150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Deborah Jordan posted on facebook re informant at the refuge

https://www.facebook.com/Debrjordan/...16505018475416

Deb Jordan

39 mins ·
Terri Linnell admits she was paid 3,000 in cash by FBI to inform during Malheur occupation and that she has now become a double agent in an attempt to cover her ass. According to activist attending Operation American Spring, Linnell was also responsible for a camp raid that resulted in one man jailed and other's being held at gun point for hours. Linnell was also present at Bundy Ranch. Reports are she is remorseful and "brokenhearted". Linnell attended LaVoy Finicums funeral where she gave an interview and said this:
Terri Linnell was among the protesters in Oregon and she also attended Friday’s services. She said she believes the authorities were not justified in their actions.

"What they did to him was a hit, there was no other way to put it,” she said. “What they did to him was wrong.”
I hope she never forgets her part in assisting in that hit ...
I know that there are going to be those who hate on this post but let me remind you that my best friend spent 8 months in jail because of information given to the FBI by this woman -- While she is set to testify for the defense NOTHING she says will cause me to forgiver her for that! These men and women have been accused and held unjustly because of false information she gave the FBI -- Think about that when you try to excuse her from the responsibility of that.

Double agent my ass - what a joke.

NOT THE FIRST TIME:
She also caused a raid outside of Washington DC when she falsely reported to authorities that Patriots planned to kill the President -- We will see what she had to say about Bundy Ranch --
Why do these people hang around after they do shit like this?

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...48&oe=58659971





11 Likes17 Comments33 Shares

Deborah Jordan says there were 5 informants at the refuge,

Deb Jordan

30 mins ·

UPDATE: TERRI LINNELL TOLD MY CONTACT -- There was at least 5 paid informants at Malheur -- 3 women and 2 men. 2 have been outed -- Linnell and McConnell. The FBI gave her none of the other informants names, she just knew they were there. She said that she has been informing for the FBI for years and that she was getting $100.00 a meeting to inform on Oathkeepers, and that she attended A LOT of meetings.

Linnnell now says she is testifying for the defense because the FBI broke their contract with her when they killed LaVoy Finicum. Linnell is looking for forgiveness. She spoke to the FBI by phone everyday from January 12th to right before the murder of Mr. Finicum. The FBI told her to leave. She said that the sign in book from the Refuge was given to the FBI on January 19th --

PERKS FOR INFORMING: Linnell says they pay in cash and change your name so it can't be traced --

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...c2823a69fcc0e3

10 Likes12 Comments26 Shares

Another Twister Radio update, Oct. 5 Jim Lambley Free Speach Zone

http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...egon-Trial.m4a

John Lamb with Oct. 5 afternoon update

http://youtu.be/jmhyH4zCzdo

https://youtu.be/jmhyH4zCzdo

Todd Macfaralne's recap of Day 15 of the Malheur Protest trial

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/29/ongoi...-defense-case/


DAY 15 — Wednesday 5, 2016
Where to even begin with today’s recap. It was a pretty ugly day in the Oregon Standoff Trial — or great entertainment — depending on your perspective, with multiple yelling matches between Attorney Marcus

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x237.jpg

Mumford and Judge Anna Brown. At one point Judge Brown actually stood up and roared at Mumford to sit down, shut up, and knock-off the “theatrics,” at which point they had an argument about whether or not it was theatrics. If it was theatrics, Mumford might not win any acting awards, but Judge Brown’s performance might not score well in the “judicial decorum” category either. For lighter, though obviously slanted “take” on the proceedings, we highly recommend Bundy Court Sketches on Facebook.

Once once again, with all this courtroom pageantry in mind, I’m going to make another pitch for greater judicial transparency, including live-streaming court proceedings. Everyone with any kind of interest in the Oregon Standoff Trial would benefit from being able to watch the proceedings today. We all deserve to know about about how the judicial system really “works.” It was true judicial theater.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa.../Atty-MM-2.jpg

Mumford spent much of the day frustrated at Judge Brown’s inconsistent rulings on the evidence he wished to present. She had said that Ammon Bundy can testify about his intentions and state of mind in occupying MNWR, and the things that influenced his intentions and state of mind. But today when Ammon Bundy made references to scriptures, and attempted to read them so that the jurors would know exactly what had influenced his thinking, Judge Brown ruled that he was not allowed to read scripture in the court room. This was a very peculiar ruling, as if having a witness cite scripture was the functional equivalent of having the Ten Commandments on display at the courthouse.

She had allowed him to show videos and photographs depicting the events that influenced his thinking, and to testify about hearsay statements from others, including local ranchers, but for some reason scripture was out-of-bounds and off-limts. Later, she made similar rulings with respect to additional videos shot at the Refuge with Ammon talking to local ranchers about their concerns, and about conversations he had had with the Hammonds where they expressed concern to him about their own safety, as well as his, based purely on the fact that they were communicating with him. The court’s inconsistent evidentiary ruliings resulted in multiple heated exchanges with Attorney Mumford, and at one point he threatened to file another motion for mistrial, after which Judge Brown relented, reconsidering some of the evidence he had requested to present, and ultimately did allow part of it to come in. This would indicate that Judge Brown herself knows that she is on thin ice with some

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-248x300.jpg

of her rulings. A majority of the most testy moments occurred outside the presence of the jury in evidentiary hearings about the admissibiliy of evidence, which consumed a fair amount of time, and Attorney Mumford stated that he and his team had been working around the clock to consolidate and pare down the evidence as much as possible.

When the jury was present and Ammon Bundy was on the stand, he testified that he felt directed by God to take possession of the Refuge, but one of his primary intentions was to stake a claim for adverse possession at the Refuge. He said that is why they took physical possession, and tried to meet the criteria of open, adverse, possession and use. That is why they had the signs changed, and sought to change the P.O. box and utlitity accounts. That’s why they sought to clean-up and fix-up the place. They had guns so that they would be taken seriously, and to defend their position and possession of the Refuge. He said at the time he believed what they were doing was legal, completely legal, and “I still believe today that what we did was the right thing,” at which point the prosecution objected, Judge Brown issued a revised instruction to the jury, and there was another argument about who was able to say what was legal and what wasn’t. Clearly, the prosecution only wants Judge Brown to be able to say what is lawful and what isn’t. On the other hand, Ammon Bundy is supposed to be able to testify as to his understanding and state of mind.

After the jury was excused for the court and attorneys to hash-out those issues outside their presence, Bundy resumed his testimony, and testified that during the occupation he was having discussions with Eastern Oregon Congressional Rep. Greg Waldon’s office, and those discussions were making a difference. He testified that because of the Refuge occupation, a lot of people were taking the Hammond situation a lot more seriously. He said he was trying to get local government officials, including Sheriff Ward, to assert their rights, and help restore their rights, as had happened to some extent with his family in Bunkerville, with the Clark County sheriff’s department intervened to help resolve the situation, and helped to secure release of Bundys’ impounded cattle.
Nevada State Assemblywoman, Michelle Fiore, who helped negotiate the final surrender at the Refuge, testified briefly, as did PPN (Pacific Patrior Network) leader Brandon Rapollo, who testified about his service

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x234.jpg

in the Marine Corps, and what the PPN as doing at the Refugre on January 9th, when he and other PPN leaders delivered proposed Articles of Resolution to Ammond Bundy and his closest associates, and then they went to Burns to deliver the same proposed Articles of Resolution to the FBI. According to some media sources, the most notable thing about Fiore’s testimony was the fact that when she was leaving the stand, she waved to the jury, and lipped “thank you,” which was thoroughly mocked in many quarters.

(Macfarlane neglected to include that Michele Fiore also said "you mean when the murdered LaVaoy Finicum and was immediatly cut off by Judge Brown.)

It is anticipated that Ammon Bundy’s testimony will continue tomorrow (Thursday) for the third day, first on direct examination, and then on cross examination, which could, potentionally, take the entire day, and conclude the trial week.

For contrasting perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), or Gary Hunt at Outpost for Freedom and Redoubt News.

At RANGEFIRE! we believe there needs to be alternative voices to mainstream media commentary and coverage of these issues.

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

Shari Dovale, Redoubt News, Michele Fiore's testimony in the Malheur Protest trial

http://oregon.redoubtnews.com/2016/1...cal-prisoners/

Michele Fiore Testifies for Political Prisoners

by Shari Dovale

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore took the stand in the Malheur Protest Trial in Portland today.

As a member of the Coalition of Western States (C.O.W.S.) she explained that their organization has a couple of divisions. Part of the Legislative division, she said they “help promote liberties against a tyrannical government.” They also work on restoring property rights for individuals.

Fiore testified about going to Bunkerville in 2014. When many of her constituents called her complaining of the overreaching Bureau of Land Management, she said she did not believe them. She went there, she testified, “Like a Mom whose children were complaining of a monster under the bed.” When she got there, she realized there really was a Big monster!

Fiore also told of visiting the Malheur Refuge in January 2016. First, she verified through Oregon officials that no laws were broken. This prompted the prosecution and Judge Anna Brown to admonish this lawmaker to stop making statements interpreting the law. Judge Brown explained that only she, as the judge, can explain the law to the jurors. Fiore was told not to express her ‘opinion’ on whether laws were broken.

Fiore did make a powerful statement during one portion of her testimony when she stated that LaVoy Finicum was murdered. This threw the prosecutors and the judge into fits, where Fiore was, again, admonished by the judge and told not to characterize Finicum’s death in that manner.

Fiore, a popular legislator, became even more so as she waved to the jury while walked out of the courtroom.

http://i0.wp.com/oregon.redoubtnews....size=300%2C225
Photo Credit: oregonlive.com

Next on the stand was Brandon Rapolla, one of the founders of the Pacific Patriots Network (PPN). Rapolla was called in to dispute the prosecutions claims of Ammon’s group being heavily armed and dangerous, based mostly on the photograph shown here.

Rapolla said that this was a photo of the PPN arriving to deliver “Articles of Resolution” to Ammon. Threats had been made against the founders of the PPN, so as the tactical officer, he made the decision to have an armed security detail available.
No member of the ‘Citizens For Constitutional Freedom’ were present, or a part of the group pictured. This photograph was entered into evidence by the prosecution in the Malheur Protest Trial.

Thursday should bring several more witnesses to the stand for the defense, as well as cross examination of Ammon Bundy by the prosecution.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 53
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  53
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

Related

FBI Posing As Militia: Burns, OregonJanuary 13, 2016In "Community"

Ammon Bundy Testifies for Malheur Protest Trial

Heated exchanges, with some lighter moments, during the federal conspiracy case Wednesday

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

Ammon Bundy testified Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2016, inside the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse during the trial for defendants of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown presides. Sketch by Abigail Marble.
Mike Zacchino | The Oregonian/OregonLive


http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 05, 2016 at 8:02 PM, updated October 05, 2016 at 8:47 PM

Here's a look at some of the heated exchanges between U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown and Ammon
lawyer Marcus Mumford, as well as some of the lighter moments during Wednesday's trial.
**
The judge ruled before trial resumed early Wednesday that Ammon Bundy's lawyer couldn't present to jurors a video taken of two Malheur County ranchers talking about how a proposed national monument in their county was going to destroy their livelihoods.

The ranchers were interviewed by Bundy in an office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Mumford stood, silently shaking his hands in the air in frustration in front of the judge's bench.

"Stop with the theatrics,'' Brown told him.
"It's not theatrics,'' Mumford said.
"Yes it is,'' the judge held.

"Your honor let weeks of photos come in about this very office,'' argued Mumford, referring to the multiple photos that prosecutors had presented of fish biologist Linda Beck's office at the refuge during the occupation.

The judge ruled that the ranchers' story wasn't relevant to the federal conspiracy case.
Mumford acknowledged to the court that he was animated. He said it was because it had taken "significant effort'' to distill the hundreds of video clips to the proposed exhibits he wanted to offer at trial.
***
On Nov. 20, Ammon Bundy filmed a video, alerting his supporters of a conversation he had with Dwight Hammond Jr.

On the witness stand, Bundy was about to discuss that conversation when Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight objected, citing hearsay.

The judge started to sustain the objection, when Mumford interjected.
"May I please just make a ruling before you interrupt me,'' Brown told Mumford.

Brown said Bundy couldn't share the specific information of what Hammond told him but could describe his own state of mind as a result of his conversation with Hammond.

Bundy turned to the judge, "I'd rather not say state of mind if I'm unable to explain why.''
"Mr. Bundy, be quiet please,'' Brown told him.

Mumford added that his client had a point.

"Mr. Mumford, proceed please,'' the judge continued. "I made a ruling. We'll take it up outside the jury's presence. Move on.''

During a later break in the trial outside of the jury's presence, Bundy's lawyer held a mini-tantrum, claiming grounds for a mistrial and accusing the judge of preventing him from offering key information. Fuming, he paced and pointed at the judge, his face reddening.

"Please don't shout at me,'' Brown told him. "Mr. Mumford calm down...I can't hear your legal argument if you keep threatening me.''

"Your honor has just said he can say state of mind but not give them the information they need to access that,'' Mumford told her. "This is mistrial....It does not good if I can't say where the threat came from.''
"Please let me finish a sentence before you jump down my throat,'' Brown said. "I need you to be calm.''
The judge said she would reconsider his argument. Brown ultimately allowed Bundy to say that Hammond had told him he felt threatened, and that Hammond expressed concern for Bundy's safety as well during the phone call.

Mumford had wanted to share their belief that it was Hammond's lawyer who warned Dwight Hammond that if he continued to communicate with Ammon Bundy, he'd be picked up earlier to complete his sentence and sent to a less desired prison location. That information never was presented to the jury.

"Stop with the theatrics,'' the judge told attorney Marcus Mumford.

When the trial resumed, Bundy testified that during a phone call with Dwight Hammond Jr. that Hammond had expressed concerns about his own safety as a result of the efforts Bundy had made on his behalf, and that he also expressed concerns for Bundy's safety.
**
As Bundy stepped down from the witness stand for the lunch break, co-defendant Neil Wampler rose at his defense table and started to applaud.

"We all love you Ammon,'' Wampler said out loud. "Thank you for everything you've done.''
Ammon Bundy's wife, Lisa Bundy, seated in the public gallery, and other supporters joined in the applause.
**
Before trial resumed after lunch, co-defendant Jason Patrick clarified for the judge his position if he's called to testify in this trial. Patrick is set for trial in February.

Standing beside his standby counsel Andrew Kohlmetz, Patrick told the court, "I don't plan to invoke my Fifth Amendment right, if called.''

He said Kohlmetz, who told the court a day earlier that he would advise Patrick not to speak on the stand, "does not speak for me.''
**
In the afternoon Wednesday, Bundy was asked by his lawyer to identify who was at the Jan. 2 meeting at Ye Old Castle restaurant in Burns, where Bundy proposed his plan to occupy the refuge.

As Bundy listed his brother Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Jason Patrick, Jon Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne and others, he added "I hope I'm not making a list for the government's next indictment.''

His remark drew laughter in the courtroom.

"This is serious,'' Judge Brown told Bundy.
"I know it's serious,'' Bundy replied. "I do apologize, your honor.''
The judge told jurors to disregard their exchange.
**
Nevada lawmaker Michele Fiore testified briefly for the defense Wednesday afternoon.
She started, as all witnesses are asked to do, by spelling out her full name. When she got to her last name, she said, "F as in flower,'' before continuing on with each letter.

She repeatedly attempted to offer testimony that during a meeting that members of the Coalition of Western States, or COWS, had in Oregon with Harney County, state and FBI representatives on Jan. 9, that it was verified that the refuge occupiers hadn't broken any Oregon state laws.

Prosecutor Knight objected multiple times to Fiore's characterization.

The judge turned to the witness. "Excuse me, Ms. Fiore,'' the judge said. "Stop making statements about the law.''

If anyone questioned where Fiore stood in this case, she made it clear when she answered Mumford's question about how long she intended to be at the refuge on Feb. 11, the day the last four holdouts surrendered, ending the 41-day occupation.

"As long as it took the Bearcat to get our fabulous four out,'' she said.

As Fiore left the witness stand, she waved to jurors and mouthed, "Thank you.''
**
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Another Twister Radio update, Oct. 5 Jim Lambley Free Speach Zone

http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...egon-Trial.m4a

---

At one point of their conversation Briana Bundy tells Jim Lambley Nevada is not a full state, but still a territory. I believe she is confused. Nevada's enabling legislation forever gave up the rights to all public land within the borders of the state. Both the Nevada Constitution and Nevada Revised Statutes have been amended to override the enabling act.

I believe what Brianna Bundy mistakenly believes about still being a territory is actually that Nevada was not admitted on an egual footing to the other states.

"He may be soft-spoken, but the words of Ammon Bundy cut like a double edged sword"


http://youtu.be/RRyVnybXYzc

https://youtu.be/RRyVnybXYxc

Teresa Brookshire

13 hrs

Rock on Ammon!

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=360&sh=360 Ammon Bundy Hammers Feds in Oregon Standoff Trial
He may be soft-spoken, but the words of Ammon Bundy cut like a two edged sword

Ammon Bundy describes his arrest, There were men in the trees and everywhere else

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

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 06, 2016 at 12:43 PM, updated October 06, 2016 at 1:10 PM


Ammon Bundy describes arrest: 'Men in the trees and everywhere else'

Ammon Bundy testified that there were "men in the trees and everywhere else'' when multiple law enforcement vehicles surrounded the Jeep he was riding in to a community meeting in John Day on Jan. 26.
"I believed my life was in extreme danger if I moved in any way,'' Bundy said on his third day on the witness stand in his federal conspiracy trial. "I didn't even reach to pick up my hat in the seat next to me because I was afraid I'd get shot.''

Bundy described his arrest, moments after calling the refuge occupation a "win, win, win'' situation on the stand during another three hours of wide-ranging testimony. His attorney, Marcus Mumford, completed his direct examination. Another defense lawyer, Matt Schindler, began questioning Bundy before the lunch break.

Bundy is one of six defendants charged with conspiring to impede federal employees from working at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January through intimidation, threats or force. Prosecutors say he led an armed takeover of the refuge, damaging the property and preventing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management officers from doing their jobs during the 41-day occupation.

Upon arrest, Bundy described how he was ordered to have his hands up, get on his knees then crawl back toward the officers. They had him lying handcuffed on his back on the ground before he was taken about nightfall into a van, where he first saw two people who had been riding in occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy'' Finicum's truck ahead of them.

"Victoria Sharp and Shawna Cox were in the van. Ryan and LaVoy were not,'' he said. "They very emotionally told me LaVoy had been shot.''

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight objected, and U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown sustained it. It was the first of many similar objections that followed Thursday.

The judge instructed Bundy's lawyer not to ask questions about Finicum's shooting.

Finicum's widow, Jeanette Finicum, is expected to be called as a witness Thursday afternoon. The judge made it clear to all lawyers and defendants that no one is to ask her about her husband's shooting or a wrongful death lawsuit she said she intends to bring against the government.

Bundy sought to paint a significantly different portrait of the occupation. He described his training sessions on land rights, and he showed jurors videos of their prayer sessions and videos and photos of his visits with ranchers from the community. He described how he and others freely traveled to and from the refuge during the stay there, grabbing a haircut and Chinese food in Burns on some visits and traveling to and from his home in Emmett, Idaho, three times.

He said he didn't expect anyone to be at the refuge when they arrived Jan. 2, a Saturday.
"It was the day after New Year's. We anticipated that no one would be there,'' he testified.

He said he knew the occupation would bring "a lot of commotion" but knew it was 35 miles out of town. He said he used GPS to get to the ranch on that day because he hadn't been there previously.

"We felt it was a win, win, win situation going into the refuge,'' he testified.
They would attract widespread media attention. They would work to return the land to the people of Harney County. If anything, they expected they might face eviction and would end up in a federal civil court to challenge the federal government's control of the land.

"Of course, we know what they did,'' Bundy continued. "They used force on us again, and now we're here.''
Knight objected, and the judge instructed jurors to disregard Bundy's response.

"I knew there was a risk of course, but I felt the entire time it was worth it,'' Bundy testified.

Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler ask Bundy about a maroon refuge pouch that contained cash, gas cards and an employee's ID card that had been stored in a locked file cabinet and was found in defendant Kenneth Medenbach's vehicle, according to earlier testimony from FBI agents.

Bundy said someone had brought the pouch to him and he put it in the loft in the refuge office where he kept his personal belongings for safekeeping.

"It wasn't ours. We didn't have a right to use it,'' Bundy testified.

How could Bundy justify his use of a refuge desk and office, where he was doing his work during the occupation, Schindler asked.

Bundy said he was just using an outlet in the office to connect and charge his laptop. He said he didn't know who the desk or office belonged to.

"I didn't even really think about it,'' he said. "We didn't think about that. We were there for a different purpose.''

During a video shown to jurors of Bundy describing the principle of adverse possession, Bundy also demeaned the federal court process.

"The plaintiff is the federal government. The judge is the federal government,'' he said on the video. "The jury is not somebody of your peers. They choose whoever they want.''

Bundy also said a post found on his Facebook page with a man dressed in camouflage with an assault rifle that read, "Forgive Me Father For I Will Sin'' was put up by him. He said five others had access to his Facebook account.

While Bundy said he believes in the right of people to bear arms, he said he personally "never made it a practice'' to carry a gun. He said his father, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is facing federal indictment in Nevada, never had pistols around growing up because he thought it would be easy for someone to shoot themselves.

"For some reason, I felt I never needed it,'' Bundy said.

Under questioning by Mumford, Bundy testified that he came to learn that the federal government had classified him as a terrorist. Since his involvement in the 2014 standoff with federal agents at his father's ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada, Bundy said he's flown about 40 times. Each time, he said, he was taken aside and strip searched.

"I understand I was characterized as something different,'' he said. "That frustrated me.''

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

Hearing Scripture must drive those possessed by Satan* into fits of rage.

*oh, and fwiw, Satanists are merely another form of Christian since in order to believe in Satan one must believe in The Word along with a belief in Jesus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

Hearing Scripture must drive those possessed by Satan* into fits of rage.

*oh, and fwiw, Satanists are merely another form of Christian since in order to believe in Satan one must believe in The Word

---

No doubt about that.

John Lamb with Oct. 6 video report of morning session of Malheur Protest trial

http://youtu.be/i_6Ko9y54mk

https://youtu.be/i_6Ko9y54mk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

At one point of their conversation Briana Bundy tells Jim Lambley Nevada is not a full state, but still a territory. I believe she is confused. Nevada's enabling legislation forever gave up the rights to all public land within the borders of the state. Both the Nevada Constitution and Nevada Revised Statutes have been amended to override the enabling act.

I believe what Brianna Bundy mistakenly believes about still being a territory is actually that Nevada was not admitted on an egual footing to the other states.

---

There was a case of a similar kind in New York State where the legislature gave away something that was contrary to the spirit of the constitution. The result of this case which was challenged and went to the Supreme Court where the Court ruled in favor on the challengers. Saying in affect that no legislature has the power to make law that is contrary to the Constitution.

Kirk at defend rural America had it on his website.
http://americannationalmilitia.com/w...risdiction.pdf

View the paragraph just above territories caption on left side of page.

Attachment 8531

After almost 3 days of testimony Ammon Bundy was briefly cross examined by the prosecution.

These leftist reporters have trouble telling the truth about LaVoy's murder. They can't resist painting him as a criminal. Even though the entire article was about another subject the bitch had to interject her poisonous venom.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...ss-examin.html

Ammon Bundy: Guns allowed Oregon refuge occupiers to express First Amendment rights

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 06, 2016 at 6:14 PM, updated October 06, 2016 at 7:02 PM



After Ammon Bundy spent three days testifying about why he occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a prosecutor Thursday afternoon fired rapid questions at him during a cross-examination that lasted just under 15 minutes.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight started out, "You are the leader'' of the occupation, right?
"No,'' Bundy said.

"Isn't it true you testified you're 'sort of the leader,''' Knight asked, noting that hours earlier Bundy had told jurors that he gave dozens and dozens of press conferences at the refuge and described in detail all of his followers.

"Is it your testimony today you were not the leader?'' Knight continued.
Bundy told Knight he wanted to clarify "what you're wanting me to say."
"I teach correct principles and let them govern themselves,'' Bundy said.

And so the cross-examination went, with the prosecutor highlighting key testimony that Bundy offered earlier in his federal conspiracy trial that seemed to bolster the government's case against him:
There was a "unified purpose'' to the occupation, guns played a role in helping carry out the refuge takeover, that Bundy knew federal employees worked at the site and Bundy and others used parts of the refuge as their own.

Knight's quick questions in a combative tone were striking in contrast to the soft-spoken questions that Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford asked during about 10 hours of direct examination.

Bundy is one of seven defendants charged with preventing employees from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management from doing their work through intimidation, threats or force during the 41-day occupation of the eastern Oregon bird sanctuary last winter.

The prosecutor asked if it were true that Bundy testified earlier Thursday that "We were all there for a unified purpose.''

Bundy said he didn't remember.

Knight pointed out that Bundy had testified that he gave Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward no ultimatums or threats.

"But you told him unless he agreed with your demands, there would be extreme civil unrest?'' Knight asked.
"I don't believe I said that,'' Bundy responded.

Knight referred to Bundy's testimony that he used a GPS to find the Malheur refuge when he went there on Jan. 2, the start of the occupation.

"You had to use GPS to get there even though you planned to control it until 2036?'' Knight asked incredulously, referring to Bundy's contention that he was trying to stake claim to the property through adverse possession.

Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the form of the question.

"My question is you went to a location you've never been before for that purpose?'' Knight continued.
"You're assuming I'm acknowledging it's a federal property,'' Bundy replied. "We were there disputing it was a federal property.''

"So you're saying the property you went to was not, in your belief, a federal property?''
"No,'' Bundy said.

"Yet you were trying to adversely possess it ... isn't that correct?'' Knight questioned.
"Yes,'' Bundy replied.

Knight pounced on Bundy's direct testimony earlier in the day about a maroon pouch, which had been locked in a refuge filing cabinet but was found later in one of the defendant's cars. It contained cash, refuge gas cards, credit cards and a refuge employee ID card, according to earlier testimony.

Bundy said during direct testimony that someone had brought the pouch to him during the occupation and it contained cash. He said he placed it in the loft of refuge biologist Linda Beck's office, where he was staying, to keep it secured.

"It wasn't ours. We didn't have a right to use it,'' Bundy testified.

Knight reminded Bundy of his statements and asked, "Yet you felt differently about the rest of the refuge, isn't that right?''

Bundy said the pouch was "clearly separate from the refuge'' as it contained receipts from the nonprofit Friends of the Malheur Refuge, which supports the sanctuary.

"We could see receipts and we knew the money was not ours,'' Bundy testified.

"And that property was different than all the other property at the refuge?'' Knight pressed.
"It needed to be secured, yes,'' Bundy replied.

Bundy added that the gas and credit cards were placed in the pouch by people occupying the refuge.
Knight questioned Bundy whether he knew federal employees worked at the refuge.
"I assumed they did,'' Bundy answered.

Knight asked if he made changes to the property? Bundy asked what he meant by "changes.''
In response to further questions, Bundy said yes, the signs were changed and the kitchen was used, but he testified that he hadn't accessed any computers or built any new roads, as Knight suggested.

Government testimony earlier in the trial indicated that three refuge employees' computers were accessed using one refuge worker's computer code and that a new road was made to the bunkhouse.

Knight asked whether all the changes made at the refuge were steps to stake claim to the property through adverse possession?

"You would take those steps in any federal government facility and it would be yours?'' Knight questioned.
"No there's a process,'' Bundy said. "There has to be a legitimate dispute.''

Knight said guns were brought to "keep the federal government away," right?
"No,'' Bundy responded.

Yet Knight reminded him of his testimony that if the occupiers hadn't brought firearms to the refuge, they likely would have been hauled off in zip ties and handcuffs in a paddy wagon.

"So the presence of guns prolonged your presence?'' Knight asked.
"It protected us from being detained,'' Bundy said. "I would say they allowed us to express our First Amendment rights.''

Knight asked Bundy if it was his belief that federal government's power is limited by the U.S Constitution.
Bundy said the government's powers are restricted to those "enumerated'' in the 10th Amendment.
"If you'd like me to read the 10th Amendment,'' Bundy offered.
"Thank you, that's OK,'' Knight cut in.

"You're not a rancher?'' Knight asked.
"No. ... I grew up on a ranch,'' Bundy said.

Then Knight turned to Bundy's business, a fleet management company called Valet Fleet Service. Bundy acknowledged that he managed it during the occupation.

Knight asked if it were true that Bundy had received a $530,000 loan from the U.S. Small Business Administration to support his business. Bundy's lawyer objected to the question, but the judge overruled the objection.

Knight said he offered the information to show that Bundy, even during his occupation of the federal refuge, has relied on the federal government, with his business partly funded by the government loan.
Bundy testified that he received the loan from a bank in Glendale, Arizona, about seven years ago.
"I don't think it's against the Constitution,'' Bundy responded. "If you want to debate the Constitution, I'll debate it.''

Knight said he was done with his cross-examination.

During redirect questioning by his lawyer, Bundy said he obtained the loan when he was merging two businesses into one and hasn't defaulted on it. Even while in jail the last 8 ½ months, he said he's continued to pay off the loan.

"I feel it's my obligation to do so,'' Bundy said.

"You pay taxes?'' Mumford asked. Bundy said yes.

"You pay federal taxes?'' Mumford asked. "Absolutely,'' Bundy replied.

Earlier Thursday, co-defendant Ryan Bundy questioned his brother, addressing him awkwardly at first as "Mr. Bundy,'' then later slipping in the less formal, "Brother Ammon.''

Jeanette Finicum takes the stand

Also Thursday, Jeanette Finicum, the widow of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy'' Finicum, briefly testified.

She said her husband got a call on New Year's Day, asking him to support the Jan. 2 rally in Burns in support of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, ordered to return to prison for arson on federal lands.

She said her husband drove all night to Burns with co-defendant Ryan Bundy. She thought he'd stay a day or two, and when he told her he was at the refuge and planned to be there, she urged him to return to Utah.
"The first part of the week I repeatedly asked my husband to come home,'' she said, breaking down in tears.
By the end of that first week, she said her husband was committed to staying because local ranchers had urged him to do so. She visited the refuge the weekend of Jan. 22, and had planned to meet up with her husband again in Idaho on the following weekend.

The judge didn't allow anyone to question Finicum's widow about her husband's shooting, or a wrongful death lawsuit that she intends to bring against the government.

"She should not be asked about his death, period,'' U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown instructed.

State police fatally shot her husband after he drove off from a police stop on Jan. 26, crashed his truck into a snowbank, got out and tried to reach into his jacket at least three times, according to police. Investigators found a loaded 9mm handgun inside his left jacket pocket.

A federal investigation is ongoing into an alleged firing of gunshots by FBI agents at the scene and an alleged cover-up of the evidence.

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

Ammon Bundy defies judge and talks about his friend LaVoy Finicum

http://youtu.be/Cax0ed1PqE0

https://youtu.be/Cax0ed1PqE0

Kelli Stewart has an informative video on her facebook page re today's court session. Her description of the judge's demeanor will keep you smiling.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1561375057522605/permalink/1696532420673534/

Video has been uploaded to youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCDQsSgZTZI&feature=youtu.be

Todd Macfarlane Day 15 from RangeFire, Malheur Protest trial Ammon Bundy completes his testimony, the defense has very few questions, Jeanette Finicum testified.

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/29/ongoi...e-defense-case

DAY 16 — Thursday, October 6, 2016
Ammon Bundy’s testimony continued today. He testified about his purposes, objectives, intentions, and actions at MNWR. He reiterated that one of his primary objectives was to stake an adverse possession claim, because he believed ownership of the Refuge property was in dispute, and he was disputing federal ownership of the property. Consequently, based on Adverse Possession principles, he took steps to change signs, and to actually change and improve the property, including clean-up and repairs. Although some have
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x208.jpg
asserted that the Adverse Possession defense was something Bundy and his attorneys came up with after the fact, they presented evidence, including videos, that he had presented classes on the subject of Adverse Possession at the Refuge, and showed pictures supporting his testimony that it was part of his purpose from the outset. When asked about his exit strategy, Bundy testified that his plan was to teach locals, including the Harney County Committee of Safety and local ranchers; turn the effort, including possession of the Refuge over to them to move forward with in challenging the federal government’s ownership, possession and jurisdiction, and leave. Once again, check out Bundy Court Sketches on Facebook.

Ammon Bundy said that based on what he was trying to accomplish, he didn’t believe he was doing anything unlawful, and certainly not criminal. He said he thought there was a possiblity that the federal goverment would take action, civilly, to claim he and his associates were trespassing at the Refuge, and would take action, civilly, to evict them. He said that because the idea of conspiring to impede or interfere with federal employees had never even crossed his mind, he did not consider the possiblity of such charges. By the time Ammon Bundy was done testifying, it was clear that much hard-fought evidence had come in that the Government worked desperately to keep out, seriously undermining the government’s already marginal case.

After hours on the witness stand in direct examination, Bundy was only cross-examined by the prosecution for less than 20 minutes. On cross examination, Bundy admitted that he had taken a federal government-guaranteed loan for his business, and that he pays federal taxes. He said that he recognizes and believes in the federal government, but believes its proper role is limited by the constitution. When prosecutor Ethan

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-200x300.jpg

Knight attempted to question Bundy about that, he offered to debate the constitution and what it means with Knight, who declined, and moved on with his questioning, including the reason for bringing guns to the refuge. Bundy testified that it was so they would be taken seriously, get more attention, be able to defend themselves, if necessary, and to help insure their right to exercise their First Amendment rights.

After Bundy’s testimony was finished, LaVoy Finicum’s widow, Jeanette Finicum, took the stand. She testified about the facts and circumstances surrounding LaVoy’s trip to the Refuge. She said the protest rally in Burns to support the Hammonds wasn’t even on his radar screen until the day before (1/1/2016) when he received a phone call. When he left home he was planning to go up for the rally and come straight back. Jeanette said that she was surprised that he had decided to stay, and she broke down in tears as she testified that she spent the first week trying to convince him to come home, until she resigned herself to the fact that he was committed to stay, because, according to him, local ranchers wanted him, and the others to be there.

We’ll be talking with Trent Loos about weekly trial updates tomorrow, and plan on shooting a weekly recap video as well.

For contrasting perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), Bundy Court Sketches on Facebook, or Gary Hunt at Outpost for Freedom and Redoubt News.

At RANGEFIRE! we believe in the need for alternative voices to mainstream media commentary and coverage of these issues.

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

http://on-stand.beforeitsnews.com/al...d-3422003.html

Jeanette Finicum Testifies in Bundy Trial – Ammon Continues on Stand

(Before It's News)


Lorie Kramer Here’s John Lamb’s report from the Federal Courthouse in Portland, OR during today’s session of the case of the Feds vs. We the People; otherwise known as US Government vs, Bundy et all.

Today Ammon continued on the stand. It appears he was allowed to get some reality of what those people were doing there out at the Malheur Refuge to the jury. Ammon continued to wear jail clothes.

Jeanette Finicum was also called to the stand today. Judge Anna Brown gave a lot of restrictions in what the widow of the slain LaVoy Finicum would be allowed to say. Court observers reported that there were tears in the eyes of several jurors today, as well there should have been if they are humans with working hearts.

http://on-stand.beforeitsnews.com/co...lavoy11100.gifhttp://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-r...lavoy11100.gif

David Fry remains in solitary confinement, but his spirits are good. It amazes me that he is still being held at all, let alone in solitary. I had the honor of meeting Jeff Banta and Sean and Sandy Anderson while I was in Portland. Each time I saw them I thought to myself that David Fry should be able to be there too. He saved all of their lives. Heck, they let Shawna out with an ankle bracelet at first, they could have done that with him. Shame. I am grateful his parents have been there with him this week. At least they were allowed to visit with David. Lisa Bundy, Ammon’s wife, was not allowed to visit her husband when she was here and attended court earlier in the week, and had to watch her husband on the stand. These women are so very strong.

http://on-stand.beforeitsnews.com/co...s/davidfry.jpg
David Fry

Overall, truth is getting out bit by bit. The Feds have asked very few questions today. One of the odd ones was when they asked Ammon Bundy if it was true that he said he would stay at the refuge until 2036. Ammon responded (paraphrased) no, it only takes 7 years to own the land in Oregon law; refering to the process of adverse possession which is what was actually being attempted, peacefully and lawfully, in Harney County.

http://youtu.be/tzvQm9GlA4g



John Lamb’s live streams can be found here https://www.facebook.com/john.lamb.16121


Defense witness Lee Rice’s situation is updated herehttps://www.facebook.com/lee.rice2/v...9/?pnref=story

Please share, get to Portland if you can, you will never regret standing, and we need to stand, badly.


And yes, John, I wish I was still there as well. God bless you and brother David.

Youtube videos of the Malheur Protest trial from this week this week

Oct. 4
http://youtu.be/gev8jeo6ngI

https://youtu.be/gev8jeo6ngI

Oct. 5
http://youtu.be/D6zR8GKzYZk

https://youtu.be/D6zR8GKzYZk

Oct. 6 also posted Before its News

http://youtu.be/tzvQm9GlA4g

https://youtu.be/tzvQm9GlA4g

"The national mainstream media doesn't really want to talk about it...or maybe they think it is just to important to talk about on a national level" Scott Rohter

The Trial of the Century – The Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

For concise, informative and thought provoking analysis of the news.
The Independent Voice for Conservative Values!
Less Gov is the Best Gov, Because Less Government
is the Best Government!
© Scott Rohter - All rights reserved

Posted by Scott Rohteron Friday, October 7, 2016

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...occupation.png


The Trial of the Century

The Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

By Scott Michael Rohter

Notes from the courtroom for the week of October 3 through October 7

The national mainstream media doesn’t really want to talk about it… or maybe they think it is too important to actually talk about on a national level. I’m not sure which, but the most important aspect of the occupation trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge won’t even be discussed at the trial, more less debated in the jury’s presence. That is because the judge won’t allow it to be discussed or debated.

Nevertheless this occupation trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is the trial of the century. It is the political trial that isn’t supposed to be a political trial. It is purported to be a criminal trial… but all of the underlying issues that caused the occupation of the Refuge to happen are all political in nature and they all began back in 1976 when Congress rewrote 200 years of American history and precedent by passing the Federal Land Policy Management Act.

This changed the way that Congress administers public land. It went from being a temporary, custodial stewardship to a permanent confiscation as a result of this law. The occupation of over seven hundred million acres of land in twelve Western States will not be discussed in the courtroom during the trial. This is the real occupation, not the one that occurred at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… The amount of land occupied by the Federal Government is an area bigger than the size of most countries.. Only eight countries in the world are bigger than the amount of land owned and administered by two agencies of the Federal government… the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service. It isn’t constitutional.

The eight defendants in this trial are accused of conspiracy to impede federal officers by threats and intimidation. The defendants are: Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Jason Patrick, Kenneth Medenbach, Jeff Banta, Neil Wampler and David Fry.

This may be the most intensively managed trial that America has ever seen. It is certainly the most intensively managed trial that I have ever seen. Every aspect of it is controlled and regulated by the judge from the moment the jury enters the room to the moment they leave the room. The judge acts more like an explosives expert than a referee between the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. She is handling this trial like it is some kind of a ticking time bomb or a lighted stick of dynamite.

All the video evidence submitted by defense attorneys is managed right down to the very last nano second so jurors will not be allowed to get too comfortable with the soft going, gentle resolve of the man who is at the center of this trial.. the good natured, mild mannered Ammon Bundy, and his simply amazing brother, Ryan Bundy. These modern American heroes have been locked up without bail since their arrest in January 2016 for organizing and participating in a protest designed to get Congress to re-examine the issue of what to do about America’s public lands.

In order to eliminate a lot of what Judge Anna Brown likes to call cumulative evidence but what many observers, myself included consider to be corroborating evidence, she has sustained almost four thousand objections raised by federal prosecutors who want to keep as much exculpatory evidence as possible out of this trial. Every time defense attorneys open their mouth to speak another government prosecutor is up on his feet raising another objection. Much of the time is spent stating and restating the following words: “Objection… cumulative… sustained. The objection is sustained Mr. Mumford, now move on”. This goes on over and over again till you want to scream.

The government is not trying to win the argument by presenting a clear and convincing case against the defendants, but rather by preventing their attorneys from making a clear and convincing case on their behalf. That is my impression at least, and this isn’t justice. It isn’t even fair.

Neither the defense attorneys nor the prosecutors really want to talk to each other so the judge acts like a reluctant intermediary and she acts like she doesn’t understand it. This trial is certainly like no other… and the conspiracy that Ammon Bundy and the others are accused of committing is a conspiracy like no other.

Normally you can’t have a lawsuit unless you can show damages, so where are these damages? Well, the FBI and the Department of Justice have fabricated a list of so called damages which were created after most of the defendants had already been arrested and removed from the Refuge. They are attributing these damages to all of the defendants collectively. The government alleges that the defendants trashed the place, but numerous eye witnesses who were there during the occupation have stated that they always saw it neat and tidy and never saw any damages. If there are no damages, there is no basis for a lawsuit. That is the usual rule, but there has been nothing usual about this trial so far, so we will just have to wait and see what the jury decides to do..

Federal arms charges were dismissed against Shawna Cox this week. It also came out during trial this week that the BLM district manager for Harney County closed the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Center on or about the same time that the BLM obtained a first right of refusal to purchase the Hammond Ranch. The BLM also filed a civil lawsuit against the Hammonds to cancel their grazing rights so they could never use public land again.

Many witnesses testified that they never felt threatened or intimidated by any of the defendants who were at the Refuge. That included Pat Harlacher, a seven year resident of Burns who visited the Refuge six different times while the defendants were there, a man from Las Vegas named Brand Thornton who supported the occupation, a local rancher named Travis Williams, another local rancher named Melody Rae Molt, and Sheriff David Ward. Sheriff Ward also said that he didn’t recall ever hearing about any threats made to Federal employees by the defendants. He said he did feel that he had been given an ultimatum though at one point by the defendant Ammon Bundy, but he failed to show any evidence of that under cross examination.

The judge ruled that no one could discuss the Constitution in her court because only a lawyer is qualified to properly understand and explain the Constitution and she wasn’t about to therefore it wasn’t going to be done… Ammon wasn’t going to be allowed to do it period, end of story. The prosecutors objected to the Constitution being read, and the Bible being quoted, and the Book of Mormon. God was ruled inadmissible at some point in the day, but someone did find a way to bring the devil into the discussion. That was one hell of a crazy day.. and oh by the way there is one more thing that is Verboten… No one can ever talk about the murder… excuse me, I mean the death of Lavoy Finicum. That is absolutely forbidden… along with any discussion of how 700 million acres of land in twelve western states has become occupied by the Federal Government and controlled by Congress through two federal agencies … the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service. This trial is so frustrating as to what the defense is and is not allowed to talk about that it is getting ridiculous already.

Out of those nearly four thousand objections raised by the prosecutors about 99% of them were sustained

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...ly-300x240.png
The Hammond family of Burns,Oregon

There was a brief discussion in court about whether or not prosecuting the Hammonds under the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was the same thing as calling them terrorists… The judge said it wasn’t.. but Ammon basically said it was a difference without a distinction. Judge Anna Brown then stated the record pertaining to the Hammonds as follows…

On June 21 2012 Dwight and Stephen Hammond were convicted of arson. Dwight was sentenced to three months in jail for one count, while Stephen was sentenced to twelve months on two counts. On February 5, 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court of Schlemiels overturned the lower court sentences. Upon further appeal the Hammond’s claim for relief was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court and they were resentenced to spend the rest of a five year mandatory minimum sentence under AEDPA.

Categories: National, Oregon Tags: Ammon Bundy, Bundy Trial, Lavoy Finicum, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon Standoff Trial, Ryan Bundy

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...16e4840fd18e2b





http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...hursday_3.html
Oregon standoff trial: Thursday highlights, and what's next

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...rs/1825277.pngBy The Oregonian/OregonLive
Follow on Twitter
on October 07, 2016 at 5:00 AM, updated October 07, 2016 at 5:02 AM



Here's what you need to know about Thursday's developments:

• Ammon Bundy testified that there were "men in the trees and everywhere else'' when police surrounded the Jeep he was riding in to a community meeting in John Day on Jan. 26. "I believed my life was in extreme danger if I moved in any way,'' Bundy said Thursday, his third day on the witness stand in his federal conspiracy trial. "I didn't even reach to pick up my hat in the seat next to me because I was afraid I'd get shot.''

• A prosecutor Thursday afternoon lobbed rapid questions at Ammon Bundy during a cross examination that lasted just under 15 minutes.

• The prosecutor highlighted key testimony that Bundy had offered during his direct examination that seemed to bolster the federal government's case: there was a "unified purpose'' to the occupation, guns played a role in helping carry out the refuge takeover, that Bundy knew federal employees worked at the site, and Bundy and others used parts of the refuge as their own.

• Jeanette Finicum, the widow of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy'' Finicum, briefly testified. She visited the refuge the weekend of Jan. 22, and had planned to meet up with her husband again in Idaho on the following weekend.

• The judge didn't allow anyone to question Finicum's widow about her husband's shooting, or a wrongful death lawsuit that she intends to bring against the government.

Coming next week:

• The federal conspiracy trial will resume on Tuesday next week. Testimony will be heard Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.

• There's no court Monday because of the Columbus Day holiday or Wednesday because of the Jewish high holiday, Yom Kippur.

• U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown has urged defense lawyers to limit the number of witnesses they call who may offer the same testimony as others have given regarding, for example, the cleanliness, welcoming atmosphere and peaceful activities they found at the refuge. "It's been established,'' Brown said. "We need new information ... I have a duty to not waste the jury's time ... You're going to lose these people. It's the same message and they got it.''

• The judge directed defense lawyers to give a list of their remaining witnesses to prosecutors by 5 p.m. Saturday.

• Defense firearms expert Charles Stephenson, a former FBI special agent, is expected to take the stand Tuesday morning.

• Defendant Kenneth Medenbach also is expected to take the stand sometime next week. His standby lawyer Matthew Schindler anticipates the direct examination of Medenbach to last three hours.

• "What we did with Ammon Bundy took far too long,'' the judge told defense lawyers. Bundy was on the stand for a total of about 10 hours over three days.

• Asked if he intends to take the witness stand, defendant Ryan Bundy, Ammon's older brother, told the court Thursday, that he's "leaning against it.''

A facebook poster asking for more information on sighted caretaker at Malheur Reserve; seems urgent:

Robert Jones

19 mins ·

Attention: VERY important!!
A caretaker came out to the Harney County resource center he was emptying trash cans or something if you personally seen this person there, please private message me and I can get you to the proper people!!
Please share this post over and over again we need to find first hand accounts of this man!!!

I liked this photo, most today don't know what the constitution is:

I belive this is Jason Patick, defendant in the Malheur Protest

https://fb-s-c-a.akamaihd.net/h-ak-x...81773751_o.jpg

Burns Documentary, Chapter 33

The Shot Heard Round the World - Bundy's Finicum


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md0ASUDgSvk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md0ASUDgSvk

Ammon Bundy has words with US Marshal after court Thursday for using attorney's computer to send a message to his wife.

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

U.S. marshals end Ammon Bundy's contact visits with lawyers in courthouse over 'disrespect'

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


A dust-up between Ammon Bundy and a deputy U.S. marshal late Thursday while defendants and their lawyers were allowed to remain in a federal courtroom to confer after the conspiracy trial had adjourned for the day has resulted in reduced privileges for Bundy.

Bundy got onto an online chat room using his defense lawyer's computer in Courtroom 9A to send a message to his wife, and the deputy told him to stop and get off the computer, according to the U.S. Marshals Service.

Bundy was "very disrespectful'' and declared he wasn't going to follow the deputy's directions, saying: "I'm not going to do what you want,'' a deputy U.S. marshal told U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in a brief status hearing Friday afternoon.

Bundy's defense lawyer, Marcus Mumford, told the court that he was about 10 to 15 feet away when the dispute occurred.

Mumford said his client just wanted to send his wife a message, telling her that he loved her.

"All I heard was the aftermath,'' Mumford said. "The marshal and Mr. Bundy exchanged words.''

As a result, the U.S. Marshals Service moved to end the special accommodations the court had made for Bundy to meet together with his lawyers, as well as brother Ryan Bundy, a co-defendant in the trial, in a locked room in the courthouse as they've done about 20 times to help them prepare and work on their defense.

The two are among seven defendants on trial in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, charged with conspiring to prevent federal employees from carrying out their work at the refuge through intimidation, threats or force.

Instead, the marshals are allowing Bundy to meet with his lawyer in one of the courthouse interview rooms, where the defendant is separated from the lawyer by a see-through screen.

Mumford urged the court to allow the earlier accommodation. "We would still want to meet with Mr. Bundy in a contact setting'' to review evidence that is still expected to be presented in the ongoing case, he said.

"This is an episode we could put as water under the bridge, perhaps,'' Mumford offered.

But Jones said he would maintain the restrictions. If he has problems meeting with his client in the courthouse interview room, Jones told Mumford to let him know.

"We'll work it out,'' Jones told Mumford. "I hope you tell your client it's stupid to make remarks like he did.... I hope you can give him some wise counsel.''

Trial resumes Tuesday morning before U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown.

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

Shari Dovale's assesment of Thursday's court session. Redoubt News.

we can only hope this jury has some people capable of thinking for themselves.

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/07/br...le-government/

Judge Brown, “In a Light Most Favorable to the Government”

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=678%2C381photo: http://www.parentsociety.com

Or… Just Lean a Little to My Side

Politics of, and in the Courtroom

by Shari Dovale

This week brought several emotional moments in the Malheur Protest Trial in Portland. Ammon Bundy spent the better part of three days on the stand, completing his testimony on Thursday.

The court attempted to severely limit the evidence presented by the defense, including a video between Ammon and a couple of ranchers. Though Judge Anna Brown has allowed the prosecution leeway to present what they want, she has ruled, repeatedly, that defense evidence is “cumulative” or repetitive. She is tired of seeing pictures and videos of the same offices and places around the refuge.

Ammon Bundy attempted to discuss his conversations with the Hammonds, yet Brown shut that one down as well.http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=220%2C279
Telling him that he could not share the specifics of the conversation, Brown said Bundy could only describe his personal state of mind after the conversation.

“I’d rather not say my state of mind if I’m unable to explain why,” Bundy responded. Brown then told him to be quiet. Marcus Mumford took up the argument with the judge. Waiting until the jury was out of the room, Mumford accused the judge of not allowing key evidence to be presented.

Understandably, Mumford was upset for his client, yet the judge had her own theatrics in claiming that Mumford was threatening her. After the repeated shutting down of the defense, yet allowing the prosecution to grandstand, it is amazing that these defense attorneys have held their cool for this long.

Ammon spent time discussing the lack of response by the elected officials, including the sheriff, county commissioners and the governor, to the people’s questions and concerns. “When elected officials ignore us, what are we to do?” he asked.

Judge Brown has told them that she has heard enough of how the refuge was safe and clean, with the protesters being open and transparent during the occupation. She has told them that they cannot refer to conversations they had with others, including Dwight and Steven Hammond. And, she wont allow them to discuss the FBI being under investigation for lying about the murder of LaVoy Finicum.

The defendants cannot talk about their conversations as it is “hearsay” but there is no way to get some of these people into the courtroom to testify to it themselves. This includes Governor Kate Brown, whom Ryan Bundy has tried to subpoena, yet Judge Brown continues to stop that from happening.

Ammon was able to show video highlights of him teaching the principles of adverse possession. This was important, and powerful enough, that the prosecution now wants Judge Brown to instruct the jury in such a way that they will disregard it. The prosecution cannot refute this through testimony, so they need the judge to play the “I am the only one that understands the law” card and try to shut it down for them.

At one point during Ammon’s testimony, out of sight of the jury, Neil Wampler led other defendants and audience members in a standing ovation for Ammon. “We love you Ammon,” they shouted. This demonstration took Judge Brown by surprise, but was over quickly so she had no comments.

At one point, Ammon was asked to name who attended the meeting at Ye Old Castle restaurant in Burns before the rally on January 2^nd. As he named several people, he commented, “I hope I’m not making a list for the government’s next indictments.” This drew laughter from the audience and anger from Judge Brown.

Ethan Knight of the prosecution team threw some rapid-fire questions at Ammon on cross examination. He attempted to distort Ammon’s testimony, however, Ammon held his own very well.

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...y2-300x216.jpe
LaVoy Finicum

Jeanette Finicum briefly took the stand on Thursday afternoon to discuss when her husband went to the refuge. Not hearing about the rally until January 1^st, LaVoy only took a single change of clothes with him, as he did not intend to be there for very long. Describing when he told her that he was going to stay at the refuge, “I repeatedly asked my husband to come home,” she testified.

Judge Brown did not allow any questions to be asked about the day LaVoy was shot and killed. “She [Jeanette] should not be asked about his death, period,” Brown instructed.

Next week will bring several more witnesses, including Sheriff Richard Mack. There have been several points made during the trial about what authority the Constitution gives to the county sheriff. Mack will be here to explain the truth of this. I am sure Judge Brown will not be happy when the law, and the Constitution, get discussed, and she is probably already planning how she intends to shut this testimony down.

Kenneth Medenbach is planning to testify next week, as well as several other witnesses. Judge Brown was not happy to hear that the defense case is not ready to rest, and she makes various comments that might suggest she is encouraging them to do so. However, the defense attorneys, and the defendants, are determined to continue despite Judge Brown’s annoyance.

Judge Brown has found various ways to aid the prosecution, and another way is within the jury instructions. Though the charge “Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States” is listed in the beginning, she goes on later to say the charge is to “prevent officers of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of the office” which is a noticeable difference.

With this change, it seems to me that she has lowered the bar for the prosecution and made it much easier for them. The standard should be higher for the government, but it is not.

She refers to the standard by “In a light most favorable to the government” which, by my layman’s view, is a guilty until proven innocent standard. However, I had a discussion with an attorney in this case and it seems that this is a legal standard that goes to whether or not the government has presented enough evidence to send it to the jury. Though I, among others, do not believe that is the case, it only matters whether or not Judge Brown believes it. Of course she does. She is heavily invested in this verdict.

Additionally, she has stressed to the jury that the conspiracy does not have to actually take place, just that two people discussed it at some point. This sounds an awful lot like the “Thought Police.”

There will be just three days of testimony next week as the court will shut down on Monday for the Columbus Day holiday and Wednesday for the Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur.

Todd Macfarlane with week 4 recap of Malheur Protest Trial

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/29/ongoi...-defense-case/

WEEK 4 RECAP
Rural Route Radio Recap Discussion with Trent Loos & Todd Macfarlane

http://youtu.be/V784OV2BGQ0

For contrasting perspectives and reporting, you can also follow Maxine Bernstein for OregonLive, and Conrad Wilson for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), Bundy Court Sketches on Facebook, or Gary Hunt at Outpost for Freedom and Redoubt News.

At RANGEFIRE! we believe in the need for alternative voices to mainstream media commentary and coverage of these issues.

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

I must concur with the views of Bill Goode. There is no way the government is going to allow a win, even though it appears the they have little or no case. Judge Anna Brown has her orders from Washington. She will do whatever to win this.

Edit:

Quote:

---

I'm disgusted with the direction this country is going because it seems to me to be turning into a satanic shithole run and controlled by Jews. Tumbleweed

---

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...0127909200084/


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...c34942e9191688
Bill Goode
9 hrs

Many court observers have expressed optimism for the outcome of this trial in Portland. Strictly based on what I've heard from courtroom observers and what I've read in the news, I would be optimistic as well. But then I am almost always an optimist. ;)

However, several things have come to my mind today as I've been pondering about the trial.

1) Prosecution only asked about 10 questions to Ammon and only spent about 15 minutes questioning him during his three day testimony, asking some pretty innocuous questions. Prosecution questioning of other defense witnesses has been similarly brief. Does the prosecution, not being the idiots we would hope they are, care what the defense witnesses say?

2) The article posted this evening, titled "Judge Brown, 'In Light Most Favorable to the Government' - Redoubt News" blatantly displays Anna Brown's (I refuse to call her by the honored title "Judge") overwhelming bias toward the prosecution and the government side of things. After all, that's who she's working for and pays her salary. And undoubtedly has given her orders with regard to this particular case. Does anyone think she would act any other way?

3) The federal government cannot afford to lose this case. It would mean the initiation of a massive transfer of real estate away from the federal government, ie Anna Brown's employer. BLM, USNPS, USNFS, USF&WS, and probably a number of other agencies involved with the public lands we haven't heard of, become obsolete.

It could possibly even affect military bases, because none of that land has been purchased from the states, any more than the public lands. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 requires military bases be purchased, along with other requirements, not simply absconded with.

It would massively change the nature and appearance of the federal government. Will the federal government, being in virtual absolute dictatorial control of this trial, allow that?

I doubt that the prosecutors or Anna Brown are stupid. What do they have up their sleeves?

Anna Brown has made it clear that she will run the trial as a dictator, points of law and judicial procedure being of little consequence to her, let alone those forgotten documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Brown can and may very well conduct the trial to whatever outcome she plans.

As the jury enters into deliberations and Brown gets a sense the jury will come up with the "wrong verdict", she could declare a mistrial. Then she may well rule that we have to go through the entire process again, whereby our patriot defendants, who have been in jail for 8+ months, will have to remain in jail, until we have another trial. Virtually declaring that they must remain there until she feels any jury will deliver the verdict she is looking for. This would in effect give the defendants the sentences she has in mind.

I have heard more than once that some of the jury members were in tears during defense testimony. Does anyone presume this escaped the attention of Anna Brown?

Anna Brown may well have something else up her sleeve, besides a mistrial.

Being the optimist I am, and based on the evidence presented, I can't see anything but an acquittal on all charges. But neither Anna Brown nor the prosecution are stupid. I am simply wondering what they have in mind to effect the outcome they are looking for. We must brace ourselves for come what may.

Teresa Brookshire from North Carolina has followed this case from the beginning. She flew to Portland to watch two days of the trial. She responds to Bill Goode's essay:

Quote:

---

3) The federal government cannot afford to lose this case. It would mean the initiation of a massive transfer of real estate away from the federal government, ie Anna Brown's employer. BLM, USNPS, USNFS, USF&WS, and probably a number of other agencies involved with the public lands we haven't heard of, become obsolete.

---

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

Teresa Brookshire I sat and watched as Comey gave his testimony regarding Hillary Clinton and what they actually had found in regards to the emails. The many thousands of classified and ones that since that time had been classified. I thought "we got her". Then I watched him with a straight face say they did not recommend prosecution. Blown away yet? #3 is your biggest reason the prosecution and judge absolutely has to win this case.

My thoughts on their strategy? By the prosecution giving a brief cross of Ammon, they were signaling to the jury that regardless of his testimony-it is legally irrelevant. The issue of land jurisdiction was never resolved, and they will claim adverse possession cannot occur on federal land. After testifying, they know that Ammon has touched the souls of some of them. They will acknowledge that to the jury-because they don't want to lose them seeming like the bad guy. They will use the testimony of weapons being brought there so they would be taken seriously as intent to intimidate. The pouch they say was found in a vehicle with the computer card, etc, they will use as taking away that persons ability to do their work. Small things like that.

Cross will have to focus on what has been built by Ammon as the overreach of the government in cases like the Hammonds and truly that adverse possession was the last avenue Americans had to take a stand. Unfortunately, she is not going to allow statements about the jurisdiction issue to be elaborated on. What is vital for the government, she will let in.

When the jurors are deciding the verdict, any hold outs for not guilty will be brought to her chambers to be questioned if they understood the law and her directives. Based on their answers, she has the authority at that time to replace them with an alternate juror. Their answer needs to be they understand the law as she quoted it and don't have any questions. If I remember correctly, a motion was filed to allow the jury to be instructed on jury nullification-or I dreamed it. I do not recall this being addressed.

I have been surprised by the lack of testimony from the FBI. YES, many agents but not dynamic, damming testimony. I have thought about this and believe that was a strategy also. They don't want the jury knowing how intensely they were involved in the entire situation and the degree of surveillance they had and how their own role was the escalation. In closing the defense will have to keep in the juries head the thought that if they will being unlawful, they had many opportunities to arrest them. Why did they not? I felt very good about the case when I was there for the two days during the prosecutions presentation and have closely followed since. Everything has been a positive for our guys. But, I am like you Bill in that the government is not going to let it be this "easy." They definitely have a strategy. I believe in the innocence of these men and their reason for standing. As Americans, I pray that regardless of the prosecution's strategy, the jury will say, no, we won't let this happen. Just as these men took a stand, I pray the jury will also. But, I imagine Judge Anna will be quite formidable when giving jury instructions.
Like · 1 hr

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...bce7e9dbfd33fe

Bill Goode Teresa, I don't believe either Karen Armstrong, who I believe wrote the indictment, or Greg Bretzing, FBI in-charge in Portland, have testified. Is that the case? They should have.
Like · 1 hr


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

Teresa Brookshire I don't believe so. When I was there, each FBI agent testified to specific incidents, so when defense asked them any further questions they would not have any knowledge of it. Almost as if the strategy was to only put up FBI agents that had limited knowledge of the total FBI's role. This would severely restrict questions from the defense. All of this is JMO.
Like · 2 · 49 mins

The spin from the jewess at Oregon Live.

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

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 08, 2016 at 5:00 AM, updated October 08, 2016 at 5:02 AM

Does Ammon Bundy's 10-hour testimony help or hurt his case in Oregon standoff trial?

Did Ammon Bundy's nearly 10 hours of testimony help or harm his case?

Bundy told the judge this week that she left him no choice but to take the witness stand in his own defense.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown had restricted defense lawyers from eliciting testimony from witnesses about the principle of adverse possession or who owns the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge unless it related to a defendant's state of mind in explaining motivation for occupying the refuge.

Facing those limitations, Marcus Mumford, Bundy's attorney, said it was crucial for his client to tell his full story.

"We put him on because he wanted to explain why he did what he did,'' Mumford said. "The jury got to see him and hear him speak with candor.''

Legal experts weigh in:
Margaret L. Paris, University of Oregon law professor:
"If you have a defendant who can appeal to the jury, you give them as much time as you can. If he comes across as sincere, that he really believes this – that may be the best defense available.''
But if the testimony is repetitive and too long, Paris added, "you risk losing the jury.''
"It's a calculated risk a defense lawyer takes. And, it's always a crap shoot.''
On the prosecutor's brief cross-examination, Paris said it's not unusual.
"If you're facing an effective witness, as a cross-examiner, you want to get your points out without giving him too much more time on the stand. The prosecutor went in for the points he needed to make, got in and got out.''

Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, standby counsel to Kenneth Medenbach, one of Bundy's six co-defendants. Medenbach plans to take the witness stand next week.
"It's his right to get up and tell his story. A protester should not invoke their right to remain silent.''
Of Ammon Bundy's testimony, "All I can tell you is it seems authentic.''
The decision allowed Ammon Bundy to humanize himself to jurors, Schindler said.
"It's fairly unusual to have a defendant who can come across as sincere and handle a cross-examination.''
Schindler wasn't surprised by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight's 15-minute cross-examination.
"This is the U.S. government. These guys let the evidence do the talking.''

Tung Yin, Lewis & Clark Law professor:
If the defense is seeking jury nullification – meaning the government has proved its case with the evidence presented but a juror won't convict because he or she likes or feels sympathy for the defendant or their cause -- then it was probably useful for Ammon Bundy to take the stand, Yin said.
"It would be useful to make his client seem likeable, not crazy and halfway reasonable."
Ammon Bundy remained calm and composed on the witness stand, often looked at jurors as he spoke and became emotional as he described his past experience with federal agents at the 2014 standoff outside his father Cliven Bundy's ranch in Nevada.

As for the short cross-examination, that makes sense for several reasons, Yin said.
"Because it was so short, it was pointed and sharp. It's unlikely the jury was bored, or dozing or or not paying attention. The jury is likely to remember the entire exchange. Second, it limited the scope of redirect, meaning that Bundy's lawyer could only ask further questions relating to what Bundy was crossed on.''

Andrew Chongseh Kim, Concordia University law professor:
It appears that Ammon Bundy's lawyer wanted to spend time delving into his client's intentions, motivations, reasoning and background that played into his decision to stay at the refuge for nearly a month.
In contrast, the prosecutor's decision to limit his cross-examination may demonstrate "that they think the vast majority of the previous three days' testimony is irrelevant to whether Bundy is guilty'' of the federal conspiracy charge.

The charge accuses Bundy and co-defendants of conspiring to use intimidation, threats or force to prevent employees from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management from carrying out their work during the 41-day occupation of the refuge.

"Such a stark contrast could make the jury think the prosecution failed to respond to the defense's strong evidence, or it could make the jury think the defense spent three days trying to distract them from the real issues of the case.''
-- Maxine Bernstein

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

This cowardly sheriff could have prevented the Malheur Protest . . . and the death of LaVoy Finicum


http://rangefire.us/2016/10/08/bewar...mportant-role/

Beware Skittish County Sheriffs Who Don’t Understand Their Important Role

October 8, 2016 - Government/Politics - Tagged: federal government, Harney County, Range, RANGEfire, Role, sheriff, Ward - no comments


According to ReDoubt News, Skittish Harney County Sheriff Makes Himself Putty in the Feds’ Hands and Turned Burns into a War Zone.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...f-1-300x86.jpg
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-2-300x199.jpg

http://youtu.be/YnnoabYVJ3k

Rural Route Radio Discussion of Role of County Sheriffs (as well as Oregon Standoff Trial) with Trent Loos & Todd Macfarlane
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 *

Todd Macfarlane was supposed to testify in the Malhuer trial, but has been released.

http://youtu.be/8BHXK5vi9Xc

https://youtu.be/8BHXK5vi9Xc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Teresa Brookshire from North Carolina has followed this case from the beginning. She flew to Portland to watch two days of the trial. She responds to Bill Goode's essay:

[/I]


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

Teresa Brookshire I sat and watched as Comey gave his testimony regarding Hillary Clinton and what they actually had found in regards to the emails. The many thousands of classified and ones that since that time had been classified. I thought "we got her". Then I watched him with a straight face say they did not recommend prosecution. Blown away yet? #3 is your biggest reason the prosecution and judge absolutely has to win this case.

My thoughts on their strategy? By the prosecution giving a brief cross of Ammon, they were signaling to the jury that regardless of his testimony-it is legally irrelevant. The issue of land jurisdiction was never resolved, and they will claim adverse possession cannot occur on federal land. After testifying, they know that Ammon has touched the souls of some of them. They will acknowledge that to the jury-because they don't want to lose them seeming like the bad guy. They will use the testimony of weapons being brought there so they would be taken seriously as intent to intimidate. The pouch they say was found in a vehicle with the computer card, etc, they will use as taking away that persons ability to do their work. Small things like that.

Cross will have to focus on what has been built by Ammon as the overreach of the government in cases like the Hammonds and truly that adverse possession was the last avenue Americans had to take a stand. Unfortunately, she is not going to allow statements about the jurisdiction issue to be elaborated on. What is vital for the government, she will let in.

When the jurors are deciding the verdict, any hold outs for not guilty will be brought to her chambers to be questioned if they understood the law and her directives. Based on their answers, she has the authority at that time to replace them with an alternate juror. Their answer needs to be they understand the law as she quoted it and don't have any questions. If I remember correctly, a motion was filed to allow the jury to be instructed on jury nullification-or I dreamed it. I do not recall this being addressed.

I have been surprised by the lack of testimony from the FBI. YES, many agents but not dynamic, damming testimony. I have thought about this and believe that was a strategy also. They don't want the jury knowing how intensely they were involved in the entire situation and the degree of surveillance they had and how their own role was the escalation. In closing the defense will have to keep in the juries head the thought that if they will being unlawful, they had many opportunities to arrest them. Why did they not? I felt very good about the case when I was there for the two days during the prosecutions presentation and have closely followed since. Everything has been a positive for our guys. But, I am like you Bill in that the government is not going to let it be this "easy." They definitely have a strategy. I believe in the innocence of these men and their reason for standing. As Americans, I pray that regardless of the prosecution's strategy, the jury will say, no, we won't let this happen. Just as these men took a stand, I pray the jury will also. But, I imagine Judge Anna will be quite formidable when giving jury instructions.
Like · 1 hr

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...bce7e9dbfd33fe

Bill Goode Teresa, I don't believe either Karen Armstrong, who I believe wrote the indictment, or Greg Bretzing, FBI in-charge in Portland, have testified. Is that the case? They should have.
Like · 1 hr


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

Teresa Brookshire I don't believe so. When I was there, each FBI agent testified to specific incidents, so when defense asked them any further questions they would not have any knowledge of it. Almost as if the strategy was to only put up FBI agents that had limited knowledge of the total FBI's role. This would severely restrict questions from the defense. All of this is JMO.
Like · 2 · 49 mins

---

This fellow understands the situtation,

John Kolak I have to agree with Teresa that #3 is the overriding factor here. Ammon was wrong. It's not just that the issue of western land ownership is bigger than the Refuge and federal employees. This is much bigger than an academic review of western land ownership. This is about the value of public land and its resources, collateralization of the national debt, and the wealth and power of the globalists. I'm afraid the corruption in this court is bigger than Anna Brown and Harry Reid, but is directed from the globalist command center in the Department of Justice and the White House. This might have gotten a fair trial in the Reagan administration. I'm not sure about the Bush Dynasty. They might succeed on appeal in the 9th Circuit, but they might have to go to the Supreme Court to win. Is it possible that we lost Justice Scalia specifically for this case? If I am wrong and they are acquitted here, I'll be glad to be the first one to admit it.
Like · 2 hrs · Edited

Shari Dovale, Redoubt News "Examaning the Prosecution Evidence"

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/10/ma...tion-evidence/


http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=554%2C284

Examining the Prosecution Evidence

by Shari Dovale

The Malheur Protest Trial resumes in Portland this week and the defense has been able to refute the prosecutions case pretty well.
Though they spent a couple of weeks presenting their ‘evidence,’ the prosecution didn’t have a lot to base their case on.

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=210%2C219

They began by saying that 2 or more people conspired to impede Federal officers from November 5, 2015 through February 12, 2016. That is the basic charge. Let’s look at that first.
Ammon Bundy testified that he did not look into the Hammond case until November 2^nd. That is the date that he remembered specifically. He read for hours about Dwight and Steven Hammond, what they had gone through at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and how similar this case was to that of his family.

He then spoke to the Hammonds and Sheriff Ward. At his point, it was still just Ammon with one other person, Ryan Payne, accompanying him. Knowing how important it was for the Sheriff to protect the citizens, and how much power he has to do this, speaking to the Sheriff was an important step. However, Ward apparently got scared and refused to do his job. Ward testified that he immediately called the FBI to step in and take over for him.

Bundy then tried to contact the state and local elected officials. He prepared a letter of “Redress of Grievance”, first sending it via official email accounts, then sending notarized hard copies as a follow up. These went to the Harney County Commissioners, the Sheriff and Governor Kate Brown.

It has been shown that the FBI specifically told these officials NOT to respond to Bundy. As Bundy asked, when your elected officials refuse to respond to you, “What are we to do?”

That is when the January 2^nd rally was organized. It began with just Ammon, but quickly spread on social media. It was very encouraging that so many planned to attend the rally.

Before the rally, Ammon held a meeting with about 30 people that had traveled to Burns, OR to attend the rally. This meeting took place at “Ye Olde Castle” restaurant in Burns. It was here, just before the rally, that Ammon first disclosed his idea to hold the refuge through ‘Adverse Possession.’ It was not the only idea talked about that day, but this was Ammon’s idea and no one had heard it prior to then.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=205%2C308

The prosecution believe they can convict everyone on the conspiracy charge through various pieces of evidence. Some of that evidence consists of Facebook postings. So, if you post, or re-post, an event such as a protest rally on Social media, the prosecution says that can be evidence in a federal conspiracy trial.

Another item they submitted as evidence is a ‘Meme’ that someone posted to Ammon’s Facebook timeline. It has already been established that several people were administering this page. The meme shown here is either the exact one placed into evidence or one that is very similar. The caption reads: “Forgive me Father for I will sin.”

The prosecution contends that Ammon and the group of Citizens for Constitutional Freedom (C4CF) are extremely dangerous based, in part, on this meme. It is my understanding that this saying goes back to ground forces in the military. I guess that fits with the progressive agenda of the military being too dangerous for society.

The prosecution brought in several guns, but were not able to prove ownership of all of them. They could not determine when the guns arrived at Malheur, and whether or not they were placed there before or after the protesters arrived. They could not determine if these specific defendants brought them in. They were … just there.

The defense has presented multiple witnesses stating how comfortable they were at the Refuge. They testified that they saw very few, if any, weapons displayed while they visited. There were enough witnesses making these claims that Judge Anna Brown put her foot down and said that she had seen enough.

Remember, Oregon is an open carry state. It is perfectly legal to carry a sidearm as you go around town and complete your business. In a ranching community, it is normal to see people carrying weapons. Yet, the prosecution made a big splash telling everyone how afraid the town was to see guns being worn everywhere.

The prosecution did not mention the FBI taking over the town, the heavily armed vehicles, or the airport and school being turned over to the FBI for their own use. Just some cowboys carrying sidearms.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=236%2C177

Photo of PPN outside the refuge.The prosecution also attempted to bring in multiple crates of ammunition they say were found at the refuge. Even Judge Brown didn’t want them to take the time to show each box. They say there were approximately 18,000 rounds. The defense put up a witness, Brandon Rapolla, who is a firearms instructor and was at the refuge with the Pacific Patriots Network (PPN). Rapolla testified that this was a small amount of ammo for as many people that were at the refuge, even for target practice.

Rapolla also testified to a photograph that the prosecution entered into evidence. This photo was taken on the road above the refuge and does not depict any of the C4CF group. It shows the PPN under Rapolla’s direction.

Then there are the videos that the prosecution entered as evidence. These include a video that they took from Ammon’s phone. This particular video was a ‘rough draft’ that he later re-recorded. The final was posted publicly, which included Ammon telling folks to come without their firearms. However, the prosecution used the rough draft and objected to the defense wanting to include the final version.

The witnesses that the prosecution questioned included Chad Karges, the refuge manager. Karges testified that it was his decision not to allow his employees to return to the refuge. This decision was made at least 2 days before the rally, and was based on Ammon being at Bunkerville. His name was Bundy and his family fought the BLM in 2014. There you go, the big conspiracy.

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=225%2C253

Chad Karges, the manager of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, April 29, 2016 (KOIN)Also testifying were employees that said the offices were messy when they returned on February 17^th or 18^th. Looking at the time frame, let’s remember that the FBI had sole access to the refuge for about a week after the final four turned themselves in. The FBI then went about doing their crime scene investigation.

Has anyone ever seen what the FBI and crime scene investigators can do to a place? I have personal knowledge of this in my own family. They will tear a place apart to search it all. They will tear down walls, cut up carpet, dump desk drawers, etc. They will cut up cushions on couches and chairs, upend trash cans, kick in doors and more. They NEVER clean up after themselves. There are companies that you can hire specifically to clean up after crime scene investigations, and it costs thousands of dollars. Yet, the protesters have been blamed for every single thing out of place.

The defense has put on multiple witnesses that testified to the cleanliness and care that the C4CF took of the refuge. So many witnesses that, again, Judge Brown grew tired of it and told the defense to stop.

Statements from the defendants never mention keeping employees from doing their jobs. On the contrary, Karges and others testified that the employees never lost time or pay from the protest. They were able to complete their work at other facilities.
The defense has successfully refuted the prosecution evidence. But the questions still beg to be answered. Where is the crime, and who set the standard for this crime?

Judge Brown is heavily invested in this conviction. She has clearly shown her bias favoring the prosecution. Her jury instructions have been changed to lower the bar for the prosecution and make it more difficult for the defense team. She is determined to get a guilty verdict for all defendants in this case.

Stay Tuned! We will see if the evidence really matters.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C185


Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 183
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  183
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
• Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Arnold Law Steps Down as Bundy AttorneyMay 26, 2016In "BLM"
Hammond Case Facts - Ammon BundyFebruary 3, 2016In "Constitution"
In Burns with the Oath KeepersFebruary 12, 2016In "Constitution"

Shari Dovale, Redoubt News "Judge Anna Brown vs the Constitution".

Because it is an administrative court the constitution cannot be heard or ruled on. Administrative courts deal in civil rights. United States Citizens have 14th amendment civil rights. The people have unalienable rights.


Judge Anna Brown vs the Constitution


THE OVER REACHING GOVERNMENT IS ON TRIAL HERE, AND THE US CONSTITUTION IS AT STAKE.

October 9, 2016 BLM, Constitution, Featured, government 2
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up.../HS-banner.png

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=641%2C434

Judge Anna Brown vs the Constitution

By Shari Dovale

The week in Portland has certainly been a roller coaster ride. So many ups and downs that it can make a person dizzy.

Ammon Bundy testified this week and he was very genuine and well versed. I can’t help but think that the jury has to have seen his honesty and passion. The best part of his testimony was when he was explaining “adverse possession.” He became a teacher and explained the goals very well. There were a few short clips of videos that showed him teaching this message, as well. Most of the jury paid close attention.

It was interesting to see Ryan address his brother as “Mr. Bundy” but that quickly turned to a more familiar “Brother” as he went through his questioning. This is certainly an unusual trial, as we see one brother representing himself while questioning another brother on the stand defending his own actions. I don’t think I have ever heard of another case like this one.

There is good news on David Fry. I went to see him today and am happy to report that he is finally in a new, and clean, cell. When he

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C234

first went into solitary, David was placed into a cell that had human feces all over it. The outrage from the public was loud and shrill. Well, it had an effect, and that was to move him to a cell in even worse condition. After a few days, however, he was finally moved to a clean cell on a different floor. He is hoping that his time in solitary will be ending soon.

David is looking good today He is very animated and excited to be experiencing this trial. He assured me that, though it is hard to go through, he would absolutely do it again. It was worth it to him to stand up for his beliefs. David, like the other defendants, is an inspiration.

David’s parents came in to Portland to support him. His father testified on his behalf, explaining to the jury how David grew up dealing with racism and bigotry due to his half-Japanese heritage. David never was very political, but he did understand what was right and wrong. I think it resonated with several of the jury members.

Michele Fiore is a force of nature. Her testimony was very good with several key points being made. Before getting involved with the protesters at Malheur, she verified with state and local officials that no laws had been broken. She knew all the right questions to ask because she is a lawmaker. She is a sitting Assemblywoman from Nevada.

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C200

This, however, was not good enough for Judge Anna Brown. Trying to make Fiore seem uninformed of the laws did not look good. Brown’s constant cries of how she is the only one that can understand the law in her courtroom are becoming rather tedious. There are some heavy hitters scheduled to testify this week. I am looking forward to the Judge trying to explain this theory to them.

Judge Brown has made no secret of her bias. There have been hundreds (yes, hundreds) of objections by the government this week, and probably 99% of them have been sustained by Judge Brown. She doesn’t, generally, ask what the basis of the objections are, or asks the defense if they have a response. She just goes with it.

She has even sustained an objection that the Prosecution never made. I have seen her look up at the prosecution, clear her throat (which seems to get their attention) and all of a sudden they remember to jump up and object. It has actually been humorous watching the circus in there.

Judge Brown has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution cannot be read or quoted in her courtroom. She does not allow the Declaration of Independence either. And, with one exception, no one has offered to affirm “So help me God.” This judge is fighting for Socialist principles, and that is why this trial is so important.

This is a political trial regardless of what the prosecution would have you believe. The mainstream media are trying hard not to cover it, with few exceptions. The left has gotten their foothold and are trying to control the narrative. You will not hear the truth from sources other than alternative media.
The over reaching government is on trial here, and the US Constitution is at stake. We cannot give up our liberties. We cannot rollover and allow our rights to be taken from us.

Read the Constitution.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=411%2C137

Quote:

---

Because it is an administrative court the constitution cannot be heard or ruled on. Administrative courts deal in civil rights. United States Citizens have 14th amendment civil rights. The people have unalienable rights.

---

Considering there are no Article III and Article IV courts, can't the Bundy's challenge the courts jurisdiction to even hear this case? How or who they could present their claim to I'm not sure since there are only 1 or 2 Article III courts left in the country?

He and Shawna Cox both have challenged the subject matter jurisdiction because the Malheur headquarters were purchased from a ranch. The jurisdiction was never ceded to the United States. But none of them have challenged the constitutional authority to take jurisdiction.

This judge denied the motions and is bulldozing onward jurisdiction or not.

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/15/exper...iction-issues/

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1673

http://annavonreitz.com/ammonbundy.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

He and Shawna Cox both have challenged the subject matter jurisdiction because the Malheur headquarters were purchased from a ranch. The jurisdiction was never ceded to the United States. But none of them have challenged the constitutional authority to take jurisdiction.

This judge denied the motions and is bulldozing onward jurisdiction or not.

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/15/exper...iction-issues/

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1673

http://annavonreitz.com/ammonbundy.pdf

---

That would be expected in an Administrative Court. In an Article III court they would have to hear it I believe. But with only 1 or 2 even existing it's not like the Bundy's have the luxury to file a claim in an Article III court.

Niel Wampler's motion in limine to allow evidence of defendant's state of mind

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...9bbbefe474ff02


https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f3&oe=58650B26


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...6f11b93424d2b4


https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...71&oe=58AA4550

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...ad&oe=589955D5


https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...0e&oe=5865B127