna J. Brown was “appointed” by Bill Clinton; violated “Title of Nobility” as written within the “ORGANIC” 13th Amendment, Article 1 Section 9 and / or the Federalist Papers. Thus, She could be “conspiring” in the cover-up regarding land grabbing for Uranium One, Calico Resource, Malhuer Timber and / or the corporation(s).

NOTE: Governor Kate Brown is another “government official” that was “appointed”; when “Conflict-of-Interest” exist, corruption and / or fraud can exist, an FRAUD will always be FRAUD…

Summer 2010 OWLS Presents Career Development / Rainmaking Dinner for Young Lawyers
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/…/2010-Summer-AdvanceShee…

Winter 2011 by OWLS (Oregon Women Lawyers)
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/…/2011-Winter-AdvanceShee…

Summer 2011 The Lawyers’ Champaign for equal justice
http://cej-oregon.org/pdfF…/CEJ%20Annual%20Report%202011.pdf

Summer 2014 The Lawyers’ Champaign for equal justice
http://cej-oregon.org/…/CEJ%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014%2…

2014 kate-brown-calendar and phone call
http://media.oregonlive.com/polit…/…/kate-brown-calendar.pdf

April 21, 2014 Oregon BenchMark
https://usdchs.files.wordpress.com/…/02/benchmarks-draft-5.…

Fall 2015 by OWLS (Oregon Women Lawyers)
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/…/2015-Fall-AdvanceSheet.…

www.oregonwomenlawyers.org
http://www.oregonwomenlawyers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2015-Fall-AdvanceSheet.pdf
WWW.OREGONWOMENLAWYERS.ORG



https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...1671573379051/

Malheur Reserve

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...11845027_o.jpg

Old News from Twister Radio. Jim Lamley with Angie Bundy Sept. 6

http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...e-Intrview.m4a

Thom Davis and Rene Powers lost favoritsm with the Malheur defendants last spring when they exposed an associate on Ammon Bundy's new legal team that replaced Arnold Law here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-c...PAGES_TIMELINE



Today they are updating that story.

The Cowboy and the Lady shared their note.

28 mins ·
REMINDER:

This is the story where we put the information out regarding Rick Koerber/Claude Franklin that caused us to be attacked by a select few defending him. "what does it matter who he stole from before? He is working for the defense team helping now!!", YES, that was said folks!

What does it matter? You may answer that, or not. We took slanderous hits saying we were liars and that he was doing "good" for the defense and we were then black balled from the circle of love in the "christ like" folks around the defense.

There was even a long letter staged from Ryan to our Cowboy defending Koerber that was a joke as it was sent to another man and seen by one of the women helping the defense before the Cowboy even saw it. Pictures of all the pages were taken and shared across the internet and it was very upsetting that mail to the Cowboy was intercepted and read by two before he even got it. Seem a tad staged, don't ya think? We think so. Anything to defend Koerber. What is it about him and this case that caused us to be attacked so hard, kicked to the curb and all our hard researched evidence proving the innocence ignored after that?

Well, as of the last few weeks we have questioned if he is still working for the defense, we know MUMFORD is his attorney too, we know he was writing pleadings and handling the filings for Arnold law, so we still had questions as to whether he was put in this scene for reasons that seem suspect at best.

His case was removed from Federal appeals on January 21, he showed up at the refuge January 25 and met with Ryan (who did not know his real story and he was there to "cover" the refuge and interview Ryan and others) January 26 Lavoy is murdered and Koerber is there in town...then Arnold goes into full speed ahead leading all to believe he is the one doing all the work and then we find it was Koerber collecting and handling all the defense evidence, filing the documents? Well, draw your own questions or conclusions, but Koerber's partner went to prison over all this and was sentenced in May...

Did Koerber getting outed behind the scenes give reason for the judge to say "full speed ahead" again with his trial? Was he going to be let off the charges for helping destroy the Patriot movement that he spouts to love so much in order that he keep his freedom? We ask again as no one ever answered, all we got was, "What difference does it make?" (sounding very Hillaryesque) Lot's of questions, but we wait to see what happens..."Curtain goes up again on the USA vs. Koerber (or Franklin or ???)

HERE IS THE STORY FROM AUGUST 25, 2016 about the case going forward.

http://www.sltrib.com/…/judge-fraud-case-against-rick-koerb…


Edit: Thom and Rene contine . . .


The Cowboy and the Lady

7 mins ·

We did an article months ago about the man Rick Koerber/Claude Franklin which caused us to be attacked by a select few defending him. "what does it matter who he stole from before? He is working for the defense team helping now!!", YES, that was said folks!

What does it matter? You may answer that, or not. We took slanderous hits saying we were liars and that he was doing "good" for the defense and we were then black balled from the circle of love in the "christ like" folks around the defense.

There was even a long letter staged from Ryan to our Cowboy defending Koerber that was a joke as it was sent to another man and seen by one of the women helping the defense before the Cowboy even saw it. Pictures of all the pages were taken and shared across the internet and it was very upsetting that mail to the Cowboy was intercepted and read by two before he even got it. Seem a tad staged, don't ya think? We think so. Anything to defend Koerber. What is it about him and this case that caused us to be attacked so hard, kicked to the curb and all our hard researched evidence proving the innocence ignored after that?

Well, as of the last few weeks we have questioned if he is still working for the defense, we know MUMFORD is his attorney too, we know he was writing pleadings and handling the filings for Arnold law, so we still had questions as to whether he was put in this scene for reasons that seem suspect at best.

His case was removed from Federal appeals on January 21, he showed up at the refuge January 25 and met with Ryan (who did not know his real story and he was there to "cover" the refuge and interview Ryan and others) January 26 Lavoy is murdered and Koerber is there in town...then Arnold goes into full speed ahead leading all to believe he is the one doing all the work and then we find it was Koerber collecting and handling all the defense evidence, filing the documents? Well, draw your own questions or conclusions, but Koerber's partner went to prison over all this and was sentenced in May...

Did Koerber getting outed behind the scenes give reason for the judge to say "full speed ahead" again with his trial? Was he going to be let off the charges for helping destroy the Patriot movement that he spouts to love so much in order that he keep his freedom? We ask again as no one ever answered, all we got was, "What difference does it make?" (sounding very Hillaryesque) Lot's of questions, but we wait to see what
happens..."Curtain goes up again on the USA vs. Koerber (or Franklin or ???)
HERE IS THE STORY FROM AUGUST 25, 2016 about the case going forward.
http://www.sltrib.com/…/judge-fraud-case-against-rick-koerb…

HERE IS THE ARTICLE WE PUBLISHED ON JUNE 5, 2016 AFTER FINDING THE LINKS TO HIM AND THE DEFENSE TEAM. We became concerned that the Bundy's did not know about this mans criminal actions that stole from even senior citizens who lost everything. Our concerns were met with defensive attacks back upon us, leading us in shock that the man who was known to have orchestrated the biggest ponzi scheme in Utah history was known to them and they did not see it as a concern. Shame on us for sharing huh?:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-c...71070049629380

• https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=714&sh=714
  
  Fraud case against onetime investment guru Rick Koerber can be reinstated, judge says
  
  
  

Don't see that this was posted, click the link for more pages...

http://www.truthandaction.org/detail...regon-rancher/

Details Emerge that FBI ‘may have opened fire’ on Oregon Rancher

http://www.truthandaction.org/wp-con...er-680x365.jpg

The case of LaVoy Finicum, the rancher who was gunned down in Oregon earlier this year, may have disappeared from the main stream press, but you can be sure that it is still a hot topic in rural America where they see it as a clear cut case of murder by government authorities. The situation embarrassed local and federal authorities as farmers and ranchers continued their protest against government overreach and land theft, which was carried in national newspapers for weeks on end.

The end result was that Finicum, one of the leaders in the debacle, advised officials that he was going to the next town to meet with the sheriff there. County sheriffs have tremendous jurisdiction over the area that they oversee, and that would have been a problem for law enforcement and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team which was on site. Enroute to the meeting, Finicums truck was forced off the road into a snow bank, Finicum got out of the truck with hands raised, then tried to approach officers with his hands held wide, but was gunned down in cold blood there in the snow. There is both helicopter footage as well as a cell phone record of the incident, and it is causing some major concerns among law enforcement and the FBI.

FBI implicated in murder of Finicum, page 2:

Next Page »

Cebu_4_2, do you have any idea when this was written? I can't find a date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Cebu_4_2, do you have any idea when this was written? I can't find a date.

---

Looking for a date I don't see a date but looks to be older. Just can't find the date of the article sorry.

RangFire report on the first week of trial http://rangefire.us/2016/09/18/overr...-week-1-recap/

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...re-Logo-1B.jpg


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/theme...ages/ad468.png



Overreaction & Overexaggeration: First Week in a Nutshell — Oregon Standoff Trial — Observations & Commentary — by Todd Macfarlane

September 18, 2016 - Government/Politics, Oregon Standoff, Todd Macfarlane - Tagged: Bundy, federal, Oregon Standoff, Range, RANGEfire, trial - 2 comments




http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-225x300.jpg


RECAP: Week One in a Nutshell
After spending a week observing the Oregon Standoff Trial, and producing short video clips summarizing what is happening, I’m not going to attempt to summarize or recap the first week of trial in a video clip. If you want to hear a partial recap of the week, prior to Friday’s testimony, check-out my video interview summary for Newsbud. Or check out the video recap of the Motion for Mistrial. I’m ready for a break from video production, and by writing the recap, consistent with my pattern, I can then spend the next several days tweaking it, which just doesn’t work well with video clips.

I want to make something very clear right at the outset. Although I’m involved in some sort of media role here, I’m not a reporter. I’m not even pretending to be a reporter. As part of my assignment, I am reporting some stuff to provide context, etc., but mostly I am a commentator. My main assignment is to provide commentary. I’m not even pretending to be completely objective. I have a view point. Based on my experience and view points, I am seeking to provide another perspective. Based on my background, in addition to providing general commentary, from my unique perspective, I am also going to provide some legal commentary — for what it’s worth — at the end of this piece.

Based on the first week, if I had to summarize the Government’s case at this point in just two words, those words would be: Overreaction & Overexaggeration. And it’s the government’s evidence we’re talking about here. The government is presenting its case in chief. Some of the defendants have been accused of exaggeration, but we’re still weeks away from having a chance to see their evidence and hear what they have to say. This is the government’s case — the government’s evidence.
Case in Point: Judicial Security Theater

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x140.jpg
Back when the Malheur Occupation first occurred, back in January, I coined a new phrase “Standoff Pageantry.” In a subsequent discussion I had with radio host Peter B. Collins, he compared it to his newly-minted phrase of “Security Theater,” and now, based on what is going on at the Standoff Trial in Portland, I’m going to coin yet another phrase combining the two: “Judicial Security Pageantry.” There’s a whole lot of drama, pageantry and theatre going on at the federal courthouse in

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...R2-300x169.jpg

Portland associated with the Oregon Standoff trial. Among other things, on one side, there are a handful of die-hard supporters, there with signs, protesting what is going on. On the other hand, the federal government, including DHS, is there in full force — just like the federal government was out in force in Burns, Oregon back in January and February.
Unfortunately, despite being there in court every day, covering the trial the entire week, I missed the single biggest piece of drama. While I was working on producing my little video clips summarizing the day’s events, late Thursday afternoon, a gentlemen by the name of Mathew Thomas Mglej, apparently a Portland native, approached the federal courthouse and was taken down in grand fashion

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...r-Arrest-2.jpg

by an army of DHS police with guns drawn. Apparently, back in 2014 Mr. Mglej had previously been arrested and charged for playing a violin outside the courthouse while naked. He was charged with indecent exposure, but the charges were later dropped. On Thursday, the government claims he had an unloaded .22 rifle wrapped in a towel. His efforts resulted in major drama and corresponding Judicial Security Theatre in downtown Portland. Unfortunately, I missed it. It is hard to say what, if anything, any of this actually had to do with the Oregon Standoff Trial, but it helps reinforce an important point
.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...es-300x136.jpg
(This isn’t an actual image of the arrest on Thursday, but is similar to what happened, and is used to help emphasize the point)

Despite all it’s huff, and puff, and bluster, the federal government literally acts like its scared of its own shadow, and is highly prone to overreaction. Here it is, the biggest, most powerful temporal entity in existence — in the history of this planet, and naked violin players can send the federal government into full scale panic.

Back on August 31, 2016, RANGEFIRE! posted the first/last part of a series of articles about Realities in the West that nobody wants to talk about, called “Welcome to the New Normal — a Land of Labels, Distortions, Misinformation, and Guilt by Association.” I wrote that piece clear back in May, to address, at least in part, what was going on with Stanton Gleave, and the feeding frenzy of misinformation surrounding him and his family. At this point, I’m going to add another word to the whole description, that should have been included from the outset: OVERREACTION.
In that piece, among other things, I said:

“The reality is this too was nothing more than misinformation. The completely unauthorized image was the unintentional product of a staged, media photo-op, intended solely to see what kind of reaction it would draw. It’s the sort of pomp and circumstance scenario that happens all the time in many situations. In previous pieces, such optics have been referred to as pageantry — in some cases Standoff Pageantry. The problem is few people seem to be able to distinguish between what is real and what isn’t. . . . But distortions, fueled by social media, seem to be the order of the day on all sides. For good examples of distortions on the other side of the fence, consider the multiple articles Chris Zinda has written on this subject, and his treatment of the role of social media in the whole equation.

During the first week of trial, both Chad Karges(MNWR manager) and Jeff Rose (Burns BLM field office manager) testified that from the minute Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne arrived in Harney County, federal offices, officials, and law enforcement were on high alert. In addition to receiving a continuous flow of “intel” from law enforcement, Karges and Rose were both actively monitoring social media. Both they and Sheriff David Ward all testified that they couldn’t put their finger on any actual threats, but they all said that just the mere thought or mention of “Bunkerville,” and some of the people who had been there, in Sheriff Ward’s words “scared the Hell out of him.” Likewise, both Karges, Rose and their supervisors decided to shut down the BLM office in advance, before the occupation ever occurred, based almost entirely on the fact that a protest rally was planned to support Dwight and http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x282.jpgSteven Hammond. At the same time, Rose testified that the occupation of the Malheur Refuge was a complete surprise. They thought if something was going to happen it would be at the BLM office in Hines, where the only thing that actually happened was the placement of signs saying “Closed Permanently.” Jason Curry, a special agent for the BLM testified, however, that the signs had been up for less than an hour on Saturday, January 9th, more than a week after all the decisions to close offices had been made, and a full week after the occupation started, but both he and Rose testified that the signs contributed to the decision to keep the office closed.

At this point, I’ll have to say that none of that testimony really surprised me much. I live in Millard County, Utah, the better part of 1000 miles away from Harney County, Oregon. There is a BLM field office in Fillmore, approximately 15 miles from where I live. I am good friends with one of the BLM managers who works there. Her husband is one of my best friends. This whole year her husband and I have just had to scratch our heads and laugh every time the BLM gets its panties in a wad, goes on high alert, and puts the field station on lock down. It has happened on multiple occasions since January 2016. Once, it happened when a “liberty convention” was scheduled to happen at the Old Statehouse in Fillmore. On another occasion, something as off-the-wall as Gavin Seim passing through the area, caused a major reaction at the office.. And just to add context to this whole discussion, Sagebrush alarmist Chris Zinda is likewise the husband of a BLM manager, Cedar City District Manager, Heather Whitman. Translation: conspiracy theories, unwarrented speculation, and the tendency to overreact abound among federal employees and the people they listen to.

Between what I heard Chad Karges, Jeff Rose and Sheriff Ward testify at trial, coupled with the kind of stuff Chris Zinda regularly comes up with, I can’t even imagine the kind of frenzy these people are capable of working themselves into. I can’t even imagine the kind of paranoia they must live with. And the funny thing is people accuse the so-called “patriots” of being paranoid and out-of-touch-with reality? At least the so-called patriots don’t have the full resources of the United States government at their disposal to spend in chasing these fears and expending on overreaction.

Back to the point I wrote back in May, which has become abundantly clear in just the first week of the Oregon Standoff Trial, and I’m going to repeat it at least three times in this article: “The problem is few people seem to be able to distinguish between what is real and what isn’t.” Here’s the deal, for the most part, what happens on Facebook, and social media isn’t real. The vast, vast majority of it simply has no connection to reality. It’s an alternate reality that doesn’t actually exist in reality. People say all kinds of nonsense, crap, and unadulterated bullshit on Facebook and social media all the time. It’s an absolute feeding frenzy of misinformation — from all sides, and in all directions. Some of us figured that out long ago.

Back to my point: The problem is few people seem to be able to distinguish between what is real and what isn’t. And the even bigger problem is overreaction to things that are not real, and overexaggeration in attempting to describe and justify the overreactions. Below is one of the videos that stoked government officials’ fears, and they overreacted to

http://youtu.be/kGuizh7evHc.


The Government’s Case
In the first week of trial, the government’s case actually started out pretty flat. The government promised shock and awe, but so far has not been able to deliver. The government said that it would present eye witness evidence that would make the refuge takeover look like a military operation in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what their witness testified did not live up to their billing. Likewise, much of their social media evidence came across as pretty benign, leaving a person scratching their head, thinking “is that the best you’ve got — so this is what this case is about?” Although some of the social media evidence may certainly be troubling, it certainly didn’t rise to the level of documenting a conspiracy to impede or interfere with federal officers doing their jobs. There is only one explanation for that response: overreaction.

All of the government decision-makers testified that they weren’t aware of any real threats. They just had feelings of fear and concern, based in large measure on their own monitoring of social media, coupled with information the FBI was feeding them to increase their concerns. So here’s number four: Part of the problem is few people seem to be able to distinguish between what is real and what isn’t.

Although the federal government is prosecuting the case, everything about its case so far depicts the federal government on the defensive. The government is extremely defensive about issues of jurisdiction and adverse possession — doesn’t even want to go there. The government doesn’t want to have to try to explain anything. And when it comes to the alleged threats, instead of sounding like confident leaders, who might consider actually engaging in some kind of proactive discussion, these government officials acted more like they were unreasonably afraid of their own shadows, taking most of their directions from the FBI, in order to set the stage for how they wanted to portray the narrative, and were prepared to shut down government offices down for no real good reason. Between the BLM, USFWS and federal law enforcement, including the FBI, it sounds like they were involved in a feeding frenzy of fear. And people want to accuse the defendants and others of tinfoil hat theories?
In conclusion, and just to highlight this point, Chad Karges testified that the so-called “restoration” work at MNWR headquarters is already complete and has been for some time, but the headquarters remains closed, and there is no plan to re-open until sometime in 2017. If you’re not asking WHY, you should be.


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x239.jpg


Trial Performance
When a naked violin player (who wasn’t even naked at the time) can steal the show, you know there’s a problem.

In terms of legal commentary, right out of the chutes, with all due respect to the attorneys involved, I’m going to say this: Ryan Bundy is out-lawyering the lawyers — certainly the other defense lawyers.

Although, in my opinion, much of the government’s evidence is very marginal, and I continually have people asking me if some of the things they are presenting doesn’t actually support the defendants’ case better than the prosecution, but they are doing a very good, efficient job of presenting the evidence they have chosen to present — which is apparently the best they have. Their examination is crisp and seemingly very well-rehearsed, and they always seem to have objections on the tip of their tongues.

On the other side of the table, make no mistake, there were some really good opening statements. Matt Schindler, representing Ken Medenbach, and Lisa Maxfield, representing Neil Wampler, did a particularly good job. But in his opening statement Ryan Bundy also did a very effective job communicating his view of the case as well. And when it comes to objections, he is probably actually doing a better job than any of the defense attorneys. This should be both troubling and highly disconcerting to those attorneys. For a lay person, with no formal legal education, law training, and minimal experience, Ryan is holding his own fairly well, which, unfortunately, doesn’t say much about defense counsel in the case, and it is time for them to think about that.

I realize it is very easy for us to sit back and attempt to play armchair quarterbacks, but I agree with Mike Arnold that the assigned federal public defense attorneys seem very capable of making good arguments, but there’s a whole lot more to trying a case than making good arguments. They are arguably lacking when it comes to basic trial skills like cross examination and making objections. Arnold suggested that is probably due to the fact that they spend most of their time on plea deals, and making arguments at sentencing, instead of actually trying cases. And it shows. Although Lisa Maxfield has had some effective cross examination, for the most part, and I’m sorry, I know this is going to step on some toes, but they seem more like potted plants sitting there
.
Forgive me for that analogy. It takes me back to the summer of 1987. In early July I was traveling cross country with my wife Heidi, from Utah, to Ithaca, New York, where I was on the waiting list at Cornell Law School. The Iran-Contra Hearings were going on that summer. Although it would drive Heidi crazy, as the over-eager soon-to-be law student, I was trying to listen to all of it as we drove. Then at night, I would catch as much news coverage as possible in our low-budget motel rooms.

But remember, this was almost 30 years ago. Media was different then than it is now. I don’t remember Marine Col. Oliver North’s attorney’s name, but I do remember him. He just sat there during most of the examination of Col. North, but all the sudden on one occasion, he blurted out an objection, and had something to say that seemed to catch everyone completely by surprise. Based on their reactions, he said “I’m not just a potted plant sitting here.” That phrase has stuck with me ever since, and seems to have some application here.

To be completely honest, and again with all due respect, following opening statements, most of the defense attorneys have seemed more like potted plants than actively engaged defense attorneys, zealously defending their clients’ interests. Their objections have been either non-existent or deplorable. When Ryan Bundy can make better objections than they do, it’s an issue. And Judge Brown has actually called them out about it — asking why they aren’t making more and better objections. Like Arnold also mentioned, it may be as much a result of lack of current practice as anything. They may all be very experienced federal criminal defense attorneys. They may all be very experienced at doing plea deals. But that doesn’t mean that they are experienced, practiced and well-honed trial attorneys. And it’s really starting to show. But if they get with the program, this one trial can give them more practice than dozens of small ones. And I get it. Some of them (especially those representing Jeff Banta, David Fry, Neil Wampler, and Ken Medenbach, for example) probably feel like it is the Bundy legal team’s responsibility to do most of the work, because their own clients seemingly have much less at stake in the whole thing. They view it as the “Bundy” trial, and their clients aren’t Bundys.

Otherwise, in a crowded courtroom well-decorated with potted plants, it might as well be a grand ballroom, with Judge Brown and the prosecution engaged as dance partners in an elaborate waltz, with Judge Brown leading, and the prosecution hustling to follow her cues, occasionally encountering the defendants and their attorneys, as they attempt to gracefully navigate the dance floor — with the jury just trying to make some kind of sense of what is going on.


And that brings us to the most important component or player in the whole equation: the Jury. I share concerns expressed by my colleague, Mancos MacLeod, when it comes to modern juries. The jury hearing this case started out with 20 people, comprised of 12 regular jurors and eight alternates. One of the initial 12 was excused essentially right off the bat, and an alternate juror was drawn by lot to take that juror’s place. Of the jurors currently seated as the 12 who will decide the case, eight are women.


I don’t pretend to have the jury figured out at this point, but I will offer a few inside observations. One or more members of the jury seem/s to be hypersensitive, and has repeatedly complained to Judge Brown that members of the public seated in relatively close proximity are being too loud, interfering with their ability

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-2-300x161.jpg

to concentrate. Consequently, Judge Brown has repeatedly chastised or admonished members of the public to be as quiet as possible, and to be careful about not just whispering, but coughing, clicking pens and rustling papers. This all came at times when I hadn’t noticed anything particularly out of the ordinary. There are approximately 20 members of the public in the courtroom, just trying to breathe and take notes, etc., without distracting the jury. All I can say, based on the writing that is already on the wall after the first week, is that this trial is going to get real long for some people.

At the close of the day on Friday, however, after the jury had been excused, after denying Ammon Bundy’s Motion for a Mistrial, Judge Brown stated that she had a lot of confidence in this jury, because, in her words, they are following her instructions very faithfully and carefully.


So that should provide some very clear insight into where this whole thing appears to be headed. Although the jury is supposed to be deciding the case, there is no question about who is in charge, and whose lead the jury may be following in lockstep.


If you want to criticize or argue with my analysis, all I ask is that you do it from a vantage point of first hand experience — go to court and see for yourself what is going on before attempting to poke holes in what I’m saying based on some attempted third or fourth-hand perspective or predisposition about what is going on.


I invite anyone who is interested to spend some time at the trial. It is an educational experience.


RANGE / RANGEFIRE — Addressing Issues Facing the West — Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit

Todd Macfarlane's recap

http://youtu.be/aG6MyvO6o88

https://youtu.be/aG6MyvO6o88

A one hour video proving LaVoy Finicum was murdered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

Don't see that this was posted, click the link for more pages...

http://www.truthandaction.org/detail...regon-rancher/

Details Emerge that FBI ‘may have opened fire’ on Oregon Rancher

http://www.truthandaction.org/wp-con...er-680x365.jpg

The case of LaVoy Finicum, the rancher who was gunned down in Oregon earlier this year, may have disappeared from the main stream press, but you can be sure that it is still a hot topic in rural America where they see it as a clear cut case of murder by government authorities. The situation embarrassed local and federal authorities as farmers and ranchers continued their protest against government overreach and land theft, which was carried in national newspapers for weeks on end.

The end result was that Finicum, one of the leaders in the debacle, advised officials that he was going to the next town to meet with the sheriff there. County sheriffs have tremendous jurisdiction over the area that they oversee, and that would have been a problem for law enforcement and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team which was on site. Enroute to the meeting, Finicums truck was forced off the road into a snow bank, Finicum got out of the truck with hands raised, then tried to approach officers with his hands held wide, but was gunned down in cold blood there in the snow. There is both helicopter footage as well as a cell phone record of the incident, and it is causing some major concerns among law enforcement and the FBI.

FBI implicated in murder of Finicum, page 2:

Next Page »

---

http://youtu.be/4T4-21ji_ZA

https://youtu.be/4T4-21ji_ZA

Bump. Video proving LaVoy Finicum assasanation

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...l=1#post855558