150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Quote:

---

Dunbar’s ranch is immediately adjacent to the Malheur Refuge. He had great views of the observation tower. He testified about seeing men with long guns appearing to secure a perimeter. He said he saw, through binoculars, a person in the watch tower pointing a gun in his direction. He described the stressful situation in January, and that he still had to tend his cattle during the calving season. He also said he heard funfire on a number of days

---

Dunbar's "ranch" is 42 acres. Forty two acres won't support anyone in this day and age. He and his son were each paid $2000 by the FBI from early January until February for access to their property. I suspect the man has a full time job with one of the federal agencies.

Who in their right mind calves heifers in January? Sorta like catching carp frozen in the ice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Dunbar's "ranch" is 42 acres. Forty two acres won't support anyone in this day and age. He and his son were each paid $2000 by the FBI from early January until February for access to their property. I suspect the man has a full time job with one of the federal agencies.

Who in their right mind calves heifers in January? Sorta like catching carp frozen in the ice.

---

We call 42 acres a hobby farm, a nice place for ducks and geese, chickens and sheep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Dunbar's "ranch" is 42 acres. Forty two acres won't support anyone in this day and age. He and his son were each paid $2000 by the FBI from early January until February for access to their property. I suspect the man has a full time job with one of the federal agencies.

Who in their right mind calves heifers in January? Sorta like catching carp frozen in the ice.

---

There are people who calve that early but they need a shed to calve in and they need to watch the cattle round the clock during calving. I suppose the weather is similar to where I live maybe without as much wind. I've traveled through that area in winter and it was cold and there was plenty of snow. The reason some do that is because they move their cattle to summer grazing and want the calves big enough to move with their mothers when the grass has grown enough for grazing.

Dunbar and his son must have more land than that somewhere if they make their living running cattle as he said. He may own enough land in other locations to grow feed and hold cattle when they can't be grazing. He would also need to have grazing permits to move them too when allowed by the BLM.

Dunbar may very well have income from anther source than cattle. I don't think Tom Davis of "The cowboy and the Lady" owns very much land either but he also deals in real estate besides running some bucking horses for putting on rodeos.

I don't think Dunbar will have endeared himself to other ranchers in the area taking money from the FBI and testifying for them against the Bundys. I'm pretty sure the BLM won't be cutting the number of cattle that he can run on permits either like they did to other ranchers. I'd sure as hell lose respect for and avoid a guy that would help the BLM and FBI like he's done against the Hammonds and Bundys.

Apparently Dunbar's cattle are under fence. He probaly has corrals and a barn where he can keep watch over the cows that are ready to calve and are calving.

My father bred his sheep to lamb about the 20th of January because there generally was a break in the winter cold the old timers referred to as the January thaw. He had pens in the barn for the newborns. Some winters the weather didn't co-operate and we had newborn lambs in the house next to the stove drying them so they didn't freeze to death.

It definitely was a 24 hour job. Some winters it was 15 below in early January. If I recall correctly we checked the sheep every two hours through the night.

Fred Kelly Grant was one of the lawyers who was on E. Wayne Hage's team in Hage v. US

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/23/start.../#comment-2237

Startling & Thought-Provoking New Analysis of LaVoy Finicum Shooting — with Additional Commentary by Attorney Fred Grant

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x181.jpg

If you have been following our commentary and coverage of the Oregon Standoff Trial (or anyone else’s), you know that evidence regarding the shooting death of LaVoy Finicum has become a major point of contention in the case.

Supposedly there is an ongoing FBI investigation regarding a coverup by FBI HRT agents involved in that incident. In light of all this subject matter, new videos, anonymously produced, and recently posted on social media, are particularly thought provoking. In addition to the first general analysis video, we have now also added an additional video devoted to analysis of the purpose of the FBI foam bullet.

Below the videos you can also find exclusive, inside analysis and commentary by Attorney Fred Kelly Grant.

http://youtu.be/pLIUDBrU9Cs

http://youtu.be/PBWQtH2PhJ0

AS AN OLD, CURMUDEONLY, DISTRUSTING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY I WOULD CHARGE THAT LAVOY FINICUM WAS MURDERED IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITH PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION — Fred Kelly Grant

I have written only one other time about what I thought of the shooting of LaVoy Finicum as an unnecessary, and deliberate acceleration of the “take over” of the Malheur Wildlife buildings in Oregon. And, I haven’t followed the case since visiting with Mrs. Finicum and her deciding to seek counsel elsewhere. I presented her with a plan of action designed to do two things (1) secure her financial assistance for the rest of her life under the Civil Rights Act, and (2) to protect her ranch from what someone will someday do to try to take it. When she chose to go elsewhere, I did not think it appropriate for me to write more about the case, and I have done nothing but follow the news stories of the enormous failures of due process of law regarding the defendants who were arrested. During my prosecutorial and defense career I have seen first degree murderers who frightened jailers treated less severely than what the press reports about the treatment of these men.

I have just watched [the YouTube videos shown above]. I have not and will not name the person who sent me the link because I would not want him linked to my absolute statements in this piece. But, there is full transparency as to who is showing the video and why.

On the basis of the video, as a prosecutor, I would file first degree, premeditated murder charges against officers who shot the deadly shots and at least accomplice before the fact against the officer who fired the foam bullet that caused Finicum to put his hands to the left of his chest.

I would argue to any Grand Jury and to any Petit Jury that his firing of that foam bullet, and then running out of sight instead of trying to subdue a man he knew he had only wounded, was proof that he was the “set up” man. Those of you who have seen the prior films and photos will no doubt remember that LaVoy Finicum got out of the vehicle with his hands in the air, arms fully outstretched, in an obvious surrender move.

Someone, somehow, had to make it appear that he was going to reach for a weapon. I know I could secure an indictment for first degree murder from a Grand Jury, so my focus here is on how I would talk to the members of the Petit Jury. My question to them in closing argument would be simply “If he were going to resist armed officers why did he come out of the vehicle with his arms high in the air; why didn’t he come out shooting? Think about that for just a moment, in fact, think about it for about ten seconds while I watch the clock and keep quiet.”

Jurors do that, they think when you give them moments of silence. More impact comes from their silent thought about your question, than if you immediately answered it for them.

Then my argument would go something like this: Keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, he had already been shot at in the vehicle at least twice. He had already told the others in the vehicle that ‘they are going to kill us’. So, why, in the name of common sense, did he come out with his hands up so high in the air that he couldn’t possibly get to a gun without being gunned down. No, you members of this jury are regular people, with regular minds, and the voir dire showed that you have the ability to listen, but more importantly to hear, and to think. You demonstrated that in your answers to the questions put to you by defense counsel and I. With that ability, with that sense, you cannot possibly watch the video you just saw without observing:

1. The FBI set up the roadblock in a position that violated every rule of police safety for roadblocks—safety for themselves as well as the public;
2. The placement of that roadblock on a virtually blind curve with the snow banks along the highway so that a vehicle they knew was traveling at a high rate of speed would not see it in time to avoid acceleration of the situation involving a “take over” of a wildlife center in the winter;
3. Firing shots at the vehicle as it was still moving toward them at a high rate of speed, not knowing whether those shots would cause the car to crash into their parked cars, perhaps injuring or killing their own;
4. LaVon getting out of the vehicle with his hands in the air even as he exited the door; he didn’t just put them up once he was outside, he had them up when he came out of the vehicle.
5. His hands and arms were in the air, arms completely upstretched like this—-in as well known a surrender symbol as any symbol known to any one of you or any one of your family who has ever watched a western movie, comedy or detective show.
6. As he walks with his hands empty and his arms upstretched to their highest, had anyone shot to kill him, it would have been too clearly a murder, so he had to be set up.
7. Now we reach the unidentified officer who fires at LaVoy and we know from the evidence that he fired a foam bullet at his left chest; we see it strike LaVoy. You have heard our testimony as to the impact of such a foam bullet from the distance it was fired. The impact hurt him.

Think about it for just a moment—take a moment of silence while I shut up for a moment, and think about being hit in the chest with such velocity—what is the first thing you would do? Just think. ………And I know because I know you are reasoning people that during that silence you would have grabbed at that spot where you were hit.

When we see a football player go down in a pile we see him grab his knee or his shoulder or his ankle; when we see a basketball player twist his knee, what does he do? He grabs that knee. When we see a batter hit by a fast ball what does he do? Before he threatens the pitcher he reaches and grabs at the point at which the ball hit. I used to tell my young ball players “rub it off” when a baseball took a bad bounce. It is not some mystical theory as the defense would have you accept without using the common sense that you brought into this court room. It is a reaction we see in life, in person, or on television every day of our lives.

1. LaVoy did exactly what you thought about when I graced you with a few seconds of silence awhile ago. He reached for the spot of the pain.
2. And, that ladies and gentlemen, gave the killers the excuse they give you here—the excuse that they thought he was going for a gun.

I look at these experienced defendants at the table and wonder whether they really think that you twelve souls believe that they really feared he was going for a gun inside his heavy coat when he could have come out of that car shooting had that been his intent.

I ask you ladies and gentlemen to look at these defendants—you’ve heard about their training, their expertise, their policy of de-escalation—look them in the eyes and tell me whether you think they were that dumb. No. No. No. They were not.

1. 10. Where in the world, much less where in this courtroom to support his fellow officers, is the man who fired the foam bullet? You saw him fire, then turn and disappear behind the roadblock car—never to be heard from or identified again. He wasn’t just some bystander was he? He was one of these defendants’ comrades in arms. Where is he? Why is he not here so I could have asked him why he dashed away at a time when he could probably have subdued LaVoy who was reeling from the pain.
   
   

As you know, I asked the court to let you review that video in the jury room and within his lawful discretion he denied my request. He granted the defense objection. But the fact that you don’t have it with you doesn’t remove it from your minds and memories.

You’ve heard days of evidence as to the “take over”, the reasons for it, the reasons why the Government could not allow it to continue, the idea that LaVoy Finicum and his friends or “co-defendants” as the defense would call them, set out to speak to a sheriff. You’ve heard those days of testimony because in the American system of justice designed by our Founders we give these defendants more chance than they gave LaVoy on that Oregon highway.

Were it not for this video you saw, it might be a bit difficult for me to argue that this is a case of premeditated first degree murder. I still would have felt justified in arguing that the law was broken by these defendants in whom we place our trust for law enforcement—but maybe not premeditated, deliberate, first degree murder.

With the video, I have no qualms, no hesitance, in asking you to find that beyond every possible reasonable doubt, these men are guilty of taking the life of LaVoy Finicum intentionally and with premeditation.

What it took God years to develop into a hard working rancher, a good husband and father to eleven children— this man LaVoy Finicum— it took these defendants less than twenty seconds to destroy. You twelve, sworn and true, are the source for what earthly justice we can give him, his wife, his children. I ask you most earnestly to return verdicts of guilty—–guilty of murder in the first degree.”

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

Note: Attorney Fred Grant is a former federal prosecutor in Baltimore, MD. He currently resides near Boise, ID.
To learn more about Fred Grant, click his PROFILE.

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

Some history on Fred Kelly Grant


http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdo...-against-feds/
Aging sagebrush rebel keeps up fight against feds

]http://media.spokesman.com/photos/20...0ad10d450eda8d
In this photo taken Nov. 18, 2011, Idaho property-rights lawyer Fred Kelly Grant poses for a picture at his home office in Nampa, Idaho. Grant is promoting a strategy for counties that he says will help them take on the federal government, on hot-button issues including wolves, U.S. Forest Service road closures and the removal of dams on the Klamath River in California. (Associated Press)

A 75-year-old lawyer who fought private property rights battles alongside Idaho U.S. Rep. Helen Chenoweth and her Nevada rancher husband Wayne Hage in the 1990s is still cultivating the Sagebrush Rebellion’s roots and earning handsome speaking fees from conservative audiences across the West.


Associated Press writer John Miller has been looking into the efforts of Frank Kelly Grant to carry on where Reagan administration Interior Secretary and Sagebrush Rebellion crusader James Watt left off before he was booted out of government for, among other things, his attempt to privatize federal lands.


Read on for the AP Story.


A 75-year-old lawyer who fought private property rights battles alongside Idaho U.S. Rep. Helen Chenoweth and her Nevada rancher husband Wayne Hage in the 1990s is still cultivating the Sagebrush Rebellion’s roots and earning handsome speaking fees from conservative audiences across the West.


Fred Kelly Grant has been slowed by age and heart surgery, but he’s in demand from counties — and tea partyers who attend his $150-per-person seminars — as conservative elements in the West’s continue to clash with the federal government.


California’s Siskiyou County is paying Grant $10,000 to help block removal of four Klamath River dams. Montana and Idaho counties have enlisted him to trim hated wolf populations and thwart U.S. Forest Service road closures.


What Grant preaches is “coordination,” the theory that federal agencies by law must deal with local governments when revising their public land travel plans or protecting endangered species. Grant insists he’s not reviving the discredited “county supremacy” movement, in which a Nevada county once threatened federal employees with prosecution.


“This is not nullification,” simply ignoring federal mandates, he told The Associated Press. “Coordination is working within the system to try and make the system work.”


Hage, who died in 2006, epitomized the Sagebrush Rebellion by battling the federal government over water rights. Chenoweth, killed the same year in a car crash, worried that federal agents would arrive aboard black helicopters to enforce the Endangered Species Act.


Grant, a former federal prosecutor in Maryland who once helped guide Stewards of the Range, the Hage family’s property-rights nonprofit, started his own foundation last year. He, a son and daughter-in-law now give seminars, often to tea party groups, on how locals can demand coordination when Washington, D.C. isn’t listening.


Grant insists he’s no radical, but he’s not above fanning the flames. In 2009, he told a crowd angry about road closures in California’s Shasta-Trinity National Forest that he once dismissed those who claimed the United Nations and U.S. government sought to eliminate people from public land as crackpots who saw “a communist behind every sagebrush.”


“I thought it was a conspiratorial theory,” Grant said, in video footage. “It’s not.”


Some environmentalists are dubious of Grant’s “coordination,” saying it’s so much fodder on the conservative rubber-chicken circuit for a restive Western audience long unhappy with federal management of vast tracts of public land.


“He’s saying a county should adopt its own plan, and the federal government is obliged to make sure its plan is consistent with the local plan,” said Jon Marvel, Western Watersheds Project director in Hailey, Idaho. “It’s nullification by another name.”


Grant insists federal courts side with him.


In 2001, a U.S. District Court judge in Utah ordered the Bureau of Land Management to remove wild horses resettled in Uintah County, in part because the agency didn’t coordinate with local officials.
“Coordination does not mean the county gets its way,” Grant said. “What it means is, the federal government should be discussing policy with the county, and considering alternatives.”


He cites Idaho’s Owyhee County, where he says coordination between locals and the BLM beginning in 1990 resolved grazing disputes — and led to ranchers’ support for 500,000 acres of federally protected wilderness created here in 2009.


In California’s Modoc County, officials say coordination begun in 1993 helped resolve disputes, including halting plans to curtail grazing.


“The federal government is the one that’s ultimately calling the shots on the federal land,” said Tim Burke, BLM field manager in Alturas, Calif. “But the federal government is definitely interested in what the county has to say.”


Idaho’s Benewah and Custer counties and Montana’s Ravalli County enlisted Grant’s help as they aim to reduce wolves and reopen backcountry roads closed by the Forest Service and BLM.


“They’re not giving us a say in how they’re managing our land,” said Custer County Commissioner Doyle Lamb.


Ravalli County Commissioner Matt Kanenwisher says he’s seen some changes in how federal agencies in Montana respond to counties, but says time will tell if they’re taking coordination seriously.


“In the view of coordination, counties aren’t a stakeholder — they’re a partner,” he said.


Almost nowhere has Grant’s message resonated more deeply than in California’s Siskiyou County, in 14,179-foot Mt. Shasta’s shadow. “Coordination” became a catch phrase in the battle over whether four Klamath River dams should be dynamited to help endangered salmon.


Craig Tucker, a spokesman for the Karuk Indian Tribe that favors dam removal, first heard the word after Grant gave a seminar in nearby Redding in 2009 attended by dam-removal foes.


“Now, when those guys open their mouths, the first thing they start talking about is coordination,” Tucker said. “It seems to me Fred Kelly Grant has sold people a bill of goods that amounts to snake oil.”


Jim Cook, a Siskiyou commissioner who attended Grant’s Redding seminar, said Tucker and federal managers dismiss coordination at their own peril.


Maybe it’s not a silver bullet, “but you do make them explain why they do things,” Cook said. “That makes the agencies squirm. It asks, ‘Can you come in front of a judge and explain why you blew this policy off?’ "


In an Oct. 19 letter, Cook threatened U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar with a lawsuit for “failing to coordinate your dam destruction decision with Siskiyou County. We will not stand idly by and allow you to continue to violate the law,” Cook wrote.


Salazar’s agency responded Nov. 4, citing 27 meetings with county officials since 2010.
Department of Interior lawyers contend Cook misinterprets federal laws purporting to require coordination.


“We’re under no obligation to actually coordinate with these entities,” said federal Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Pete Lucero. “What this really boils down to is the fact that we don’t agree. The fact that we fail to agree does not mean there’s a failure to cooperate with each other.”

---

Posted Nov. 30, 2011, 7:02 a.m. in: BLM, Fred Kelly Grant, Helen Chenoweth,national forests, outdoors, personal property rights, public lands, Sagebrush Rebellion, Wayne Hage

I went looking for the video that "Call of Duty Goddess" did where she pointed out that it looked like Lavoy pointed at the foam bullet shooter after he fired. She said Lavoy pointed at him and said "he shot me". She has taken it down but I'd sure like to look at it again.

If I were on the jury and Fred Grant was the prosecutor against those who murdered Lavoy Finicum I'd find them guilty and want them punished to the full extent of the law. SOB's

I thought I'd repost this video of former army ranger John Moore and his thoughts on the murder of Lavoy Finicum. This video was posted on the 12th of February 2016 and fits well with the recent videos and analysis of the murder posted above. ^

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

Quote:

---

I were on the jury and Fred Grant was the prosecutor against those who murdered Lavoy Finicum I'd find them guilty and want them punished to the full extent of the law. SOB's

---

I would also. The evidence speaks for itself. There was a group trying to get indictments against those who murdered LaVoy. I haven't read anthing about any progress recently.

A point of view from The Cowboy and the Lady,

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...9053725&type=3

BLINDLY LEAD CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF A LIFE & FREEDOM OF MANY

By The Cowboy and the Lady · Updated about an hour ago

As we began covering the Malheur Refuge story, way back what seems a lifetime ago...because it was a lifetime ago for one man we knew, Lavoy Finicum. Lavoy, in our opinion, was assassinated and now we see character assassination in full throttle against good men/women.

We started this journey into truth of the situation, facts surrounding the Hammond wrongful incarceration and Bundy attempts to have them vindicated.

As the months passed and evidence a plenty gave proof to the innocence of the Hammonds we continued covering the US vs. Bundy et al case. Much to our disappointment the facts have not seemed to matter as the Federal Prosecutors continue to create their own story line, use false witness and turn the facts upside down to their benefit.

We also see a Patriot world turned upside down by deception and lies, trickery of words and the innocence of those in Harney abused to manipulate another narrative, the destruction of the Patriot movement via infighting to the enth degree. We believe that pious fraud was used in an attempt to believe the end justified the means in allowing very unsavory folks to participate with Bundy and crew.

It has been masterful in the execution, both of Lavoy and the Patriot movement itself.

This tells us that the people have the Corporate US structure in a panic or there would not be so many informants and so much spent to destroy good people. Do you know that the amount of 100 MILLION is the number already being said to have been spent on this Refuge stand and trial? 100 HUNDRED million! That friends is beyond comprehensible even to the simplest man or woman.

So, as we see it, the Blind were leading the blind as they followed the "manipulators, patriots for pay, informants and down right theatrical drama queens right into the laps of the destruction of the good name of patriots".

The Bundys were led by informants to make choices that have landed them behind bars as their character is also being assassinated. For all who have stood by the Bundy family this massacre of justice is impossible to fathom. To all who have stood by the Bundy family and given evidence of informants and criminals to them it is unfathomable that the bad elements were allowed to stay, and to the supporters this entire event from start to finish has the appearance of Federal staging, planting of people and lies to destroy all that the supporters have stood to protect.

Will the American people recover? We sure hope not, because the truth is BAM in your face that this country is in trouble when ranchers are being entrapped as thugs and thieves walk free to riot and kill. As thugs are jailed and released on bail pending trial yet the defendants still behind bars in this case and the Nevada case are held without bail and many having no prior convictions or rap sheet. (unlike those surrounding the defense with some having rap sheets so long one has to turn pages). Well folks, we have shared the evidence, said our peace and now we pray for the entire truth to roll out so we can roll up the saddle blanket and go home knowing we did our best to get you the facts, some facts sure got us beat up for sharing, but all we can say is that we stood to help the men and the information we shared right from the get go should have freed them...go figure! just like a green horse one doesn't know how long it will take to ride without a buckin and man have we done all we can to go the 8.

#trthecowboyand1
#ThomandRene2016

4

1

Share




Chronological



Jim Cox, Robert Folger, Doug Knowles and 5 others like this.



Comments

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b60a8fc65b8133

Krista Miller ive appreciated all your's and Thom's time and work. Thank you.

There is speculation among some posting on the internet that Michele Fiore, Gavin Seim and COWS (Coalition of Western States) set this protest up. One of the posters is supposed to testify this mext week. Maybe some information will come out in the trial.

Environmentalists pushing for conviction in Malheur Protest case

Judge Brown still has to rule on Shawna Cox's latest motion on jurisdiction.

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

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

Environmentalists Desperate for Convictions? — Bundy Convictions a “Must”

September 25, 2016 -
Government/Politics, Land Use News, Oregon Standoff, Public Lands - Tagged: Bundy, Energy, environment, Greenwire, Malheur, Oregon Standoff, Range, RANGEfire, trial - no comments

According to Energy & Environment Publishing’s Greenwire News, the trial of leaders of the armed standoff at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge represents a make-or-break moment in efforts to quash the anti-public-lands movement in the West.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...e-1-300x71.jpg

Note: We’ve said it over and over again, here at RANGEFIRE! we have no interest in being a single-dimensional echo chamber. We acknowledge that there are always multiple sides to every story. In the West, there is an old saying to the effect that: “good fences make good neighbors.” At RANGEfire! we acknowledge our virtual neighbors on this virtual landscape. We think it is important for people to have an opportunity to hear all sides of the story, and know what others are saying about these issues. So we often share what others are saying. In this case, E&E Greenwire has provided extensive and in our view highly-biased coverage of the Oregon Standoff itself, and everything related to it, including the current trial in Progress in Portland.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x148.jpg

WHAT OTHERS (E&E Greenwire) ARE SAYING:
According to E&E Greenwire News, “If the government fails to secure convictions for the seven defendants in the Portland, Ore., proceedings that began last week, it could embolden their followers to stage more protests of federal land management policies.

“It is extremely important that our justice system come through and convict these guys,” said former Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes.
Hayes added that the trial needs to send a “message” to defendant Ammon Bundy, the leader of the 41-day armed standoff, and his supporters.

“If there are no consequences to a physical takeover of public lands, this is what they want,” said Hayes, who is now a law professor at Stanford University. “They want to whip up a sense of entitlement to take actions that are clearly illegal.”

Observers added that the trial is also an opportunity for the government to make up for what many characterized as a failed response to the 2014 standoff at the Bundys’ ranch in Bunkerville, Nev.

There, Bundy’s father, Cliven, led an armed rebellion against Bureau of Land Management officials over a roundup of cattle due to $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees. Out of concerns for safety, federal officials ultimately backed down, though Cliven Bundy and his sons face separate trials on charges stemming from that event.

The high-profile nature of the current case may explain why federal prosecutors opted to charge the defendants with conspiracy — a charge that veteran attorneys say is typically easier to prove in front of a jury.

Specifically, the government charged 26 occupiers with conspiracy to impede federal officials through threats, intimidation or force during the standoff that ended Feb. 11. The current trial is for seven defendants, five of whom also face charges of possession of a firearm on federal property.

Conspiracy is a felony, and, if convicted, the defendants will likely face several years in prison.
However, the government likely could have filed more significant charges, including trespassing or domestic terrorism. It also did not file significant destruction of government property charges, even though officials have said the occupation has cost taxpayers some $9 million.

Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau said prosecutors have discretion over what charges are filed. In this case, the U.S. attorney’s office likely didn’t want to “overcharge,” meaning file charges on which it would be difficult to persuade a jury to convict. If anything, prosecutors likely wanted to “undercharge,” he said.
“An acquittal,” Parenteau said, “would be a disaster.”

‘Easier to prove’

Conspiracy has long been a favorite among prosecutors.

In 1925, federal Judge Learned Hand famously called conspiracy the “darling of the modern prosecutor’s nursery” because of its advantages.

To prove conspiracy, the bar is relatively low, said Tung Yin of Lewis & Clark Law School, who has been following the case.

Prosecutors need only show that there was agreement to commit an unlawful act and that there was some sort of overt act toward furthering the conspiracy.

The government need not prove, however, that every member of the conspiracy agreed to every part of the conspiracy. The act taken to further the conspiracy, moreover, doesn’t itself need to be illegal.

“What makes it powerful is that the government doesn’t have to prove that these guys actually impeded government employees,” Yin said, “only that they agreed to do so.”

And the agreement doesn’t need to be formalized or in writing. That is what makes the reams of Facebook data taken from the defendants’ accounts so important to the prosecution’s case, Yin said.

Last week, the government spent days introducing posts from those accounts in which the defendants instructed followers to come to the refuge and to bring their guns.

Kevin Sali, a Portland-based criminal defense attorney, said the conspiracy charge allowed the prosecution to cast a wide net in charging many of the occupiers.

“It is easier to prove,” Sali said. “Once you prove that people agreed to do something unlawful, that’s it.”

That may explain why 11 of the 26 people charged pleaded guilty to the charge, including Ryan Payne, another leader of the standoff. (Several others asked to have their trial delayed; they are due in court in February.)

Michael Blumm, another law professor at Lewis & Clark, said prosecutors may also be motivated by another factor: that Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan and the other defendants refused to plead guilty.

U.S. attorneys, he said, dislike expending resources on cases where there is overwhelming evidence of the defendants’ guilt, as there is here due to the voluminous Facebook data and media coverage of the standoff.

The defendants, he said, could have faced reduced prison time if they had pleaded guilty. Because they didn’t, prosecutors will likely seek maximum sentences in the trial that is expected to last two to three months.

Instead, Blumm said, it appears the Bundys are looking to advance their protest over federal land ownership via the trial — even though federal District Judge Anna Brown repeatedly admonished lawyers last week for bringing up the subject because it is not relevant to the charges.

Blumm added that there simply is no legal basis for the Bundys’ constitutional argument over federal land ownership (Greenwire, Jan. 20).

“That train sailed 175 years ago,” he said.

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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *
E-mail *
Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.



Search Form



Other Side of the Fence


Recent Comments

• Marjorie Tweed-Brown on Startling & Thought-Provoking New Analysis of LaVoy Finicum Shooting — with Additional Commentary by Attorney Fred Grant
• John Hackett on Startling & Thought-Provoking New Analysis of LaVoy Finicum Shooting — with Additional Commentary by Attorney Fred Grant
• John Hackett on Startling & Thought-Provoking New Analysis of LaVoy Finicum Shooting — with Additional Commentary by Attorney Fred Grant
• lawana thomas on Experts Weigh-in on MNWR Title and Jurisdiction Issues
• Kiersten on Point of Agreement: the Federal Government is Missing the Mark — Realities Nobody Wants to Talk About — by Todd Macfarlane

Sponsors

• http://rangefire.us/wp-content/theme...ages/ad125.png
• http://rangefire.us/wp-content/theme...ages/ad125.png

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

RANGEfire! Powered by WordPress
Max Magazine Theme was created by http://rangefire.us/wp-content/theme...es/logo_12.png

Michele Fiore made a secret recording with Mark McConnell when she and another fellow met him to recover Ammon Bundy's personal things left in McConnell's jeep

http://youtu.be/J-Tw7PDTecc

https://youtu.be/J-Tw7PDTecc

There is an interesting exchange on "Cliven Bundy's Army" facebook page:


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...9f671ac0ab69bf


Teresa Brookshire

20 hrs

Michele Fiore met with Mark McConnell to pick up Ammons briefcase and cowboy hat that were left in Mark's jeep. She secretly recorded her conversation with him. His video plays first and then her recording, some of which is transcribed due to traffic background noise. DML interview with Ammon and Ryan follows.

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=360&sh=360

Government Informant Mark McConnell Secret Recording by Michele Fiore - YouTube
JOHN B shared a video
YOUTUBE.COM

8 Likes9 Comments16 Shares

LikeCommentShare

Rita Pritchard, Alexe Annette, Rick Mooneyham and 5 others like this.
16 shares
Comments

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...0233bc2b03638b

Jonathon Skipper Speece Technically I met with him, I had Michele show up so I could have a witness when I retrieved Ammon's belongings.
Like · 4 · 19 hrs · Edited

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...3c97e8b3268285

Teresa Brookshire Thank you for clarifying!
Like · 4 · 19 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...0233bc2b03638b

Jonathon Skipper Speece He wanted to come to the ranch. Yeah, not happening. We met up at a public truck stop on I-15
Like · 5 · 19 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...3c97e8b3268285

Teresa Brookshire Yes, you could definitely hear the trucks. Was he saying Brian Cavaliers phone was still in his jeep?
Like · 2 · 19 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...0233bc2b03638b

Jonathon Skipper Speece Not according to the search warrant he showed me.
Like · 2 · 19 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...3c97e8b3268285

Teresa Brookshire Jonathon Skipper Speece got it.
Like · 19 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...0233bc2b03638b

Jonathon Skipper Speece I took photos of it, I'll see if I still have them
Like · 6 · 19 hrs



Jonathon Skipper Speece Supposedly that black Samsung phone was booda's. Booda did have a black Samsung phone. I saw it when he came down to the ranch for a few days. He lost his white one when he got arrested in AZ for an outstanding warranthttps://fbcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.ne...59669f30c7d08a

Like · 2 · 19 hrs



Teresa Brookshire Very good!
Like · 1 · 18 hrs



Bill Goode Very well handled, Jonathon Skipper Speece.
Like · 3 · 18 hrs



Dave Walker Lol There's more than one douche informant. I would lay money on it.
Like · 4 · 18 hrs

Hide 32 Replies



Jonathon Skipper Speece I'm pretty sure.
Like · 3 · 17 hrs



Dave Walker yeah, me too.
Like · 2 · 17 hrs



Jonathon Skipper Speece Question is, did Booda turn while in jail, or was he always a rat?
Like · 2 · 17 hrs



Jonathon Skipper Speece And according to one of the police reports I saw online, sounds like there was a female informant.
Like · 2 · 17 hrs



Dave Walker no question in my mind
Like · 1 · 17 hrs



Andie Basse I was thinking the guy who was supposed to gp in lavoys truck but they couldnt find right before leaving was an informant. I think lavoys truck had a date with the firing squad. Was shot at driven into the roadblock and meant to get into a gunfight with osp on live video. Either was an informant in there or they all stayed out knowing it would be lit up
Like · 1 · 17 hrs · Edited


Bill Goode Skipper, female informant - MD Laughter possibly?
Like · 1 · 17 hrs



James Karma Bishop Bill Goode oh and another Informant this gets more interesting with every new Post that I Read.
Like · 1 · 17 hrs



Bill Goode No certainty that MD was an informant, merely a possibility, as it's in her nature, and Skipper said there was a possibility of a female informant.
Like · 2 · 17 hrs · Edited



James Karma Bishop Bill Goode I without a Doubt Seriously think that the Death of Robert Lavoy Finnicum was Premeditated.
Like · 3 · 17 hrs

Comtinued next page:

Continuation:


Andie Basse Me too elite snipers dont miss but they can drive you into a roadblock. Is it confirmed that ryans shoulder wound was shrapnel? Wouldnt suprise me if they shot him in the shoulder to get him to get in a dramatic shootout with osp all caught on camera
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...bf519aac1798ea

James Karma Bishop Andie Basse If Robert Lavoy Finnicum would not have been Murdered the Trial would be going alot Different.
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...36e63389261816

Bill Goode Absolutely killing LaVoy was premeditated. All one has to do is listen to Butch Eaton's interview he gave on 15 March. The FBI interviewed Butch on 3 January and asked him SPECIFICALLY ABOUT LAVOY, TO CONFIRM BUTCH SAW LAVOY AT THE REFUGE THE DAY BEFORE. Yes, no doubt about it, the killing of LaVoy was absolutely premeditated by the FBI.
Like · 3 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...e7ce1aca9634f6

Andie Basse If you listen to shawnas interview she states someone else was supposed to film and they couldnt find them so she went. Whoever that was knew
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...bf519aac1798ea

James Karma Bishop Andie Basse The Question is, is who was supposed to Film and what did they know ?
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...e7ce1aca9634f6

Andie Basse I think she says his name would have to listen to the interview again
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...e7ce1aca9634f6

Andie Basse Oh they knew that truck was going to get lit up like an xmas tree
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...e7ce1aca9634f6

Andie Basse Not to get in it
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...bf519aac1798ea

James Karma Bishop Andie Basse Why did they want that Specific Person to Film.
Like · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...bf519aac1798ea

James Karma Bishop Andie Basse The Phrase Lit up like an Xmas Tree is very Scairy.
Like · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...36e63389261816

Bill Goode Andie Basse It was David Fry that was supposed to go to John Day to film, but Shawna took his place, when he couldn't be found. David is certainly no informant, but he was supposed to go, as he did a lot of LaVoy's filming.
Like · 3 · 17 hrs · Edited



James Karma Bishop Andie Basse You are meaning to say that, that Specific person who was Supposed to Film the whole thing may have been Warned not to go or knew something was going to happen ?
Like · 17 hrs



Andie Basse Ur sure it was fry? I didnt remember his name ill have to listen to the interview again
Like · 1 · 16 hrs



James Karma Bishop Andie Basse I'm Putting all the Facts Together and all of the Pieces Together.
Like · 15 hrs



Andie Basse At 640ish she mentions that they couldnt find someone who was supposed to be in lavoys truck. She doesnt state a name in this interview
http://mediaarchives.gsradio.net/commonsens.../hr3013116.mp3
Hr3013116
MEDIAARCHIVES.GSRADIO.NET

Like · 15 hrs



Andie Basse He bill mentions its fry please post a link to confirm tht if it wasnt fry thats your second informant
Like · 1 · 14 hrs · Edited



John Kolak Andie Basse I think if it was shrapnel, they would not have left it in his shoulder because of sharp edges. I believe I read that Ryan said he saw the x-ray, and it was clearly in the form of a bullet, but after reading so much, it's hard to remember everything clearly.
Like · 1 · 11 hrs


Bill Goode Andie Basse, Yes, I'm sure. Shawna herself told me Fry was supposed to go, but they couldn't find him. So she volunteered to go.
Like · 2 · 10 hrs



Bill Goode I just checked Shawna's affidavit again. It was David Fry that was supposed to go.
Like · 2 · 10 hrs



Bill Goode My suspicion is growing that if there was a second informant, it was MD Laughter. I've been told she has, since the Refuge, been trashing the Bundys, a really dumb thing to do.
Like · 1 · 10 hrs · Edited



Andie Basse I know a billion people will stick up for fry or payne but anyone who got out or didnt get in lavoys truck id suspect a little. Payne and fry had a fued too.
Like · 1 · 7 hrs · Edited



Andie Basse Im not talking shit or trying to start any just noted
Like · 7 hrs



Bill Goode Skipper, is there a reason you can tell us why this took so long to release? It's been almost 8 months since recorded.
Like · 3 · 17 hrs



Andie Basse A trooper just confirmed mcconel is an informant
Like · 3 · 17 hrs



Jonathon Skipper Speece I swore Michele put this out there a while back. I don't know, I've slept since then.
Like · 3 · 1

Continuation--

Michelle Arnett This was posted yesterday, does anyone know them?

Lisa Bundy
Yesterday at 9:27pm
Attention: Paid Informants in the Refuge case with my husband....the father and son DUNBAR ranchers. Paid $4000 total. Each receiving $2000. They did nothing but lie through their teeth on the stand. The receipt was made known in court.

Finding this stuff out....it doesn't make me mad, but sad.
Like · 1 · 17 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...36e63389261816

Bill Goode Michelle Arnett, who or what is the "them" that you are asking about and referring to?
Like · 16 hrs · Edited

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...3ea5c7234f18e2

John Kolak I think she means the nearby ranchers, the Dunbar family that just came up in the trial. Lisa says their testimony was perjury.
Like · 2 · 11 hrs · Edited

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...36e63389261816

Bill Goode OK, got it.
Like · 10 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...36e63389261816

Bill Goode Thom Davis and / or Chris Briels, both living in Harney Co, do you know the Dunbars?
Like · 1 · 10 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...45b2131970e4f4

Michelle Arnett John Kolak, yes, thank you, that is who I was referring to as "them".
Like · 1 · 9 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...0233bc2b03638b

Jonathon Skipper Speece When Michele and here party walk up to the car she mentioned that was in front of Mark's Jeep, that was me greeting Michele at first, not Mark.
Like · 5 · 16 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...a3cf03dfdc0489

Teresa Brookshire Scroll back to Thursday, I posted the tweets from Maxine from court. A couple of discussions from where I posted this elsewhere was that when the Dunbars first became alarmed was when many vehicles were turning around in their driveway and several men running through their property. They contacted the sheriffs depart and were told to cut their lights off and lock their doors. They did not dispatch anyone to investigate. Their property is across the road from one area of the refuge. The son actually went to the refuge himself, to the entrance on his quad and engaged with others there, a few who were drinking a beer and he participated also (none of the occupiers were drinking.). The FBI used their property to conduct surveillance and Mr. Dunbar testified at one time he could see someone in the tower pointing a weapon at him. On cross, he concurred it could have been something else. The FBI paid them for the use of their property from Jan 2nd on, but it was not stated when they actually became aware the FBI was using their property. One post said the Dunbars did not want the money. Testimony was given that after LaVoy's death he came across one person coming out of the refuge through his property that was scared to death. All is paraphrased and what I can recall. So, could it have been the FBI that was turning around in his driveway and running through his land? Is that why Harney County did not dispatch anyone, because they already knew who it was? I wish one of the attorneys had asked if it were possible those turning around in his driveway and crossing his land were FBI agents.
Like · 2 · 8 hrs

Last week's trial recap from Redoubt News by Shari Dovale

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/25/ma...l-week-3-wrap/

Malhuer Protest Trial – Week 3 Wrap Up

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C296Malheur Protest Trial – Week 3 Wrap Up

By Shari Dovale

The trial in Portland has proven to be enlightening, as the very least. Judge Anna Brown does not hide her bias against the defense. The government has not put on a very strong case, but Judge Brown is helping them all she can.

Ammon continues to wear his jail scrubs in a powerful political statement. Others have joined him, including protesters outside the courthouse. There is another defendant that wears scrubs daily and that is Neil Wampler. We are hoping that others will join them in this statement.


http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=219%2C263
John Lamb, organizing rallies outside of the Multnomah County jail

Details of LaVoy Finicum’s murder have seeped into the trial, with Judge Brown actively trying to keep it from the jury. She has threatened the defense attorneys with $1,000 fines if they continue to bring up the details or try to discuss the FBI cover-up in that case.

Brown has said that the fact of Finicum being shot by Law Enforcement is enough information. She also said that these actions, for the most part, happened after the events at the refuge, so they are not pertinent to the charge of conspiracy. She actually called it “irrelevant.”

However, co-defendant Jeff Banta only arrived at the refuge the night before LaVoy was murdered, so I would think this is very relevant in his case. The same with all of the ‘final four.’ Let’s hope their attorneys can make that point with the judge.

Mark McConnell was revealed to be a cooperating government witness. He provided detailed information on January 26^th, including which vehicles were being driven that day, who was in each vehicle, and the threat assessment the FBI could face. This information allowed the FBI and Oregon State Police (OSP) to set up the stop at the illegal deadman’s roadblock and ultimately murder LaVoy Finicum.

The government continued with their witnesses, including a rancher named Dunbar, who lives adjacent to the Malheur Refuge. He admitted that he, and his son, each received $2,000 from the government for “services rendered’ during the month of January 2016. He did try to claim that he did not want the money, but was forced to admit on cross examination that he did not return it. It was a ‘significant amount of money’ for him, after all.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=164%2C132
Message from the Multnomah County Jail.

The government then proceeded to discuss the FBI negotiations with the final four after the arrests on January 26^th. It was very hard to see the absolute lack of conscience these FBI special agents have towards the American public.

They know that they are allowed to lie to the people in this country, even though it is a crime for someone to lie right back to them. When the crisis negotiators talked to the protesters, they said whatever they had to say to achieve their ends. Truth was never the most important item on the agenda.

Next week will bring an end to the government’s case. They are projecting 2 days of evidence presentation, with individual FBI agents presenting each separate piece of evidence. The defense is expected to begin on

Wednesday, September 28^th.
We will be there for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

I went looking for the video that "Call of Duty Goddess" did where she pointed out that it looked like Lavoy pointed at the foam bullet shooter after he fired. She said Lavoy pointed at him and said "he shot me". She has taken it down but I'd sure like to look at it again.

If I were on the jury and Fred Grant was the prosecutor against those who murdered Lavoy Finicum I'd find them guilty and want them punished to the full extent of the law. SOB's

---

LaVoy points out person that takes first shot at him.

http://youtu.be/HRmbVDS4p4I

https://youtu.be/HRmbVDS4p4I

There is a 13 minute facebook video of LaVoy and his brother at the refuge here. I don't know if it is on youtube or not.

https://www.facebook.com/gunflowers/...8825867711128/

Who are the officers Ammon Bundy is accused of impeding?That has been a question in my mind since I first read the charges. Do employees at a bird refuge meet the legal definition of "Officers"?


Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer? What Officer?

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ank-robber.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 26, 2016

In the Indictments, both in Oregon and Nevada, there is one Count that raises some serious questions. The exact wording, to the extent of understanding the charges being made, is as follows:
For Oregon:

COUNT 1
(Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States)
(18 u.s.c. § 372)
On or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants…
It then goes on to list the Defendants and makes some rather general accusations, WITHOUT naming “Officers” or, how they were impeded.
Next, we look to the Nevada Indictment:

COUNT TWO
Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 372)
Then, they go into a narrative, missing, of course, any named “Officers”, or any specific acts that constitute impeding.

The statute cited reads:
18 U.S.C. § 372 : US Code – Section 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Now, our concern, as much as with the Indictments lacking specificity, is the Statute, itself. So, let’s first trace the history of the Statute, and then we will look into just who an “Officer” might be.
.
On July 31, 1861, just four months after the start of the Civil War, Congress enacted the first statute (12 Stat 284) that addressed what eventually resolved down to 18 USC § 372:

An Act to define and punish certain Conspiracies
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States against the will or contrary to the authority of the United States; or by force, or intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States; each and every person so offending shall be guilty of a high crime, and upon conviction thereof in any district or circuit court of the United States, having jurisdiction thereof, or district or supreme court of any Territory of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not less than five hundred dollars and not more than five thousand dollars; or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, as the court shall determine, for a period not less than six months not greater than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
APPROVED, July 31, 1861.

By 1909, in 35 Stat 1092, the particulars of § 372 had been separated from other elements. This is the first codification of the Statutes, and this section would fall under “Crimes – Chapter One. – Offenses Against the Existence of the Government”, at:
SEC. 21 . If two or more persons in any State, Territory, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof ; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, Territory, District, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

There is no significant change when the method of codification was changed, by 62 Stat 701, with the exception of adding, “to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office“.

In 1948, with the adoption of 62 Stat 701, we see the adoption of the current form of statute identification, of “Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures”
§ 372. CONSPIRACY TO IMPEDE OR INJURE OFFICER
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

This is nearly identical to the existing statute, 18 US Code § 372, shown first above.
So, now let’s look at just which members of government were the subjects of the protection afforded by the statute. In the Indictments and the statutes, reference is made only to “Officers”. So, is any employee of government an “Officer”? Or, is that title reserved only to a certain character of those who work for the government?

First, we need to know what the Constitution says about “officers”, though we need not consider Officers in Congress, the Judicial Branch, or the Military, as surely, none of those was present at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Any other reference to “officers”, we find the Article II – The Executive Branch. In Section 2, clause 2, we find:
He [President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to … appoint … Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Then, in Section 3:
He shall … Commission all the Officers of the United States.
So, though the Courts of Law and Heads of Departments may commission officers, if Congress so decrees, the President still has to “commission such officers”.

And, in Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So, unlike employees, officers can only be removed by the impeachment process, as administered by the Congress.

But, from a practical standpoint, other officers became necessary. During Prohibition, officers were designated to execute search warrants. A challenge was made over their constitutional, as explained above. This is what the Supreme Court said in Steele v U S 267 US 505 (1925), in broadening the previous limitation on what Officers were. Here are a few excerpts from that decision:
The argument is that the prohibition agent is appointed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and therefore is only an employee and not a civil officer of the government in the constitutional sense, because such an officer under article 2, section 2, of the Constitution can only be appointed either by the President and the Senate, the President alone, the courts of law, or the heads of departments.

This was the challenge that Steele had set before the Court, and which the Court had to decide. There had yet to be a case where the expansion of the constitutional limitation was put to the test.

It is quite true that the words ‘officer of the United States,’ when employed in the statutes of the United States, is to be taken usually to have the limited constitutional meaning.

So, the Court decides to take on the task. Even though there was no commission from the President, the enactment, by the Congress, of certain laws, had to grant such status to fulfill the duties assigned:
‘The Commissioner, his assistants, agents, and inspectors, and all other officers of the United States, whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws, shall have all the power … in the enforcement of this act or any provisions thereof which is conferred by law for the enforcement of existing laws relating to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors under the law of the United States.’

So, the exception made is where a duty requires enforcement or service, to create that official (officer) capacity. Since that time, those positions that are within this expanded scope of the definition appear to have a prefix to their title that establishes that status.

To understand this, let’s look back at how the government dealt with multiple deaths in the Oklahoma City Bombing (April 19, 1993). What we are concerned with is how the deaths were treated — were they all considered to have been “killed” by the acts of McVeigh, or were some simply “deaths”, collateral damage”, as a result the truck bomb. From the McVeigh Indictment:
COUNTS FOUR THROUGH ELEVEN
(First Degree Murder)
The Grand Jury further charges:
On or about April 19, 1995, at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in the Western District of Oklahoma,
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH
and
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,
the defendants herein, did unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and with premeditation and malice aforethought, kill, and aid, abet and cause the killing of, the following persons while they were engaged in and on account of the performance of official duties as law enforcement officers:
Name/Position:
COUNT: FOUR Name/Position: Mickey Bryant Maroney Special Agent United States Secret Service
COUNT: FIVE Name/Position: Donald R. Leonard Special Agent United States Secret Service
COUNT: SIX Alan Gerald Whicher Assistant Special Agent in Charge United States Secret Service
COUNT: SEVEN Cynthia Lynn Campbell-Brown Special Agent United States Secret Service
COUNT: EIGHT Kenneth Glenn McCullough Special Agent United States Drug Enforcement Administration
COUNT: NINE Paul Douglas Ice Special Agent United States Customs Service
COUNT: TEN Claude Arthur Medearis Special Agent United States Customs Service
COUNT: ELEVEN Paul G. Broxterman Special Agent Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114, 1111 and 2(a)&(b); and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 64.2(h).
When we look at 18 US Code §§ 1114 & 1111, we find that 1114 says,
Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished – [then lists punishments]

Then, in § 1111, we find the establishment of jurisdiction:
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
So, if the crime had been committed in the “maritime or territorial jurisdiction”, it would be murder. However, as we saw in § 1114, if the victim is an “officer or employee”, the person can be punished. Now, this appears to apply to any employee, as well as an officer. However, if we look at the history of the Statute, we can find what happened in 1989. This would be as the statute existed at the time of the OKC Bombing, at 10 Stat 4831:

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...-4831-1989.jpg

So, in 1989, and still in 1993, when the bombing occurred, the statute had territorial limitations. It was not until 1996, with 110 Stat 1302, that the government extended its reach (isn’t that what both MNWR in Burns and Bundy Ranch in Nevada are all about?) to go beyond the Constitution and assume authority that is in conflict with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

However, understanding the limitation imposed by the Statute § 1114, as it existed in 1993, we find that there are only eight (8) people that McVeigh and Nichols are charged with murdering (killing). However, the Indictment lists another 160 people that died as a result of the “truck bomb explosion”. The eight listed are all “special agents”. So, we can safely assume that they were “Officers” and are covered by the umbrella that is applicable in 18 US Code § 372, as well as other statutes, where the government can legally punish someone for damaging (murdering) what is presumed to be government property (Officers).

So, what of those other 160 people? Well, they are covered in COUNT ONE:
38. As intended by McVEIGH and NICHOLS, the truck bomb explosion resulted in death and personal injury and the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, located within the Western District of Oklahoma. The following persons were present at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, and were killed as a result of the explosion:
Charles E. Hurlburt 73
[First and last names shown, the other 158 omitted for brevity, but can be seen on the linked “McVeigh Indictment“.]
Gabreon Bruce 4 months

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332a.
So, all of those in the class of “employees” that fit the criteria of “Officers” are also identified as “Special Agents”. And, those other 158 people are, well, to use a government term, “collateral damage” as a consequence of the explosion of a truck bomb. Punishable only because a truck bomb was used.
However, 18 US Code § 372 has not been changed, as 18 US Code § 1114, to extend beyond the constitutional limits imposed by the Constitution, and expanded by the Supreme Court in the Steele decision.

So, this brings us to the ultimate question of whether there were any “Officers” that were kept from doing their duty, by the actions of those who occupied the MNWR headquarters. Well, we know that a number of “Special Agents” have been employed, since the occupation, to ramble through Facebook, the Refuge and elsewhere. So, rather than impeded, they are gainfully employed in doing their duty. However, the prosecutors in the case have yet to being forward the name and capacity of just one “Officer” that would satisfy the statute, and with the requisite credentials to qualify under Steele, to be deemed an “Officer”.

If someone had been charged with robbing a bank, would not the bank have to be included in the Indictment?

“We charge Jon Doe with robbing a bank, in violation of such and such a statute”. “What bank did they rob?” you ask. “Well, we don’t know what bank they robbed,” they answer.
As demonstrated by the McVeigh Indictment, those who are injured, or impeded, must be named. Moreover, they must be officers, not just employees. For the prosecutors to fail to provide the requisite information is comparable to the analogy of the bank robber. The insufficiency of the Indictment cries out for Count One to be quashed, as it is a chare without merit, and the evidence presented, to date, has done nothing to answer the crucial question of which “Officers” have been so affected by the actions of the accused?

Quote:

---

Then, in § 1111, we find the establishment of jurisdiction:

---

Quote:

---

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
So, if the crime had been committed in the “maritime or territorial jurisdiction”, it would be murder. However, as we saw in § 1114, if the victim is an “officer or employee”, the person can be punished. Now, this appears to apply to any employee, as well as an officer. However, if we look at the history of the Statute, we can find what happened in 1989. This would be as the statute existed at the time of the OKC Bombing, at 10 Stat 4831:

---

But if we examine the statute further we find it also includes land jurisdiction: Stautue 62 Capter 645 Section 7(3)

"Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States". . .

"The use of the United States?" Does that mean exclusive use of the United States such as a military installation or a federal office building or bombing and gunnery range, or does it also include federal owned property such as the Malhuer headquarters?

I suspect the intent of Congress when it wrote this statute can be found in the Congressional Record.

I think you will find the answer to that in Shawna Cox's most recent filing Regarding jurisdiction. Judge Brown has yet to make a ruling.

http://s19.postimg.org/er7yfge03/image.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

From RangeFire, "Another Side -- 'Malheur Misfits' Will Get Justice? -- According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette"

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/20/anoth...-post-gazette/

Another Side — “Malheur Misfits” Will Get Justice? — According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette

According to the editorial board of the Pittsburg Post-Gazzette, The “Malheur Misfits” — an anti-government group — will get justice


Note: We’ve said it over and over again, here at RANGEFIRE! we have no interest in being a single-dimensional echo chamber. We acknowledge that there are always multiple sides to every story. In the West, there is an old saying to the effect that: “good fences make good neighbors.” At RANGEfire! we acknowledge our virtual neighbors on this virtual landscape. We think it is important for people to have an opportunity to hear all sides of the story, and know what others are saying about these issues. So we often share what others are saying.


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa.../09/PP-G-1.jpgWHAT OTHERS (PP-G) ARE SAYING


According to the PP-G Editorial Board, “for 41 days earlier this year, Ammon Bundy and a group of armed ranchers occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. The occupiers, who brandished weapons and threatened federal officers, also made it clear that they didn’t recognize the government’s authority to own or even manage public land. They recognize no law above themselves.


When the occupiers were finally arrested Jan. 26 on a road in the refuge, not all of them surrendered peacefully. One of their members, Robert LaVoy Finicum, was shot and killed by an officer who thought he was reaching for a gun. Finicum actually believed the violent rhetoric that his cohorts gave lip service to when they weren’t surrounded and outgunned and paid for it with his life. He died while his friends turned themselves in without a fight.


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x215.png
Now that the trial of Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan and five others has begun, their excuses for armed defiance of the government sound even hollower. In opening arguments this week, a defense lawyer insisted that Mr. Bundy never threatened anyone and that the charge of conspiracy to impede federal officers through threat and intimidation was unjust. If this is the best defense the occupiers can muster, then things will not go well for the hapless rebels as they try to explain how the guns and ammo they opened displayed and pointed in their direction weren’t intended to intimidate.


Still, it is to the credit of the American justice system that the occupiers, who claim to be beyond the government’s jurisdiction, are entitled to a vigorous defense. Their arguments, no matter how absurd, will be heard. Because we live under a system of laws and not posses operating in the Wild West, judgment will be rendered accordingly.


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

---

Unfortunately very few people east of the Rocky Mountains understand what is happening in the western states regarding shutting down public land to public access, particularly the livelihood of western ranchers. Why is it the United States claims ownership to more than 50% of the land west of the Rocky Mountains? I speculate it was driven by greed. The jew bankers who own the Congress realized the mountainous west was loaded with precious minerals. The discovery of gold at Sutters Creeek reinforced their belief. Every state admitted to the union since has given up the rights to its public lands. The same greed is behind the current movement to close off more of the public land as national monuments. This article is in response to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece:

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/26/clash...by-trent-loos/ by Trent Loos
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...re-Logo-1B.jpg

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



Clash Between Rural and Urban Values and Culture? — Opinion/Editorial — by Trent Loos

September 26, 2016 - Food & Fiber, Government/Politics, Opinion/Editorial, Oregon Standoff - Tagged: Bundy, constitution, Malheur, Oregon Standoff, patriot, Range, RANGEfire, Rural, Trent Loos, trial, Urban - no comments




http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-3-251x300.jpg

Reposted from High Plains Journal. According to Ag Radio personality Trent Loos, who often talks about the huge and seemingly growing divide between rural and urban America, the Oregon Standoff Case really boils down to a clash of rural versus urban values and culture. The U.S. government has decided it needs to win the case to beat down the patriots of this nation who are willing to sacrifice life and liberty for the founding principles the authors of the Constitution envisioned for all future generations of Americans.

“I don’t believe it is ironic at all but rather 100 percent divine intervention that the first week of this trial included the day Sept. 17. In case your history lacks as bad as that of the Barack Obama administration, it was Sept. 17, 1787, that the U.S. Constitution was born. I can confidently share with you that not one of the individuals arrested or LaVoy Finicum, who gave his life for this cause, wanted anything other than for the federal government to live by the same U.S. Constitution that the rest of us do. May God bless you all, may real justice be served and may our freedoms be restored to their original glorious intent.

With the trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupiers in its second week, I had planned to bring you up to speed but I just read yet another “editorial board” piece from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that caused me to write with greater pressure on my keyboard.


The question is, when papers like PPG—and they are not the exception but rather the norm—print stuff like their recent editorial board piece titled “The Malheur misfits: The anti-government group will get justice” and we know it is full of falsehoods, how do we ever believe anything else that is written in that rag?


If you are out of the loop or just not paying attention, seven individuals are currently in their second week of trial for “conspiring to impede federal officers from performing their official duties.” The seven include Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who were there from day one, and also Jeff Banta, who was at Malheur Jan. 10, and then came back Jan. 25, which happened to be the day before the ambush and killing of LaVoy Finicum. Yet Banta too is charged with “conspiracy to impede federal officers from performing their official duties.”


So here is the commonly misused phrase when sources of ignorance speak about the occupation: “The occupiers, who brandished weapons and threatened federal officers, also made it clear that they didn’t recognize the government’s authority to own or even manage public land.”


First of all, Ammon Bundy never once possessed a firearm on his person while at Malheur. Even if he had carried one on his hip as Finicum did, that is his constitutional right.


Second, even Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, who was the very first witness the federal government prosecutors called to the stand, did nothing but emphasize how cordial and respectful his meetings with Ammon Bundy were. In fact, most may not even know that Ammon Bundy reached out to Sheriff Ward two months prior to the occupation, impressing upon the sheriff that it was his job to protect the citizens of Harney County and that he should protect the Hammonds from the Feds when they came for the two men in January.


Sheriff Ward repeated how he was fine with all of his conversations with Bundy but he did have concerns about what the others might do. The thing you must remember is it is Ammon Bundy on trial here and not “the others” who were apparently reaching out to the sheriff via email and phone. Is guilt by association now a crime?


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...6/09/HPJ-1.jpg

The bottom line here is that this trial is likely going to go on for months and if it weren’t for the people I got to know and trust while I was in Burns, Oregon, who are now present at the courthouse, none of us would be getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In fact, we would be getting more of this engineered manipulation of the happenings via mainstream media.


One of my information sources is Todd MacFarlane. Todd is a rancher from Utah but also has been a trial attorney for 25 years, with a special emphasis in property rights. Todd was present in the courthouse every day the first week of the trial and can tell you more than you will believe about the intimidation that went on and the judicial security theater (three-ring circus). Please follow the happenings in and around the courtroom via Todd’s reporting at RangeFire.us.


This case has come down to a clash of rural versus urban culture. The U.S. government has decided it needs to win the case to beat down the patriots of this nation who are willing to sacrifice life and liberty for the founding principles the authors of the Constitution envisioned for all future generations of Americans. I don’t believe we should let that happen.


I don’t believe it is ironic at all but rather 100 percent divine intervention that the first week of this trial included the day Sept. 17. In case your history lacks as bad as that of the Barack Obama administration, it was Sept. 17, 1787, that the U.S. Constitution was born. I can confidently share with you that not one of the individuals arrested or LaVoy Finicum, who gave his life for this cause, wanted anything other than for the federal government to live by the same U.S. Constitution that the rest of us do. May God bless you all, may real justice be served and may our freedoms be restored to their original glorious intent.


HPJ Editor’s note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food.

Get more information at www.LoosTales.com, or email Trent at trentloos@gmail.com.


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

FBI claims that they found explosive materials at the refuge and suggested they belonged to the occupiers.
They also claimed in testimony before jurors that stolen government credit cards were found in the truck of Duane Ehmer.

http://youtu.be/TWlg2OgacKo

https://youtu.be/TWlg2OgacKo

Shari Dovale explains the Malheur Protest trial.

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/26/ex...protest-trial/

Explaining the Malheur Protest Trial

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=600%2C381

Explaining the Malheur Protest Trial

By Shari Dovale

I have been sitting in the courtroom throughout the majority of this trial. Beginning from the jury selection, it has been obvious that the government’s agenda will be upheld, at the cost of the truth.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=257%2C193

The government controlling your rights. (Their sign, and my ticket to a watch list.)

For those that still don’t understand, let me explain.

Ammon Bundy and the other defendants are on trial for ‘Conspiring to Impede Federal Officers’. This means that the government is accusing them of not allowing the employees of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to go to work.

Keep in mind that employees have already testified they continued to work.

The government is allowed to bring in any evidence they deem appropriate to prove this charge. Evidence includes the actual weapons owned by LaVoy Finicum, Facebook ‘Memes’, and coaching of witnesses while they are on the stand.

The defendants, however, are not allowed to explain why they were there (the Hammond case), what legal doctrine they based the protest on (Adverse Possession) or how the FBI lied about the murder of LaVoy.

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C242
This meme could get me on a Terrorist Watch List.

It has been decreed by Judge Anna Brown that, though the government first introduced the killing of LaVoy, the defense will be held in contempt and charged $1,000 per instance if they even try to discuss the FBI cover-up of the killing. Brown has called it ‘irrelevant.’

Remember, the government first brought it up, and is allowed to discuss what they want.

Discussing the US Constitution is off limits as well. Judge Brown has made it very clear that only she can explain the law to the jury, and to have them consider the words of the Constitution is contrary to that ruling. If the jury were to read the Constitution, they might learn of more rights than she would like them to know, such as ‘jury nullification.’

Brown made specific demands of the jury that they must swear to follow her ideas of the law and not consider this basic right. She stated that nullification is “just not right” but she fell short of calling it illegal.
The Hammond family were in a similar position during their trial. Their jury was given very narrow instructions as to determine if Dwight and Steven actually started the fire in their case. The Hammond’s never denied starting that fire. But they were not allowed to present their defense of what happened.

The original judge in their trial understood that the charges were a great overreach. He went outside the sentencing guidelines and gave them shorter time at their sentencing. The two men served the time. However, the Federal government was still unable to get their hands on the ranch and went back for further punishment. The Hammonds were forced back to prison under double-jeopardy to serve additional time.
This is relevant because the Hammond case is what brought the Bundys to Oregon. Yet, Judge Brown will not allow these details into the trial.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C156

Another ‘anti-government’ memeThe FBI cover-up of the murder of LaVoy is relevant as well. The protesters have stated their fear and distrust of the FBI. These events substantiate their fears. The final four holdouts were affected even more by these events. They had already seen one of their own murdered, so their belief that they too could be killed is extremely relevant. Yet, Judge Brown states that it has no bearing on the case at hand.

Do not forget that the government did not follow their own laws during this trial. They had specific guidelines on their Facebook warrant, yet they screwed that up and went way outside of the scope of the warrant. Though the judge agreed the government messed it up, she still allowed it to be used as evidence. How’s that for bias?

The defendants are not allowed to put on a defense, period. This means that there is no defense to the government agenda. The government can say that ‘Liking’ someone’s Facebook meme can label you a terrorist. The government can say that the US Constitution is irrelevant. The government can say lying and hiding evidence of a murder is okay … if it is done by them. How do the citizen’s of this country defend against an out-of-control government like this?

The country is under a Rule of Law that is contrary to the US Constitution, and what this country is based on. We are under imperial rule, governed by the elite ruling class, not by the people, as it was designed.
God help us.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C193
Right-Wing Conspiracy meme

Day 9 review http://rangefire.us/2016/09/13/ongoi...ge-commentary/

DAY 9, Monday, September 26, 3016
Today was filled with more FBI agent witness testimony, primarily regarding searches of the Refuge that occured between February 12th and February 23, 2016. The FBI agents made a number of interesting finds, including over 1600 shell casings at the boat launch, and a “bunker” of sorts near the rear gate with an ammo box containing about 300 rounds of ammunition.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x167.jpg

Duane Ehmer’s truck and trailer seemed to be a treasure trove of evidence. In addition to a rifle stuck in a pile of hay for Ehmer’s horse “Hellboy,” under one of the truck seats agents found a Refuge “pouch” containing Refuge gas cards, credit cards, etc., that was thought to have been locked up somewhere in one of the offices.

Agents testified about notebooks and “training” manuals detailing military-like “drills” that may have been intended to be used as part of the security strategy at the Refuge. For months there has been a lot of speculation about possible explosives at the Refuge. Some have suggested the possibility that there might be strong evidence of bomb-making and explosives, but according to evidence presented today, which is the only real evidence so far on the subject, the only thing that really turned-up in the explosive category was Tannerite, which is a very low-grade explosive that is often used in target shooting, and can be purchased over the counter. Although Tannerite can make big flashes and loud booms, it is basically a “fireworks” grade explosive, with minimal actual impact.

Although no evidence has been presented that Ammon Bundy ever carried or bore a firearm while at the refuge evidence was presented that agents found a rifle bag, with the name “Ammon” on it, 420 rounds of ammunition was found in his truck, and pretrial discovery included evidence that one of the rifles found at the refuge was purportedly registered to Ammon Bundy. Tomorrow, on the last day of presentation in the government’s case in chief, FBI agents will make a “firearms presentation,” and undoubleldly talk about more firearms.

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

One FBI agent testified that in Defendant Neil Wampler’s conversations with the FBI, he described the the protest at the Refuge as an act of civil disobeience, akin to what people like MLK and Ghandi and have done. No evidence has been presented so far that Wampler was ever armed at the Refuge. Apparently, his primary role was that of cook.

The single biggest question with all this evidence is how it supports the charge of conspiracy to impede and/or interfere with federal officers. According to the statute, there are three categories of actions that can be used to impeded or interfere with federal officers: threats, force or intimidation. Multiple witnesses have testified that there were no direct threats. They have also testified that they felt intimdated by the mere mention of the names of some of the people who had been at Bunkerville, let alone their presence in the community. But there is no evidence that any of these people had any real or detailed information about the quantity and capability of firearms at the Refuge prior to making decisions to close offices before the occupation even began. Most of firearms evidence appears to fit in the “force” category. Although there is no evidence that any actual force was used, there may be evidence to support the theory that the occupiers were prepared to use force. Once again, the question will come down to “who,” and how that question applies to all these defendants individually. The other issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove that theory beyond a reasonable doubt. At this point, the government’s evidence does not seem to be particularly overwhelming. But the ultimate question for the jury is “is it enough”?

For contrasting perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB)

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

Shawna Cox filed a civil suit in the Harney County circuit court in Oregon. The defendant is United States of American, :o

I don't see a notice of it being served on anyone.


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...1cbc187f0c9694

Don Baccus The best today was Shawna Cox's civil suit in Harney County, in which she declared herself part of a group executing "hostile adverse possession". Hard to support the notion that this would not impede federal employees from doing their job. Of course, it's too late for the prosecution to introduce as part of their case, but I bet it comes up during the defense.
9 hrs










https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...70&oe=5875AC90















https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...34721427_o.jpg



https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...4983c6fda07777

A fellow by the name of Peter Offerman did a frame by frame analysis of the videos of LaVoy's murder last February. It revealed frames had been edited out of the FBI video, and possibly Shawna Cox's video also. I am not going to post the webpage; it contains too many image files.


Request 1) An Analysis of the FBI Video of the Road Block resulting in Lavoy Finicum’s Death.

Peter Offermann
Contact Author
February 24, 2016


Click here for links to all parts of this article.

Peter, carefully notice the officer that ran up into the snowbank to force Lavoy's truck further up into the deeper snow. It appears he stays put and assumes a "crouch" position and fires into Lavoy's left side forcing his hands to go down. Is there anyway we can prove he fired the instant Lavoy came into view after he passed the rear part of the truck? At the point Lavoy comes into view lavoy still had his hands up. He you could prove he fired at this point it would be murder. That bullet could be retrieved from lavoy and matched to the officers gun. You see where this is going?

There are 61 frames in this segment which means it occurred in two seconds.
I have not retouched these images in anyway. All that has been done to them is enhancement that clarifies what is already there.

see the complete page: http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2...inicums-death/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...2%3A%22R%22%7D



Bill Goode Thanks for your confidence George. I have seen this video posted in several places. Obviously a lot of work and analysis went into it. I haven't watched it closely, but I'm very glad it's out there.

I am more inclined to rely on Peter Offerman's analysis done last February and March. Peter did a frame by frame analysis of the FBI & Shawna Cox's videos. It revealed that frames had been edited out of the FBI video before it was released. Same may have been done with Shawna's video.

This is the link to the first of 5 analyses (Requests) done by Peter Offerman. When the time comes, I believe this will be the most damning analysis of LaVoy's assassination, coupled with Butch Eaton's interview with the FBI on 3 January, 23 days before they killed LaVoy.

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/.../request-1-an-analysis.../
Like · 46 mins · Edited







https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...a6ca891c7b78d2

Bill Goode Intention is a very subjective thing. I consider it very difficult to prove what another's intention is. This video makes several assumptions of intention, which may not hold up in court.

However, FBI intentions are demonstrated by Butch Eaton's FBI interview of 3 January. The fact, that the FBI was targeting LaVoy 23 days before he was killed, is far more damning regarding intention, than any video or frame by frame analysis.

In watching this video, I realized that if LaVoy did have a firearm in his coat pocket and intended to use it, he would have drawn it before he exited his truck.
Like · 2 mins

Sara Redd Buck, family member of Utah Dr. Redd who was setup by FBI for selling native American artifacts who later commited sucide because of it posted this today. She says that it wasn't suposed to be revealed Mark McConnell was an FBI informant:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/permalink/1805928329620042/

https://www.facebook.com/sarah.reddb...57533731450319


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...601ae79514098e

Sarah Redd Buck
added 8 new photos.

4 hrs ·
Do we as Americans even realize what is going on in our country and around us? On January 27, 2016 I posted a picture similar to this one. LaVoy Finicum had just been shot and murdered by the FBI, in an ambush, with his hands in the air. The FBI lied 3 times about firing shots and later it was revealed that they did in fact fire and they have been investigating themselves now for 8 months.

Since the day I posted a picture similar to this one, I have been attacked, harassed, stalked, and threatened by Mark McConnell and his group/people. His Facebook for the last 8 months has been dedicated to me and destroying me. A guy even figured out my address, sat outside my house, took pictures, and documented it all on the Internet while I was home alone with my three young daughters. His lies and slander about me all over the Internet led a few people to wait for me outside the courthouse to "jump me" after one of the hearings.

It recently was revealed in trial that Mark is a paid and hired informant by the Federal Government. A revealing, in my opinion, that was not suppose to come out and in fact was "accidentally" revealed by an OSP officer on the stand in court. It was very obvious that this was the case upon watching the prosecution squirm. God works in mysterious ways. A revealing that brought light and understanding to me that these last 8 months I have been attacked, slandered, harassed, stalked, and threatened by people who have been hired and paid to do so by my very own Federal Government to try to scare me away and get me to shut my mouth in sharing the truth. My own Federal Government has paid these people to lie and do horrible things to discredit me and anything I say. Another informant, directly associated with Mark has been sending people emails including Sandy Anderson III saying I have been intimately involved with their husbands to try to create divide and break up strength. Sean and Sandy called me to let me know because, at that time they knew it was a lie, because we didn't even know each other.

I am a threat to Mark and those working corruption. I knew all along Mark was a paid informant so I screenshot, recorded, and documented everything I could. I have recordings, texts, screenshots of Mark yelling at me, threatening me, and saying he has a gun and isn't afraid to use it. I have documentation of Mark saying Ammon Bundy is a good person and doesn't deserve to be where he is at, that he was set up. I have documentation of a federal employee, Mark saying during the occupation "I support the people there doing what they feel is righteous. There has been nobody harmed or injured." A Federal employee stating during the occupation, "the ones going to jail won't be the ones at the refuge." A federal paid employee saying, "This situation in Oregon has been extremely peaceful. No damage. No destruction and certainly no violence. I have been amazed at how well they have worked with local ranchers and the people of Harney County". Sounds like the exact opposite of the impeding and gun charges. I have screenshots, recordings, and documentation of many incriminating things against many of those paid. I have the first video after LaVoy's murder and it wasn't made by Mark. It was quickly deleted after Mark made his. I have proof from a federal employee, Mark, that Ammon's attorney at the time Mike Arnold was being monitored by the prosecution. Isn't that illegal? This hired informant is a man who came to Boise to drop off Ammon Bundy at his home to spend time with his beautiful wife and kids after he peacefully stood against corruption for all of us Americans. After Mark dropped off Ammon he went to the bar and strip club and brought back to his jeep one of the strippers to "get to know her", According to Brian Cavalier. The evil, corruption, and wickedness runs ramped in those hired by our federal government to set up and destroy good Americans. While the good hearted family men have been murdered or have been sitting in jail now for 8 months and denied pre-trial release. Of course they hate me. Of course they will do everything in their power, yes even kill, to get rid of me.

This is what People like Greg Bretzing, Dan Love, and others associated with our Federal Government pay people to do. What could we pay people to do and say if we had endless amounts of money? It's like a nightmare out of a horror movie played out in real life when you speak out and educate on the truth.

You see, 8 months ago when I posted a picture similar to the one below many people thought I was crazy. Government Informants are usually kept confidential and never revealed. In fact, most often they are paid and used many times over several years. To remain anonymous, They usually don't testify in court and definitely DO NOT take the witness stand unless absolutely necessary. people thought our government would never do such a thing, hire evil bad people to set up good Americans? No way! I then began to share my family's story all over. How the Federal Government, Greg Bretzing, and Dan Love had hired Ted Gardiner. He was an ex-con alcoholic. The details of him being an informant were revealed because he took his own life before trial. Greg Bretzing, Dan Love, and our Federal Government persuaded Ted with 225,000$ to go to my family Dr. Redd's home and try to convince him to sale him an Indian artifact. When they found Ted Gardiner to hire him, he was pretty much homeless, living in the mountains, and desperate for money,hope, and meaning in his life. They convinced him to partake in the corruption by enticing him with money. Hmmm this kind of corruption and evil sounds familiar doesn't it? Sounds like something from the the bible and scripture. After Dr. Redd passed away Ted felt guilty for what he had been involved in. He knew my family was a GOOD family. He felt so guilty he took his own life.

Forward a few years and we find ourselves in a similar situation. People listened to me. Eyes were opened as I shared my family's story and what our federal government is capable of. The other side didn't appreciate the truth and/or the people who were listening to me and immediately the attacks and threats against my character and my life started.
I have had social media accounts for a very LONG time and they have never been shut down like they have during all of this. I have had to upload my drivers license, passport, phone number, ect ect or I was told my accounts would be shut down and even upon showing proof My accounts were still shut down. Just today I finally was allowed access to this one. They don't want the truth to be told. Me and other Americans speaking truth are a threat to them.

How do we as Americans protect ourselves against the very people who are suppose to be protecting us? Will restraining orders and lawsuits even apply to them?

I am not perfect. I am far from perfect and have never claimed to be perfect. I make mistakes but I am also someone who will never be ok with wickedness and corruption and when I recognize it, I will not stand by idle and allow it. Mark's own wife (currently getting a divorce due to Mark's ongoing longtime affair with Shannon) and daughter have been in contact with me concerned for my safety.

Do we as Americans even realize what is going on around us in our own country?

In these last days we HAVE to be educated. We HAVE to be aware of what is going on around us and we HAVE to stand for truth and righteousness EVEN if it is a sacrifice and EVEN if our own life is threatened because of it.

https://fbcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.ne...58020b251dc718
https://fbcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.ne...64959cd7d0328d
https://fbcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.ne...a386c3a1443b61
https://fbcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.ne...811af82b1952f7
https://fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.ne...27beda0e239075

+4

Ammon and Ryan Bundy trial update, This guy is either a jew or a jew sympathizer, orther than demonizing the nazi's it is a pretty good interview.

http://www.dallypost.com/1/index.php/5/article/2035_--REG/Update,-Ammon-and-Ryan-Bundy-Trial/

Update, Ammon and Ryan Bundy Trial

Posted by: Lance Earl - Sep 26, 2016 9:24 PM
Filed under: VigiLance - 2016

http://www.dallypost.com/1/core/imag...Feet--a300.png

The trial of Ammon and Ryan Bundy is proceeding. The prosecution has introduced evidence. Next up, the defense will have their opportunity to present before the Jury.

- See more at: http://www.dallypost.com/1/index.php....GSHt3NuI.dpuf

The question is, is justice being served? Please consider the facts of these proceedings. I think you will be deeply troubled by what appears to be the death of liberty and justice for all.

http://youtu.be/Jct-euGNCIs

Jim Lamley with Briana Budy September 19 on Twister Radio

http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...ial-Update.m4a

Today's Malheur Protest trial report from the Oregonian. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...c_display.html

The article doesn't say if Judge Brown ruled on Shawna Cox's second morion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.



Feds present dramatic display of 22 long guns, 12 handguns recovered from refuge

Updated 6:27 p.m.

Prosecutors Tuesday rested their case against Ammon Bundy and six co-defendants after presenting to jurors a dramatic display of firearms, including 22 long guns and 12 handguns, seized from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge following its 41-day occupation.

The firearms presentation capped 10 days of testimony in the federal conspiracy case against Ammon Bundy, his older brother Ryan Bundy and five other defendants. Defense lawyers and the defendants representing themselves will start their case on Wednesday.

One by one, an FBI agent held up 22 long guns and nearly a dozen handguns that authorities found on the front seats of cars or the beds of trucks, stuffed under a cot or resting on top of a stump, left on the grass or inside a cooler in the west encampment of the refuge.

Two FBI agents had wheeled in a large gray recycling bin containing the long guns. Agent Ronnie Walker handed each one to fellow agent Nick Vanicelli on the witness stand.

Vanicelli, a 20-year bureau veteran based in Denver, identified each firearm, where he discovered it and whether it had been loaded.

Then Walker took the weapon back and propped it against a white board leaning against the witness stand.
After about 20 minutes of testimony, the collection of firepower sat in a teepee-type formation in front of jurors.

Next, a cart that usually holds bound volumes of trial notebooks was wheeled in and the agents presented 12 handguns — 11 found at the encampment and one found in a green truck parked outside the old fire shop near the refuge headquarters — in the same manner.

Once the firearms were removed from the courtroom, FBI agents hauled in 14 large black bins, topped with bright yellow lids. The bins contained evidence bags holding tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition recovered.

Federal agents bagged as evidence a total of 18,331 separate pieces of ammunition at the refuge - including 16,636 live rounds, 1,627 spent casings at the refuge boat launch and 68 spent casings from the headquarters area, FBI agent Ronnie Walker testified.

As Walker was about to identify what was in each of the bags, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown directed prosecutors to speed up their presentation. "Can't we just do a summary please,'' the judge said. "Let's get on with it.''

While defense lawyers were quick to point out through cross-examination of FBI agents that none of the firearms located or ammunition found was illegal, prosecutors intend to show that the mere volume, presence and use of some of the firearms for target practice at the refuge boat launch reveal the defendants' intent to intimidate refuge employees from returning to work at the federal property.

Bundy, Fry, Shawna Cox, Jeff Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, Neil Wampler and Bundy's older brother, Ryan Bundy, are charged with conspiring to prevent federal employees from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management from doing their jobs. Five of the seven are also charged with possession of a firearm in a federal facility.

Testimony showed that a Savage Arms .300 Winchester rifle purchased by takeover leader Ammon Bundy was among five long guns found on the front seat of defendant David Fry's 1988 Lincoln Town Car at the encampment -- the spot where Fry and three others held out for the last two weeks of the 41-day refuge occupation before surrendering on Feb. 11.

Bundy's rifle wasn't loaded. A firearms trace showed Bundy bought it at Cabela's Retail in Glendale, Arizona, on Aug. 29, 2012.

As FBI Agent Vanicelli held up the rifle and attempted to place it into the case found at the refuge with the name "AMMON'' on it, Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford agreed that it fit into the soft rifle case and the agent didn't need to demonstrate it.

"Mr. Bundy said it's a very nice-looking gun,'' Mumford added.

The judge directed jurors to disregard Mumford's comment.

Two of the five long guns in Fry's car were loaded: an SKS-style 7.62mm rifle, which had 21 rounds with it, and a Steyr PW Arms 7.62x54R caliber rifle loaded with five rounds, Agent Vanicelli testified.

Also in Fry's car was a New England Firearms .12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester model 94A .30-caliber rifle. A Second Amendment and Tea Party Patriots bumper sticker on the back of Fry's Lincoln read, "One Right That Secures Them All.''

The tent at the encampment held the biggest arsenal — nine long guns and five handguns. Two of the long guns — a Tennessee Arms rifle and a Stevens .12-gauge shotgun — were loaded and found beneath a cot in the tent. A Remington rifle loaded with four rounds of .308-caliber ammunition was hanging on one post of the tent, beside a pair of camouflage pants, the agent testified.

A .38-caliber revolver with a wooden handle was pictured on a stump beside a lean-to at the encampment and later seen in a video jutting out of the right pants pocket of defendant Jeff Banta, testimony revealed.
The driver's license of defendant Shawna Cox was found on the rear passenger seat of a white government vehicle that had a Harney County Resource Center decal on its side. Inside the vehicle was a pouch containing a 9mm handgun with two magazines of ammunition, the agent said.

During cross-examination, Cox's standby counsel Tiffany Harris established that the 9mm gun didn't belong to Cox and that there was no evidence Cox had been seen driving around the refuge in the vehicle.
A Smith & Wesson .357-caliber handgun was seen lying inside a cooler, beside a container of pistachio nuts, in the tent at the encampment. It was loaded with six rounds, the agent testified.

Thousands of rounds of ammunition also were found with the firearms, in the trucks at the scene or scattered in and around the tent.

In a Chevy Silverado truck with Idaho plates that belonged to co-defendants Sean and Sandy Anderson, authorities found two rifles, three handguns and 2,639 rounds of ammunition, the agent said. A bumper sticker on the truck read, "Only Good Guys with Guns Stop Bad Guys with Guns.''
The Andersons are set for trial in mid-February.

More than 3,417 rounds were discovered outside the tent and about 1,554 rounds were inside, Vanicelli testified. Ninety-eight other rounds of ammunition, for example, were scattered on the seat of an ATV parked at the site. Twenty-seven bullets, propped up in a Styrofoam container, sat on the dashboard of a truck.

Vanicelli also identified a black 9mm pistol found in a green Dodge pickup with Texas license plates that was parked beside the old fire shop at refuge headquarters. Beside the pistol, he said he found a silencer. He twisted the silencer onto the pistol to show it fit and held it up for jurors.

In the bed of that truck, the agent said he found 1,050 rounds of ammunition.

Jurors were notified before the unusual display of firearms that all the weapons were unloaded and "rendered safe.''

During cross-examination, defense lawyers tried to distance their clients from the guns. They also revealed that the federal government didn't pursue with indictments everyone identified as the owners, or last purchasers, of the firearms they collected from the refuge.

Fry's lawyer Per C. Olson asked, "Any of them tied back to David Fry in any way?''
The agent said he didn't think so.

Defense lawyer Robert Salisbury established that his client, Jeff Banta, had lawfully bought a .12-gauge Remington shotgun found unloaded in the encampment, inside a white truck with Nevada plates on it.
Mumford repeatedly asked Vanicelli if he knew who drove the vehicles to the encampment or if he had done further investigation into who owned the firearms..

He said he didn't, that his sole job was to identify and collect the firearms. The agent said, under cross-examination, that he also found significant amounts of cash at the encampment but was directed not to seize the money. This was in contrast to large amounts of cash seized from other locations in the refuge.
Later testimony revealed that only three of the estimated 12 vehicles at the encampment were privately owned, belonging to Fry, Banta and co-defendants Sean and Sandy Anderson. The rest were government vehicles.

"Are any of these guns illegal?'' defendant Ryan Bundy asked Agent Vanicelli.
"Not that I'm aware of,'' the agent replied.

"Are any of the ammunition illegal?'' Ryan Bundy asked the agent.
"Not that I'm aware of,'' Vanicelli said again.

Attorney Matthew Schindler, on behalf of defendant Medenbach, asked Agent Walker, "How many live rounds were fired at employees of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?''

Walker responded that live rounds were not fired.

"Good point, sir,'' Schindler said.

During another showing of the video of men firing assault rifles from the refuge boat launch, testimony from agent Walker revealed that he was only able to identify one man in the video, Ryan Payne, who stood behind the firing line and appeared to be supervising. Walker said he thinks another man in the video was either defendant Jason Patrick or Corey Lequieu but he wasn't sure. Patrick is set for trial in February; Lequieu has pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

"For the most part your case rests on photos and pictures of guns and ammo,'' Ryan Bundy started, during his cross-examination of Agent Walker. The judge asked jurors to disregard his question.

"You know of no evidence anyone personally intimidated a refuge employee,'' Ryan Bundy continued. Again, the judge urged jurors to disregard his statement.

"What are the American people permitted to do to protest improper actions?'' Ryan Bundy asked the agent.
The judge cut him off. "Mr. Bundy, this is improper cross,'' Brown told him.

Once the government rested its case at 3:25 p.m., the judge heard legal motions about jury instructions, and denied a motion for acquittal offered by Medenbach.

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

Gun rights on trial Malheur Reserve

http://youtu.be/cwybsgle8i0

https://youtu.be/cwybsgle8i0

Rangfire review of day 10. http://rangefire.us/2016/09/13/ongoi...age-commentary

DAY 10 — Tuesday, September 27, 2016
To wrap-up its case, and evidence against the defendants, today the Government put on the much ballyhooed Gun Show, or “Firearms Presentation.” Although for the most part the FBI was not able to establish who owned or possessed most of the guns and ammunition, the FBI paraded in 22 rifles or shotguns (long guns) and 12 handguns, along with over 18,000 rounds of ammunition. Some have characterized this evidence and its presentation as “dramatic.” Little evidence was presented, however, as to who most of the various firearms belonged to. But evidence was presented that Ammon Bundy had purchased a Savage .300 win mag hunting rifle in Glendale, Arizona in 2012, which was one of the guns found at the Refuge.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x131.jpg

Agents also testified that a handful of the guns were found on the front seat of David Fry’s car. They also testified that several guns were found in Sean & Sandy Anderson’s truck, which had a bumper sticker “Only Good Guys with Guns Can Stop Bad Guys with Guns.” Agents also testified that they found an unloaded 12 gauge shot gun in Jeff Banta’s truck.

Although the government did show quite a few guns and a lot of ammunition, they couldn’t tie most of the guns and ammunition to the seven defendants currently on trial, or any of the other named defendants in the case. Despite earlier attempts and arguments about evidence that Shawna Cox may have been armed at some point during the occupation, in the end the government presented no evidence that Cox had any guns at the Refuge, or that she was ever armed.

Despite the intended dramatic effect of the volume of firearms and ammunition, in many ways, it was actually quite anti-climatic. On cross-examination, FBI agents admitted that none of the firearms or ammunition were illegal, and that there was no evidence that firearms had been used to point at or threaten any federal employees.

We’ve talked about this before, but there is evidence that over the course of the occupation quite a few people came and went at the Refuge. It is fair to say that many of them had their own individual reasons, objectives, and motivations for being there. There has been much speculation that a number of the people who were there were government informants and/or agents provocateur. Such speculations have been further fanned by the fact that the government did not call any of those people as witnesses in the case, which would have subjected them to cross-examination.

Just as with new evidence regarding the shooting of LaVoy Finicum, there is growing evidence that the FBI was working very hard behind the scenes to stage evidence, which could include at least part of the guns, and perhaps a lot of the ammunition. This seems like an even greater likelihood given the disparity between the amount of ammunition that had previously been disclosed, versus the amount of ammunition the FBI claimed at trial had been found at the Refuge.

After less than 10 days of presentation of evidence, without hearing from many other witnesses who were on the government’s witness list and were supposed to testify about a variety of subjects, the Government rested its case instead. There are several possible reasons for this. Either the government is confident that it has put on enough evidence to convict, or it realizes that after having presented the best evidence it has, in the best way possible, its overall case and evidence are still quite marginal at best. In either case, it is pure speculation at this point.

Now the trial will be shifting to the Defendants’ case and evidence, which it is anticipated will take at least twice as long as the Government’s case. Part of the reason that is the case is because some have speculated that although there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in this case there is actually an unstated presumption of guilt that the Defendants must attempt to overcome.
Once the Defense case starts, we will split our coverage into two parts so that it is not necssary to scroll down through this entire post to get to the latest information.

For contrasting perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB)

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

Ryan Bundy filed a motion for acquital

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...b7817c688bdc12

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...bfd914adaf1783


https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...aa&oe=58AD0E7C

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...89d4f0ed7eb8d6

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...e611858b9cd9d7

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...d194f62e1fa479

Judge Anna Brown denise Shawna Cox's motion to reconsider.

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1693

Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...lr-w-crown.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 29, 2016

In two previous articles, Shawna Cox brought the matter of Jurisdiction to the Court. The first, explained in “Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction“, was filed in response to the government’s “Motion for Judicial Notice” (1229), providing proof of ownership of the land upon which the MNWR headquarters sit. In that Motion, filed September 9, 2016, they cited no previous motion to which they were responding.

Shawna, based upon a chain of title that she had received, had no dispute with the ownership. However, neither the government’s request for judicial notice and attached documentation nor the chain of title provided any indication that the land, which both parties agreed, had been in private hands before the government reacquired it, had been ceded back to them by Oregon.

Shawna then filed her “Response to and Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area” (1245). In that Motion, she stipulated the government’s ownership and asked the Court to take Judicial Notice that the subject lands had not been ceded back to the federal government by Oregon. The Motion was quite simple and simply stated that since no proof of ceding had been provided, the Judicial Notice was in order.

The government then filed its Response (1272) to a number of motions, including Shawna’s Motion. Geoffrey A. Barrow, the attorney that signed the Response, apparently has a reading disorder. Shawna never contested the government’s motion for judicial notice. Instead, she stipulated that they did own the land. However, he chose to read into her motion what he thought the Judge might like:
Cox opposes the government’s request (ECF No. 1229) and, in turn, moves for judicial notice consistent with the separately filed McIntosh Declaration (ECF No. 1252). McIntosh repeats the adverse possession theories that this Court has already rejected many times, although he reads the government’s Houghton Declaration (ECF No. 1230) as further support for his views. McIntosh’s theory is that the federal government simply could not have obtained lawful title to the MNWR absent permission from the state. His theories are contrary to the law that this Court has already recognized controls this issue, and his stated credentials (i.e., his stated directorship of two web-based, environmental-sounding organizations) reveal that he is an advocate who shares defendants’ misguided views. (One organization promises to give a “strong voice that will dominate and control state and federal bureaucrats”).

Cox’s counter-Motion for Judicial Notice should be denied.

Now, Shawna never mentioned “adverse possession” in her motion – she simply sought judicial notice that the land had not been ceded back to the government. This is quite consistent with what the government had cited in their judicial notice, when they said:
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits this Court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.” The Advisory Committee Note to the rule explains that “adjudicative facts” are those that “relate to the parties, their activities, their properties, their businesses.” Courts routinely take judicial notice of recorded property records.

Now, the government has proffered no argument establishing that Oregon had ceded back jurisdiction to the federal government. If it had been ceded back, then it would have, as required by the Statute of Frauds, been recorded in the public records. There is no argument, except the false association with Ammon’s motion, which would be cause for the Court not to take “Judicial Notice”.

Barrow’s ad Hominem fallacy is compounded when in his Response (1295) to an Ammon Bundy Motion, he says:
Like defendant Shawna Cox in her Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 1245), Ammon Bundy also relies on Mr. McIntosh’s Declaration (ECF No. 1252), which espouses the same faulty adverse possession theories.
Let me repeat, Shawna Cox, in her Motion, never mentions adverse possession, she simply seeks Judicial Notice of a fact consistent with the record that the government provided, that the land had not been ceded back. Now, at this point, you have to begin to wonder if the Judge and prosecutors are conspiring to set things up to avoid taking such a critical Judicial Notice. After all, they have no idea how the jury will take such an admission of no jurisdiction.

Next, we have the Judge siding with the erroneous argument given by Barrow when she files her “Order Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge…” (1317). In that Order, she states the following:
II. Ammon Bundy’s Emergency Motion (#1248) to Enjoin Prosecution and Shawna Cox’s Arguments in her Response (#1245) to the Government’s Motion (#1229) for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Area
Defendant Shawna Cox filed a Response (#1245) to the government’s Motion on September 12, 2016. In that Response Cox acknowledges the government has demonstrated it owns the land in question, but, nonetheless, she contends the government does not have any regulatory jurisdiction over that land because it did not obtain the consent of the Oregon State Legislature as required by the Enclave Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Related to Cox’s arguments, Ammon Bundy requests in his Emergency Motion (#1248) to Enjoin Prosecution that this Court reconsider its previous orders denying Ammon Bundy’s Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the basis that the record now clearly reflects that the property on which the MNWR headquarters sits was not part of the land the federal government has owned since before Oregon statehood, but instead was acquired from the Eastern Oregon Land and Livestock Company in 1935.


Well, at least the Judge read Cox’s motion correctly and did not assert that it denied ownership, as Barrow did. However, when we read the entire Order, she does relate Ammon’s Motion to Cox’s argument, and then denies Ammon’s Motion. However, at this point, she has not denied Shawna’s Motion (1245), nor has she taken Judicial Notice.

So, on September 22, 23016, Shawna filed a “Motion to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice, in part” (1322), in order to attempt to force the Court to take Judicial Notice that the land had not been ceded back to the government.

In the denial of Ammon’s Motion (1317), the Court cited Kleppe v New Mexico426 US 529 (1976). Apparently, Barrow did not read the decision; he probably simply resorted to Key notes. As Shawna states in her Motion:
The government offers Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543 (1976) to support their broad contention of jurisdiction un Article IV, § 3, clause 2, however, Kleppe addressed jurisdiction over land that had not been transferred out of the government’s ownership, and to that, there is no contest. Kleppe merely attached the federal jurisdiction to the burros, whether on, or off of, the public lands. This is akin to the parent’s jurisdiction over the child, both insideand outside of the home. It is only for the return of the burros, and of the children. It does not carry with it a jurisdiction over the land where the burros roam, except to the extent of the right to retain ownership of the burros, and obligation to remove them, when so notified. Kleppe addressed an Act of Congress appropriately titled “Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act”, as it applied to the presumption that the home of the burros was the public lands, and they had simply decided to wander away from that home. It did not apply to burros that were raised and branded by a private owner.

Then, in referring to the rather feeble substance of the same Order, she responds to the footnote on page 6 that the Court seems to present as authoritative when she says:
The Order cites, in footnote 1, page 6, that “at trial Harney County Sheriff David Ward testified the state exercised jurisdiction over the MNWR concurrently with federal jurisdiction over those lands.” That does not meet the statutory requirements set forth in 40 US Code § 3112. It can be considered to be nothing more than an unfounded opinion, not support by any factual proof.

Now, to support what she had stated, she offered an existing statute that should put the whole matter to rest. She cited 40 US Code § 3112 (b) & (c):
(b) Acquisition and Acceptance of Jurisdiction. – When the head of a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government, or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent establishment, considers it desirable, that individual may accept or secure, from the State in which land or an interest in land that is under the immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control of the individual is situated, consent to, or cession of, any jurisdiction over the land or interest not previously obtained. The individual shall indicate acceptance of jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by filing a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated.
(c) Presumption. – It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not beenaccepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.

That should have been the end of the matter, and the Judge should have taken Judicial Notice, since there was no argument, or document, that established any ceding back to the government over the lands where the headquarters buildings were situated at MNWR.

But, the persistent Queen Judge was determined that truth was not a factor, and that she was not going to allow the jury even to begin to believe that possibly the government had no jurisdiction over the land in question. She was committed to using her power to assure a conviction, with no regard for Justice. So, now the ball is back in Queen Judge’s Court, on September 22, 2016, she files another “Order Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” (1327).
In that Order, she incorporates both of Shawna’s Motions:
The Court has now reconsidered the entire record on these matters, which includes the following…
** *
Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area¹;
¹ The government did not file a reply in support of its Motion (#1229) for Judicial Notice.
She does acknowledge that the government never did file a reply to the challenges to the initial request for Judicial Notice of Ownership, probably, because they can find no rational argument. So, this leaves the entire responsibility, not on the Prosecution, but on the Queen Judge Brown. What is supposed to be an adversarial proceeding, where there are two sides, and the judge’s duty is to assure fairness and justice, is now turned into a situation where the judge has become the adversary to the Defendants. So, the judge exempts the Prosecution from having to respond:
In addition, on September 22, 2016, Cox filed a Motion (#1322) to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice. Although Cox’s Motion to Reconsider related to the Court’s now-withdrawn Order (#1317), the Court, nevertheless, has reviewed Cox’s arguments therein and considers them as part of the record on these Motions. Accordingly, the government need not file a response to Cox’s Motion (#1322) to Reconsider.
She then “DENIES Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion (#1322) to Reconsider Order Taking Judicial Notice.” However, she never denied Shawn’s first Motion to take Judicial Notice.

She then cites the authority for taking Judicial Notice:
“Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

Well, apparently, it is not “generally known”, or a blind eye has been turned to the fact, or, the Court expects Shawna Cox to prove a negative. Or, as Shawna put it in her Motion (1322):
It is impossible to prove negative, and for that reason, 40 US Code §3112 sets the standard for proof that there exists a jurisdiction, whether exclusive or concurrent. Any determination to the contrary is Arbitrary and Capricious.

For whatever reason, the docket then shows the same Motion (1322) that Shawna filed on September 22, filed again on September 26 (1344). However, Shawna’s signature is dated September 22, 2016. There is no explanation as to why this document was filed, in identical form, 4 days later, and after the Court’s Order of September 22. Perhaps, in an effort to cover up the misdeeds of government, the Court and Clerk are getting overwhelmed and confused in trying to obfuscate the issues brought up by the Defendants.

In a final assertion of her authority, even though the Prosecution never contested Shawna’s motions, Queen Judge Brown chops the head off of her victims in a Minute Order (1350), dated September 27, 2016 (repeating what had already been stated) which states:
ORDER by Judge Anna J. Brown as to Shawna Cox (7). The Court DENIES Defendant Shawna Cox’s Motion [1344] for Reconsideration, which is identical to her Motion [1322] for Reconsideration that the Court denied in its Order (#1327) Taking Judicial Notice of Federal Ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 40 U.S.C. § 3112 does not deprive the federal government of jurisdiction over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) because, as owner of the MNWR, the government may lawfully exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. See United States v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2010). (bb)

Interestingly, however, it appears that the Judge never denied Shawna’s original Motion for Judicial Notice (1245), though she never did grant the requested “Judicial Notice”. She only denied the Motion for Reconsideration (1322 & 1344).

Regardless, there is a significant, un-convoluted, matter for the Appellate Court, as to whether Federal Jurisdiction exists at the MNWR.

So, regardless of a statute (40 US Code § 3112) and no case law to the contrary, the Queen Judge has shown total contempt for the laws and her judicial obligation for justice, in her rulings in this matter. Her obsession with keeping her schedule and upholding, not the rule of law, rather, the rule of the government, are so clearly demonstrated in the above sequence, that we can clearly understand that law and justice have vacated the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, in Portland Oregon. All that remains are injustice and some patriotic political prisoners.

Tribal elder testifies for the defense

Quote:

---

Warren was called back to the witness stand after recess. She was asked yes-or-no questions about her phone call with an FBI agent. Warren said she felt “threatened.”

That prompted Judge Brown to again warn her not to volunteer any information she was not asked to provide in a question. That could cause a mistrial if she continued to volunteer unasked-for information, the judge said.

---

But it is just fine for prosecution witness Dave Ward to give unsolicited testimony -


http://koin.com/2016/09/28/defense-t...tandoff-trial/

Malheur trial: Ammon Bundy may take stand soon

https://lintvkoin.files.wordpress.co...h-2.jpg?w=1248Attorney Marcus Mumford with his client Ammon Bundy during opening statements in the Malheur Refuge takeover trial, September 13, 2016 (For KOIN: Sketch Artist Deborah Marble)


PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The defense took center court Wednesday in the trial of the 7 people accused in taking over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and it didn’t take long for Judge Anna Brown to admonish them.

And it isn’t taking long for the defense to present its case. Judge Brown said the defense could wrap up their evidence presentations early next week, with closing arguments possibly near the end of the week.

It’s also possible Ammon Bundy could take the stand as early as Thursday.

Lawyers representing Ammon Bundy, Jeff Banta, Neil Wampler and David Fry began making their cases to the jury. Defendants Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox and Kenneth Medenbach are representing themselves.

Throughout the morning, Judge Anna Brown expressed frustration at the defense’s disorganization, and at one point said “Get it together, folks.”
The 7 defendants are accused of impeding federal refuge employees from carrying out their work through intimidation, threats or force.

Complete coverage:
Malheur Takeover

Two defendants are also charged with theft of government property. Five face an additional charge of possession of a firearm in a federal facility.
Still to come

Rev. Franklin Graham, who came to the refuge with Nevada legislator Michele Fiore to help the final 3 occupiers surrender, is expected to be the first witness on Thursday.
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward may be called back to the stand and then Ammon Bundy may be called.

Defense witnesses begin
Witnesses for the defense were quickly called. The first witness called was FBI agent Marc Maxwell, who was on the phone with David Fry, the last person to surrender from the refuge.

Maxwell testified Fry said he was suicidal and said the situation was “tense and emotional.”

https://lintvkoin.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=600&h=342
Ammon Bundy (plaid shirt) argues with Harney County deputies and FBI outside their office, Jan. 22, 2016 (KOIN)

Confederate Tribes elder Sheila Warren took the stand next. She said she went to the refuge during the standoff and looked for guns but never saw any. She said the occupiers were friendly and welcoming.

She inspected tribal artifacts stored at the refuge to see if they had been handled by the occupiers and only noticed they were dirty and had rodent droppings on them. This, she said, didn’t prove whether they had been touched by the occupiers.

The FBI tried to speak with her about what she saw when she was there, but Warren said she “didn’t trust the FBI” and didn’t speak with them.

Warren was called back to the witness stand after recess. She was asked yes-or-no questions about her phone call with an FBI agent. Warren said she felt “threatened.”


That prompted Judge Brown to again warn her not to volunteer any information she was not asked to provide in a question. That could cause a mistrial if she continued to volunteer unasked-for information, the judge said.


Ammon Bundy a ‘face-to-face kind of guy’

FBI agent Christopher Luh was then called to the stand. Luh, a trained crisis negotiator who spoke extensively with Ammon Bundy by phone during the standoff, said Bundy showed up at the Burns Municipal Airport hoping for a meeting.

Ammon Bundy, Luh said, “is a face-to-face kind of guy.”

The defense played a phone call between them. Bundy told Luh things were “great” and that he “wanted to get the land back into the right hands.”

https://lintvkoin.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=600&h=448
An armed group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge took down a fence Monday, Jan. 11, 2016. (KOIN)

The refuge, Bundy said on the phone call, was in bad shape and the occupiers were doing maintenance, cleanup and fixing what they considered to be fire hazards.
Bundy told Luh the local citizens “should be able to manage those lands as a free people,” and that the Bureau of Land Management was there to make money off fires, not put them out.

He also re-iterated that the reason the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was chosen was because of the prison sentences imposed on local ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond for burning property on federal land.

When Luh asked Bundy how he saw the standoff ending, Bundy said he saw the land being turned over to the county and used as a resource cneter to help rancher under county jurisdiction.

“We’re not going to escalate [anything],” Ammon Bundy told Luh on that phone call. “We’re here to work, here to shake your hand… let you know that I am a good person, not a threat… not going to use violence. That’s never been our style and that’s not what we’re here to do.”

Ammon Bundy added, “We have a situation here that needs to be resolved and we’re not going to ignore that.”

Afternoon FBI witnesses
In afternoon testimony, 3 FBI agents confirmed Mark McConnell — the informant driving the car the day Bundy and the others were arrested — was paid $2000 by the FBI. McConnell’s son was also paid $2000.

Andy Dunbar, whose ranch is next to the refuge, let the FBI use his land for access to the refuge, the FBI agents testified.

The prosecution rested its case Tuesday afternoon. Witnesses including Harney County Sheriff David Ward, refuge managers and employees, FBI agents and other law enforcement officers were among those called to testify.

KOIN 6 News is in court Wednesday and will follow this story.

Trial for the Malheur Refuge occupation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

A one hour video proving LaVoy Finicum was murdered

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

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

---

Video expert Peter Offerman's analysis of the videos done by Casey Runyan:

links to Offermans website are at the bottom of the article.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2373...5607720564555/


Bill Goode

8 hrs

The following text is a comment from Peter Offerman on the video analysis of LaVoy's murder done by Casey Runyan, and posted here originally last 18 September by Mary Schumpf, and again 23 September by Eric Andrew Wilkinson and Dan H. Bailey.

Peter Offerman is a video expert, who has done a frame by frame analysis of both the FBI video an Shawna Cox's video, as they were released by the FBI. Peter's analysis shows there were missing frames in both releases. In addition Peter's analysis shows the FBI video was a composite of two videos.

Following is Peter's commentary on Casey's two videos:
"Hi George Schumpf... Thanks for sending the links. Although the videos are well prepared and appear to support Lavoy's cause I think they are an attempt to keep the focus away from more damning facts.

"The truck approach is pretty well done. The 3 pauses of braking are probably the result of an anti-lock braking system which modern vehicles come with not any specific action of Lavoy's. When attempting to stop in a hurry jamming on the brakes and holding them on causes a vehicle to go into an uncontrolled skid so modern vehicles moderate braking by automatically pumping the brakes on hard braking at speed in an attempt to retain control. A trained driver in such a situation would manually pump the brakes.

"I don't buy the explanation of the 3 shots as the truck approached. One of my last posts looks at the angles involved and shows that these could not be responsible for the bullet holes in the truck.

"What does this explanation conceal?

"It is far more justifiable to shoot at a speeding vehicle as it approaches a road block, while accelerating, as incorrectly stated by the officers involved, than it is for an officer to run out in front of an almost stopped vehicle and shoot at the driver. All 3 bullet holes found were the result of this later murderous attempt and not the result of the officers shooting at the truck as it approached. They may well have also shot at the truck as it approached but these later shots did the damage to the truck.

"The explanation regarding the shots at Lavoy, after he gets out of the truck, is not credible at all. What it instead does is avoid any mention of significant events that happened as Lavoy got out of the truck. How and why was the shot through the roof of the cab caused? The explanation based on a few clues left behind by sloppy video editing makes it obvious there is missing time in the video at this point. This missing time is very damning because it implicates not just the officers at the scene but also those that had possession of the video before it was made public. No lab tech would make such alterations without authorization from higher ups. It totally destroys the credibility of the authorities evidence and testimony.

"During this time period I pointed out some of the anomalies in the video such as the shooting stand that appears in one frame without being seen put in place or taken away to where it is very obvious in many frames both before and after. This is physically impossible and proves time is missing. The shot through the cab roof occurred from this stand. We should have seen the stand being put in place, the shooter getting on it, taking his shot, getting off it, moving it away afterwards. That we don't see this supports what Shawna says that Lavoy stood in the door of the truck for a period talking to the officers before moving away from the truck.

"The shots taken while Lavoy was standing there at the truck, complying with the officers, are responsible for his fast movement away from the truck. The one through the cab roof came from behind him while he was cooperating with his hands in the air. Would you duck for cover if this happened? This shot is irrefutable evidence of the murderous intent of the authorities.

"If you reviewed my analysis of the trajectories of the 3 shots that actually hit Lavoy it is obvious that the second shot (autopsy shot 2) which occured during this period, actually hit Lavoy. There is no one in a position to cause a wound with this trajectory once Lavoy gets to where he is dropped.

"In my analysis I looked very closely at the actions of the supposed shooter of the foam bullet and his actions do not fit this explanation. The officer on the ground does not move to that location to take a shot. The movement is a second officer moving past him to get into position behind Lavoy's truck. The officer on the ground, appearing to crouch, is the officer who ran out in front of the truck as it came to a stop, who was knocked to the ground by the wave of snow thrown up by the truck. That we do not see him get into this position is another indicator of missing time in the video.

"What I saw on close examination was that he was on the ground just getting up from being knocked down. He was facing towards the roadblock, not uphill. He braces himself with his left arm and swings his right arm in front of himself for balance in order to get up from the ground. He then moves into the center of the roadblock in a crouched position because other officers are aiming at the truck over his head and he is trying to stay out of the line of fire.

"I detailed thoroughly his movements after his point as his movements make it obvious of more missing time in the video. The reason for the missing time here is that while he is moving Lavoy arrives at the location where he was gunned down. The foam bullet attempts to hide the fact of another shot (autopsy shot 1) that hits Lavoy in the back while he has his hand in the air and is cooperating with the officer he is facing. The missing time mostly hides Lavoy's physical response to being hit by a bullet from behind him.

"Regards, Peter"

Peter Offerman's own analysis that he refers to may be seen at http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/?s=lavoy

https://towardsabetterworld.com/blog/?s=lavoy




8 Likes3 Comments3 Shares

LikeCommentShare

Rat bastard Mark McConnell paid by FBI

http://youtu.be/DPgO1ga0mV4

https://youtu.be/DPgO1ga0mV4

Judge Brown conspires against defense in Malheur trial

http://youtu.be/2rgr3FBT2Zc

https://youtu.be/2rgr3FBT2Zc


https://www.facebook.com/CitizensFor...55608964713132

The following commentary more or less echos Gary Hunt's opinion.


Citizens 4 Constitutional Freedom

5 hrs ·

Judge Brown Undermines Patriot’s Defense Strategy
By Jake Morphonios, ETNR

September 28, 2016
Portland, Oregon

Today in the Oregon Refuge Takeover trial of Ammon Bundy and his associates, the defense team began its case before jurors to attempt to clear their defendants of the government charges of conspiring against federal officers by impeding bird sanctuary workers from completing their duties. The prosecution is making its case based on an archaic statute pushed by Abraham Lincoln and passed by Congress in 1861 during the Civil War.

In her opening arguments, the attorney for Shawna Cox, Mrs. Tiffany Harris, said that the prosecution’s case is without merit because they are misinterpreting the original statute. Because so much of the defendant’s case rests on this principle, I want to remove all the legal jargon and explain the issue to you all in straight-forward language.

As is typical with today’s politicians and federal bureaucrats, the government prosecutors in Portland not only pervert the original intent of the content of the US Constitution, but they also twist and contort statutes from the federal law codes. I’ll explain.

You all know that the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. The Congress passes laws that are based on the Constitution, or at least are supposed to be based on the Constitution. So many laws are passed that it is necessary to keep them cataloged. A reference system was created for that purpose. It is called the Code of Laws of the United States of America – often just referred to as the US Code or USC. It is the official compilation and codification of the statutes passed by the US Congress. Statute is another word for law. These statutes are organized in the US Code under 51 chapters, called titles. Following the title number, is a double S symbol which means “section”, and then the section number appears. The statute being used by the prosecutors in Portland is 18 USC § 372, or in other words, Title 18, Section 372.

So let’s talk about the historical background of this statute. Three months after Lincoln initiated the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression as we southerners prefer to call it, Lincoln was already experiencing major backlash, even among his own ranks in the North. He was worried about conspirators working together to subvert his power or trying to overthrow the US government.

Let’s read the text of the statute itself:
“If two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging the duties thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to induce any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place where his duties as such office might lawfully be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his person while engaged in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duty…”

Clearly, within its historical context, this statute was intended to deal with major conspiracies that threatened to overthrow the entire US government. The statute uses very specific language. It says that if two or more people conspiring to overthrow the US government are found to have used threats, intimidation or force to stop (and this is the key word) officers of the United States from discharging their duties, then those conspirators can be punished.

The prosecutors are using this wartime statute to say that Ammon Bundy and his associates are guilty of that exact offense. They argue that because the employees at the Malhuer Bird Refuge felt afraid to come back to work and go about their business of handing out park maps to the public at the Refuge’s visitor center, this constitutes a violation of 18 USC § 372. The very idea is preposterous. At no point did Ammon or anyone else during civil disobedience action hint that they were trying to overthrow the US government. It’s also a gross distortion of the statute to equate federal employees with the kind of federal officers referred to in the statute.
The prosecutors are arguing that the Refuge employees are federal officers. But that simply is not true. Think about it. The cashier in the cafeteria working at the US Capitol building is a federal employee. Does anyone think that if two people conspired to stop her from taking people’s lunch payments that this constitutes a conspiracy to overthrow the federal government or to stop federal officers from being able to perform the duties necessary to keep the government running? The very concept is absurd – yet that is exactly what the prosecutors are arguing.
Fortunately, we know that there is a distinction between what a federal officer is and what a federal employee is. Statute 18 USC § 372 specifically refers to the discharge of official duties by an officer. An officer of the government is someone who is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Malhuer Refuge park rangers do not take such oaths and are not federal officers.

Therefore, the defendants cannot be found guilty of the charge of conspiring to impede federal officers. And the prosecution knows this – which is why they have perverted the wording of the statute itself. They have added the word “employee” into statute 18 USC § 372 so that the charges against Ammon Bundy and his associates include conspiracy against ANY federal employee. The prosecutors have conflated the distinct identification of officer and employee so that they are synonymous in meaning.

In other words, because the government prosecutors don’t have a legitimate case against Ammon Bundy, they have changed the wording, the meaning and the intent of the federal law to suit their own personal agenda. This is unethical, diabolical and immoral - and it is a brilliantly shining example of the very government corruption and injustice that prompted Ammon Bundy and his associates to take a stand in the first place.

Despite the fact that the statute is crystal clear that it only applies to conspiracies to impede actual officers of the government – and not the tens of thousands of cafeteria workers, trash collectors, lawn maintenance personnel and park rangers – the judge overseeing the case, Anna J. Brown, told the jury that the defenses strict interpretation of the statute doesn’t apply in this case. In essence, she told the jury that the government prosecutors are allowed to change insert new ideas into statute 18 USC § 372 and change the statutes meaning if they so choose. The bias and corruption of Judge Brown seemingly knows no bounds.

This kind of judicial and governmental abuse of the rights of our fellow citizens is what Ammon and the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom were fighting against from the very beginning. Back in February, speaking from his jail cell, Ammon Bundy said, “”When government officials are acting unjustly against the people, they must not get away with it. The takeover of the Malheur refuge was a needed action to show government officials that the people will not be complacent when they prosecute and bully good families like the Hammonds.”
###

For ongoing coverage of the trial of Ammon Bundy and the Oregon Refuge Takeover, make sure to subscribe to this YouTube channel

Quote:

---

14 large black bins, topped with bright yellow lids. The bins contained evidence bags holding tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition recovered.

Federal agents bagged as evidence a total of 18,331 separate pieces of ammunition at the refuge - including 16,636 live rounds

---

Dramatic effect.

17 gallon storage bins -

http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pro...2f27a1_400.jpg