150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Getting interesting to say the least.

Keli Stewart with a recap of the Malheur Protest trial. 50 minute video, lost the sound the last five minutes

http://youtu.be/P0x2uZJj96w

https://youtu.be/P0x2uZJj96w

Shari Dovale, Redoubt News presents her viewpoint on the Oct. 18 closing arguments

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/18/ma...guments-begin/

Malheur Protest Trial – Closing Arguments Begin


FBI WAS INVOLVED FROM THE BEGINNING, YET MADE NO ATTEMPT AT STOPPING THE PROTEST BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL.

October 18, 2016 BLM, DOJ, FBI, Featured, government, Oregon 2

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...er-800x150.jpg

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

“It cannot be illegal to tell your government to follow the law!”

by Shari Dovale

Closing arguments began today in the Malheur Protest Trial in Portland. Ethan Knight spoke for two hours for the prosecution.
Focusing on the “Rule of Law”, Knight seemed to want to drill it in to the jurors that they cannot go outside the law. He did not mention ‘nullification‘ but he did stress that this case is about the defendants, specifically Ammon Bundy, picking and choosing which laws applied to him.

Knight repeated that this case is not about the Hammonds or about Bunkerville, but what happened in those cases formed the beliefs of the defendants.
Knight spent quite a bit of time reminding the jurors that the charge of conspiracy does not require a formal agreement, it can be inferred. The government, who must prove the case, does not have to prove that the defendants actually threatened or intimidated anyone, as that is not the crime. The crime is all about the inference of doing it.

Like the “Thought Police” in George Orwell’s 1984.

Knight also tried to convince everyone that Sheriff Ward was really trying to DE-escalate the situation by calling the FBI on the very first day.
Additionally, he made comments about Butch Eaton crying on the witness stand, however he was “free to support anyone he wants.”

Knight tried to make it seem as if the only people that testified for the defense were their personal friends. He conveniently forgot about Rodney Cooper, Sheriff Ward’s cousin or Pat Horlacher, the Burns resident that was afraid for his family until he went to the refuge himself.

Overall, Knight’s closing was not very effective and it appeared that many of the jurors were fighting sleep during his opining. He came off as lame and a whiner, after all it isn’t about actually doing anything wrong, it is about talking about doing something wrong.

Marcus Mumford was up next.

The attorney for Ammon Bundy was talking for most of the afternoon, with a few breaks thrown in the mix. He covered a lot of information, mentioning each of the defendants and various points during the day.

Mumford reminded jurors that the FBI was involved from the beginning, yet made no attempt at stopping the protest because it was not illegal. Even Steven Grasty had to admit the confirmation of this in his office on January 9^th during the meeting with the Coalition of Western States (COWS).

Mumford also reminded the jurors that there were more confidential informants at the refuge than there are defendants in this trial. One of the informants, Fabio Monoggio, took over the shooting range and firearms training, which included a video taken at the boat launch. This was conveniently done the day after he arrived. This man, who went by the name of John Killman, was only at the refuge for about 3 days, yet was able to take part in the protest, train people in hand to hand combat and firearms, and make a video the prosecution claims is proof that showed the protesters as very dangerous.

Wasn’t it lucky for the FBI that their paid informant was able to accomplish so much in such a short period of time?

During a break in his closing, the prosecution objected to a slide that Mumford wanted to show the jury. It was a quote from Justice Antonin Scalia on the Heller decision concerning gun control. Judge Anna Brown sustained that objection and would not let that quote in front of the jury.

Mumford hammered home the fact that the government promised the jury tons of evidence, but did not produce it.

He followed up with telling the jurors that it is not illegal to hold your government accountable. “It cannot be illegal to tell your government to follow the law!” Mumford said.

Overall, he came off as very effective. The closing hour was very engaging, and you could tell the jury was paying attention. He played a few videos of Ammon and LaVoy Finicum that were very powerful.

He reminded the jury of how the system is set up. That they are the heart and lungs of Liberty. “The US Constitution makes you the last stand.” he told them. “Stand alone if you must, but stand.”

Actually, I think he hit it out of the park!

Jake Morphonios with a 15 minute video on the first day's closing arguments

http://youtu.be/kKKEUeyAk2I

https://youtu.be/kKKEUeyAk2I

Everyone is reporting Marcus Mumford did an incredible job

https://www.facebook.com/scott.rohte...23341057762780

Scott Rohter

11 hrs ·
I was at the occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge today in Portland, but I won't be able to write too much about it tonight because I have to be back up in Portland tomorrow at 7 in the morning for the remainder of the closing arguments...

I will write more about what I witnessed later but for now I will just say this... The prosecutors started off in the morning and made their closing arguments...but in my opinion the day belonged entirely to Marcus Mumford and he was incredible..

He started off by saying what an honor and priveledge it was to represent a man like Ammon Bundy.. a man with uncommon courage and character and love for his country... and he finished his remarks by calling on each member of the jury to take a stand with Mr. Bundy against Federal overreach. Along the way he bolstered his arguments with excerpts from the Constitution and quotes from prestitious Americans in our Nation's history about the necessity to place limits on the Federal government. One American President said that if the people dont put limits on the Federal government "we will be ridden like horses, and fleeced like sheep....

" God Bless Marcus Mumford. - Scott Michael Rohter ( I'll write more about what happened in the courtroom in the next few days.. Thanks for reading)

Tomorrow morning Ryan Bundy will lead off at about 8:30 am.. God Bless you Ryan for your patriotism and your love of country and family. I wish more American families were like yours.




85 Likes16 Comments42 Shares

Kelli Stewart Part 2 55 minutes. Marcus Mumford brings down the house . . .

http://youtu.be/Jgt4eT119ng

https://youtu.be/Jgt4eT119ng

John Lamb with Oct. 19 AM court report

http://youtu.be/RL8QwIEQmo0

https://youtu.be/RL8QwIEQmo0

Maxine Bernstein Oregonian, Federal conspiracy case heads to jurors


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


http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...atars/4406.pngBy Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 19, 2016 at 7:24 PM, updated October 19, 2016 at 7:36 PM

Federal conspiracy case against Ammon Bundy, six co-defendants heads to jurors

Jurors in the federal conspiracy trial against Ammon Bundy and six co-defendants will begin deliberating Thursday morning after hearing five weeks of testimony, two days of closing arguments and a prosecutor's attempt to undercut the defenses of the accused in a final rebuttal.

Defense lawyers over the past two days argued that the defendants never even thought about employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, let alone made a coordinated plan to prevent them from doing their work during the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

They characterized the occupation as a peaceful, non-violent demonstration, or a "symbolic act,'' intended to garner the attention of government officials who had repeatedly ignored their "Redress of Grievance'' and other concerns about the return to prison of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, and the plight of local ranchers.

Defense lawyers for defendants David Fry and Jeff Banta further argued that since their clients didn't even know the leaders of the refuge takeover, they couldn't have entered into any agreement, or alleged conspiracy, to keep refuge employees from doing their jobs.

Several defense lawyers also attempted to raise doubts in jurors' minds by questioning what roles the six unidentified FBI informants who were at the refuge may have played.

Defense lawyer Robert Salisbury, representing defendant Jeff Banta, suggested the government chose who to charge like a "game of darts,'' pointing out that dozens of other occupiers who played significant roles during the takeover, whether they were among the first to arrive, stood armed guard or participated in military-style squads, were never arrested.

Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, standby counsel for defendant Kenneth Medenbach, said the FBI's hand-off approach, and lack of enforcement during the first several weeks of the occupation, allowing defendants to travel freely to and from the refuge, only "reinforced their belief what they did was legitimate.''

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel responded in a 45-minute rebuttal that what occurred at the federal bird sanctuary outside of Burns in Harney County was not a simple protest, and the occupiers knew exactly what they were doing.

"This was not a redress. This was retaliation and it was retribution for what refuge workers and BLM workers had done to the Hammonds,'' Gabriel told jurors. He reminded them that both Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven Hammond were convicted of setting fire to Bureau of Land Management Land, and Steven Hammond was sent to federal prison also for setting fire to land within the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
"The Hammonds were the motive for committing this crime,'' Gabriel continued. "The refuge was not a coincidence.''

Gabriel argued that the case is not about the FBI, nor is it about informants. It's about the defendants relying on heavily-armed guards posted at the refuge's front and back gates, and watchtower in order to keep federal employees out and allow them to make their "hard stand.''

The government doesn't have to prove each defendant separately intimidated or threatened any federal employees but that their actions at the refuge was "all done behind armed guards with the benefit of that intimidation.''

"This was a dangerous and armed standoff,'' Gabriel said. "You saw the defiance.''

He referred to occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum's felony traffic stop on Jan. 26, and defendant Shawna Cox's direction that Finicum "gun it,'' and speed away from state police on rural Highway 395. Finicum said they were on their way to see Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer at a community meeting in John Day. Police shot and killed Finicum after he emerged from his truck at a police roadblock and reached into his jacket at least three times, where he had a loaded 9mm handgun, police said.

Gabriel argued that it would not have been prudent for FBI agents to have descended on the refuge's front gate, and asked those standing guard to leave.

"The FBI was trying to avoid another Bunkerville,'' he said, referring to the 2014 armed standoff between protesters and federal agents outside controversial rancher Cliven Bundy's ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada. Cliven Bundy is the father of Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy, both defendants in the refuge takeover case.
How the Oregon standoff ended -- with a Japanese American man from Ohio holed up in a shelter at the edge of the refuge with a gun to his head in the midst of a mental health crisis -- was almost as improbable as the charge leveled against that man, David Fry, his lawyer argued.

"To call it a conspiracy is simply a very poor and inaccurate way of describing what went on here,'' defense lawyer Per C. Olson said as Fry sat slightly behind him to the right.

Fry didn't even know Fish & Wildlife employees ran the refuge, Olson said. Thoughts of waylaying federal workers "didn't even enter the picture'' for Fry, Olson said. For the government to suggest that "really stretches reality,'' he argued.

Fry drove from his home in Blanchester, Ohio, and arrived at the refuge in early January. It was his first protest and he believed the refuge was an abandoned federal property "way out in the middle of nowhere,'' Olson said.

Once he got there, Fry realized there were offices that likely belonged to people but he was told they were on their New Year's vacation, Olson said. Later, Fry learned that refuge staff members were told not to come to work, but he considered the occupation an "MLK-type sit-in'' and wasn't interested in any violence, the lawyer said.

Cox's defense lawyer cautioned jurors not to infer, as the government wants them to, that the occupiers' intent was to keep workers away from the refuge simply because their supervisors at the Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management told them not to report to work.

Fry's lawyer also urged jurors to carefully consider the wording of the jury instructions about what prosecutors must prove to reach a guilty verdict on the conspiracy charge.

Merely associating or helping an alleged conspirator isn't enough to prove the crime. The government must prove that a defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing its object and "specifically intending'' to further that object -- preventing workers through force, intimidation or threat from carrying out their official duties. "Specifically intending" is defined in the instructions as having "purpose or conscious desire'' to further the conspiracy's objective.

Olson argued that before police fatally shot Finicum at a roadblock on Jan. 26, Fry wasn't involved in any conspiracy and wasn't even on the federal government's radar. Fry kept to himself and helped people with their computers, but there was no evidence he supported or furthered any effort to block employees from accessing the property, Olson said.

Gabriel later countered that Fry was at the refuge for the longest periods of time, from Jan. 8 through Feb. 11, and had been seen on video rummaging through Native American artifacts in a basement office with Finicum.

On Tuesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight identified Fry as the "media IT person'' who helped get the occupation message out to the world and was pictured carrying a gun in a refuge building. He accused defendant Jeff Banta of conspiring with Fry to remain at the refuge for two more weeks after the leaders or organizers were arrested Jan. 26.

After Finicum's shooting, Fry was filled with paranoia that the FBI was going to come in and attack the remaining occupiers and he, Banta and two others packed up their belongings and took them to a west end encampment, his lawyer said.

By then, the occupation was over, Olson argued. "That's why they separated themselves from the buildings,'' he said.

Fry, in a sense, was "caught behind enemy lines,'' and he thought his worst fears had come true, that his friend Finicum had been "murdered'' in a barbaric manner, based partly on having seen a clip of singer Victoria Sharp's account of the shooting while he was still at the refuge, Olson said. Sharp had been riding in the back seat of Finicum's truck when the shooting occurred. Finicum had sped off from a police stop and reached into his jacket when he got out of his truck at the roadblock on U.S. 395. Investigators said Finicum had a loaded pistol in a jacket pocket.

At the encampment, Fry dissolved into a man of great distress, despair and isolation, his lawyer said. Suffering from a schizotypal personality disorder, the stress only ratcheted up his suspiciousness and he picked up a firearm in self-defense at that point, Olson said.

"Did Mr. Fry stake claim to the west encampment of the RV park to prevent Fish & Wildlife employees from coming back to the refuge?'' Olson asked, incredulously. "It's a question that really answers itself.''

Ultimately, an FBI agent convinced Fry to surrender, the last holdout at the refuge. He emerged after the agent assured Fry he wouldn't fall victim to a sexual assault in custody as he greatly feared, trial testimony showed.

"Mr. Fry wasn't ready to die yet. In that moment, trust prevailed,'' Olson said. "Mr. Fry has many things he needs to work on.''

But what's clear, Olson said, is that Friday didn't join a conspiracy. "He's simply not a man of intimidation and threats," the lawyer said. "That's not who he is. That's not what he did.''

When it was Ryan Bundy's turn to address the jurors, he approached the lectern, and removed his black suit jacket, stuffing it on a shelf inside the lectern. He nodded to the jurors as they entered the courtroom and spoke calmly, reading from a prepared script.

He said he and other occupiers regretted "any unintentional inconveniences we may have caused'' at the refuge.

Bundy told jurors they may not share his beliefs or background, but they do share his respect for the "legal tradition'' and the importance of having a jury of peers decide his fate.

He said the "unjust circumstances'' surrounding the return to federal prison in January of the Hammonds coupled with the chronic federal mismanagement of public lands "necessitated that someone stand up and engage in a nonviolent, direct protest.''

Until the defendants took over the refuge, no one listened to their concerns, he said.

"We were protesting because we couldn't get them to do their duty,'' Bundy said. He called it ironic that he's now accused of conspiring to prevent federal workers from carrying out their duties.

Quoting civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., Bundy reminded jurors that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' He said the government spun "a tale of offense and horror,'' but the "fair-minded men and women'' who visited the refuge during the occupation realized it was a peaceful, safe place to exchange ideas.

He tried to read and show a slide of a portion of the U.S. Constitution, but the judge stopped him.

Bundy argued that he gave no thought to whose desks he was occupying. "We didn't know whose seat we were sitting in, nor did we care,'' he said. "That may seem callous. Maybe it was.''

If anything, he said, "all of us'' regret "any unintentional inconveniences we may have caused.''

He disputed that the removal of FBI surveillance cameras from a utility pole was theft. It was done, he said, to end the improper spying on the American people and occupiers publicly offered to return the cameras to the FBI and then placed them in a wicker basket for safekeeping.

Tapping his right fist against his heart, Bundy said he was proud to stand with his fellow defendants "who felt in their heart'' that they need to stand for freedom and liberty.

"I ask you to stand with us. Stand for freedom,'' he told jurors. "I ask you to enter a verdict of not guilty for all of us, not just for me.''

A day earlier, prosecutor Knight said Ryan Bundy, occupation leader Ammon Bundy's older brother, was "virtually everywhere at critical junctures'' of the occupation. He accompanied co-defendant Kenneth Medenbach when he drilled "Closed Permanently'' signs into the door of the Hines office of the Bureau of Land Management.

Ryan Bundy operated large refuge machinery when fellow defendants helped cut a portion of the refuge fence Jan. 11 and he aided and abetted in the removal of FBI cameras from the utility Jan. 15, Knight said.
Shawna Cox's standby lawyer contended that the refuge seizure was a "symbolic act'' at a public place in a county profoundly affected by federal control of 75 percent of its land.

Shawna Cox, prosecutors argued, also was a leader. When arrested Jan. 26, she was carrying a two thumb drives that contained more than 5,000 documents stolen from the refuge, Gabriel said. Prosecutors had played an audio interview that Cox gave in March after her arrest when she said she was at the refuge gathering records on the Hammonds' case. In his closing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight also pointed to the videotape that jurors had seen of Cox's arrest Jan. 26, when she yelled to occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum to "gun it'' and speed off from state police.

Cox's lawyer, Tiffany Harris, said her client would have been charged with theft of government property if prosecutors had any evidence to support such an allegation, but they don't. She said the government's account of outsiders coming into Harney County to spread problems is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened.

"The problem was already there,'' Harris said. Ammon Bundy and his supporters just shined light on it.
She said Cox, a 60-year-old woman who comes from three generations of ranchers, was in Burns to support the Hammonds. She argued that "it doesn't seem so crazy'' or " reckless'' to believe that Cox and others felt they "could do a little more'' after marching through Burns and leaving flowers at the Hammond ranch.
Harris pointed out that many other occupiers were never charged, particularly people who lent their support from Harney County, and urged jurors to question why.

While the government labeled Cox as a leader, Harris said she was really a "volunteer'' who took notes and acted as an administrative assistant with no intent to stand in the way of federal employees at the refuge. She was never involved in any military training or squad set up at the refuge, she said.

She pointed out the property is public space and argued that the occupiers' use of the refuge buildings was a "symbolic act.''

The desk where Cox may have sat doesn't actually belong to the refuge employee, "it belongs to all of us,'' Harris said.

Harris ended by drumming in the message that Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford had presented to jurors Tuesday. She urged them not to fall for the government's "dangerous game'' of inferring that the intent of occupiers was to keep employees off the property simply because of the result, which came from their supervisors' own decisions.

"Hold the government to its burden and insist, make them prove the charge that they have,'' Harris said.
Banta didn't know any of the other occupiers when he arrived at the refuge, his lawyer said. After Finicum's death, he stayed out of fear of being killed. He questioned why the government never told the truth about "Fabulous Fabio,'' referring to the government informant that the defense unmasked, Fabio Minaggio, who arrived Jan. 23 at the refuge and oversaw the shooting range, lawyers said.

Medenbach's lawyer Matthew Schindler admitted his client vandalized refuge signs and took a U.S. Fish and Wildlife truck from the refuge into town. But he said his client always was cordial , didn't make any threats and was at the refuge in a civil disobedience stance to protest federal control of public land.

Showing a photo of the "Closed Permanently'' sign that Medenbach placed on the roadside Bureau of Land Management sign, Schindler asked, "You scared?''

Wampler's defense lawyer Lisa Maxfield said her client was the assistant cook at the refuge, and pointed out the lead cook was never arrested or charge. She said he brought no guns, and the emails he sent to Sheriff Dave Ward were mailed before the refuge was even occupied.

"Mr. Wampler is being prosecuted because he has a big mouth,'' Maxfield argued.

Gabriel responded, "He cooked for the guards. He cooked for the leadership. He was in the conspiracy.''

-- Maxine Bernstein

Kelli Stewart with a short 3 minute video on the morning Oct. 19 Malheur Protest trial

http://youtu.be/DjiTEWd1zCc

https://youtu.be/DjiTEWd1zCc

John Lamb afternoon video on Malheur Protest Trial Oct.19

http://youtu.be/tz8BF3oWXO0

https://youtu.be/tz8BF3oWXO0

Redoubt News reporter banned from federal courthouse,


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...527b23b7ebc02c


Redoubt News

2 hrs ·

Our reporter now BANNED from the Federal Courthouse in Portland, OR.

LikeComment

Chronological


Redoubt News, Rebecca D Anderson and Josh Hutch like this.

6 shares
Comments

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...1119bae3b62098

Kerin Dunham Kangaroo court!
1 · 2 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...64fac2dd27623e

Lonny Weaver They don't want the truth out
2 · 2 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb

Brenda Foley They are obviously very afraid of the Truth Being Told. Guess they have little belief in The Truth Cannot Hide.
1 · 2 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb

Brenda Foley Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
1 · 2 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb

Brenda Foley The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill
1 · 2 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...b74860e605e4fb

Brenda Foley Truth exists; only lies are invented. Georges Braque
2 · 2 hrs

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...17deedb285a57f

Mark Conrad Freedom of all the press the government deems relevant.
2 · 1 hr

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...5e4fd4109bd9f0

Connie Hopkins Brandau Send in a substitute.
3 · 1 hr

Kelli Stewart video Oct. 19 Is it time to box up the American flaf and rip up the constitution.
Todd Macfarlane has not written anything at this time.

http://youtu.be/wKZzIs5F09w

https://youtu.be/wKZzIs5F09w

There's a pretty good article at the occidental observer on the constitution that is along the lines of Kelli Stewarts video above. The point is made that the constitution won't save us and it's a pretty good read.

Link here http://www.occidentaldissent.com/201...-will-save-us/

Jake Morphonios Video

http://youtu.be/U8jpGnvVRLY

https://youtu.be/U8jpGnvVRLY

https://scontent.fgig1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...89&oe=58645B8F

https://scontent.fgig1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...c3&oe=589CA9BD

Shari Dovale, Redoubt News Oct. 19 Malheur Protest trial

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/20/ma...t-prosecution/

Malheur 7 – The Petulant Prosecution


THE JURY WAS GIVEN THE CASE AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND THEY WILL BE IN THURSDAY MORNING TO BEGIN THEIR WORK.

October 20, 2016 BLM, DHS, DOJ, Featured, government, Oregon

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...er-800x150.jpg

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=678%2C249

Malheur 7 – The Petulant Prosecution

by Shari Dovale

Wednesday began the remaining closing arguments from the defendants and their attorneys in the Malheur Protest Trial in Portland.
The prosecution acted like spoiled, petulant children with continuing objections through out. During Ryan Bundy’s quiet, yet powerful speech, the prosecution must have felt the jury responding because they had to break the flow and get the attention back on them.

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...an-300x236.jpe

First, Ryan told everyone he was not allowed to show a slide of the Constitution. That brought on the first objection. I’m not real sure what the grounds were other than him ratting out their tantrum to the jury.

He then attempted to quote a portion of Articles 4 & 6, but that brought another objection. Judge Anna Brown sustained the objection and reminded Ryan that he cannot read from the Constitution. She has repeatedly given orders that no one is allowed to ‘interpret’ law in her courtroom, and reading from the Constitution violates that directive.

It has been explained to me that closing arguments are typically the opportunity for each side to make their case. They are allowed to argue their theory of the case, even though the other side does not agree. I am told that it is almost unheard of to object during these arguments.

The defense did not object when the prosecution told untruths, they just rebutted when it came time for their turn. The prosecution, however, cannot contain themselves if it seems their case is swirling around the drain.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=292%2C300
Shawna Cox

Tiffany Harris spoke for Shawna Cox next and gave an excellent presentation. She was very eloquent and presented several very important points.
She talked about the government picking winners and losers, and how this could be why they did not charge any Harney County residents in this case. It does not fit their narrative of ‘outsiders’ coming in to take over the county.

The government does not want you to know that Harney County used to be one of the most prosperous counties, yet now is one of the poorest. They don’t want anyone reminded that this economic disaster happened while the Federal government had control of about 75% of the county.

“Hold the government to it’s burden,” Harris said. They need to prove the charge they have or pick a charge they CAN prove.

The prosecution seemed to really be gunning for Harris with the numerous objections, but, she held her own quite well.

Per Olson represented David Fry very well in the closing arguments. Telling of the events on January 26^th, he described David as being in great distress because what he feared most had happened. LaVoy Finicum had been murdered by the FBI, so he heard.

Olson explained that the government had not really challenged their theory. All they had really done is a bunch of mudslinging to sully the defendants.
Robert Salsbury, defending Jeff Banta, asked “How can you have a criminal partnership or agreement with someone

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=274%2C300

you never met? You can’t!” Explaining that Banta had only arrived at the Refuge on January 25, 2016, the night before LaVoy Finicum was shot by law enforcement, Banta had not had the opportunity to even meet most of the protesters, let alone form an agreement to commit a crime.

Banta, who had never taken part in a protest in his life, was only there to meet, and hopefully help, the Hammond family.

Salsbury, who described a confidential informant as the “Fabulous Fabio” went on to say that the government was not here to find the truth. The government thinks they can prove the case just by saying so, not by actual evidence.

The government, and Judge Anna Brown, had an opportunity to yell at two defense attorneys in one objection. The prosecution first objected to Salsbury’s commentary, but when Per Olson jumped up to defend the attorney, Judge Brown yelled for him to “Sit Down!” That particular objection was unusual in another way as it ended up being actually overruled.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=249%2C300
Kenneth Medenbach
Mathew Schindler gave an outstanding argument on behalf of Kenneth Medenbach. Medenbach was not in the courtroom this week due to medical treatments he is undergoing. He is sure to hear of the terrific job that Schindler did in front of the jury.

Explaining that farming and ranching is difficult enough already, but the government doesn’t care. This, naturally, received another objection. Always the most polite, Schindler just said, “Thank You” and moved on.

Schindler explains that the essence of the Rule of Law is enforcement. But, the FBI did not do anything to stop the protest. When the protesters were in town, the LEO’s would wave at them, or talk to them. The FBI went to church to worship with a leader of the protest and allowed him to walk away.
Is it any wonder that everyone believes it was a legitimate protest? The FBI had more than enough opportunities to make things very uncomfortable for the group, including turning off their power supply, or their cell phone service. Even deliveries were regularly made to the refuge during the month of January.

When Representative Greg Walden addressed the US House on January 5, 2016, this seemed to confirm for Kenneth Medenbach that this was a lawful protest. He started crying, believing that after 21 years of civil disobedience on the Federal land issues, someone was finally listening.

Talking of the “Closed” sign that Medenbach placed on the door of their local BLM office, Schindler said, “Only the Federal Government can make a Federal case out of a sign that says CLOSED.”

“Look around,” Schindler said, pointing out the defendants. “Is that an army that’s going to scare the government?”

Lisa Maxfield described Neil Wampler as “an Old Hippy” during her closing argument.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=221%2C300
Neil Wampler

She spoke of his 2 emails to Sheriff David Ward and reminded everyone that Ward never even turned those over to the FBI until after he heard Wampler had been arrested. Ward didn’t care about the emails, as he saw them as “clutter.”

Maxfield made some excellent points, including reminding the jury that the instructions only mention 2 specific agencies. The US Fish and Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management are the only agencies mentioned as being “impeded”. Not the FBI and not Sheriff Ward.

Maxfield does admit that her client has a big mouth, but “If you are not going to offend someone, you don’t need the First Amendment.”

Craig Gabriel did not let any opportunity to disrupt the defense get past him. Ethan Knight was originally scheduled to give the final rebuttal, however, Gabriel must have really had his shorts in a twist because he jumped up to respond himself.

Beginning by reminding the jury just how dangerous this situation really was at the Refuge, after all they had a history from Bunkerville.

At one point, Ryan tried to object to the obvious misstatements by Gabriel, but Judge Brown shut him down by saying that he was allowed because this is “argument.” (Funny how that was good for the prosecution but not the defense.)

Gabriel did state during this argument that a Redress of Grievance is not a legal document. This was his implication as to why the defendants did not receive any responses from their elected officials. I do not think he has read the First Amendment.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C183

But Gabriel pushed on, trying to get as much reaction from the gallery as he was from the defense. At one point he calmly stated that the events on January 26^th, in which LaVoy Finicum was murdered by Law Enforcement, was just a regular, basic traffic stop. So I guess every ‘regular’ traffic stop

has overhead video, roadblocks, marksmen in the http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C205

trees and 3 or 4 (who knows how many) times the number of LEOs needed.

Jury sent home for the day, will begin deliberations again Monday morning.

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...b7&oe=589FEB1C

Todd Macfarlane Week 6 Recap, predicting a hung jury

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

WEEK 6 RECAP, following Closing Arguments, as the case has been handed over to the jury, including my prediction that the trial will end in a Hung Jury.


http://youtu.be/LL_1rf8nKSs


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, John Lamb on Facebook, 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

A little more from Todd Macrarlane with Trent Loos

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

Once again, discussed by Trent Loos and Todd Macfarlane on Rural Route Radio (although the first part of the program is off on another tangent).

For yet another perspective on where things stand at this point in the trial, following closing arguments, we also invite you to check-out what Kelli Stewart had to say. Her FacebookLive summary on 10/19/2016 at 9:29 pm is especially interesting.http://youtu.be/wKZzIs5F09w

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, John Lamb on Facebook, Kelli Stewart on Facebook, Gary Hunt at Outpost for Freedom and Redoubt News.

At RANGEFIRE! we believe in the the value of multiple perspectives. 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

April Kiessling, Redoubt News. Anna J. Brown's War on the Constitution.


http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/22/ju...-constitution/

Judge Anna J. Brown’s War on the Constitution


BROWN’S DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR IN HER LITTLE FEDERAL FIEFDOM ARE GROWING AS THIS CASE WAXES ON.

October 22, 2016 Constitution, DHS, DOJ, Oregon

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

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=478%2C361

Judge Anna J. Brown’s War on the Constitution

By: April Kiessling

Defendants in Oregon’s Malheur Refuge Occupation case have been imprisoned and charged with a multitude of high crimes and misdemeanors by federal and state agents. As the wheels of justice slowly grind, they find their most formidable foe may not be the FBI, embedded informants or a biased press – but their judge.

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=199%2C300

Anna J. Brown is a US District judge in the state of Oregon, appointed by Bill Clinton. She was sent to supervise the mass trial of virtually all the Malheur Refuge Occupation defendants (originally 26). Seven are currently being tried as a group. It quickly became clear why she was chosen, as well as given a great deal of latitude and scope of power. Brown appears to been exhibiting an extreme bias against the defendants and an almost slobbering largess toward the prosecution. So open is her bias, that virtually every observer is aware of it by now.

Possibly the most egregious of Brown’s many instances of injustice is her micromanagement and hostility during defense testimony. She is continuously speaking, leading, countering, cutting, and blocking the defense. One observer told me she had counted 89 objections from the prosecution (interrupting Ammon Bundy’s testimony) in only one morning session. “Brown sustained [allowed] all of them but eight” she marveled. Conversely, defense attorneys rarely objected. When they did, they were generally ignored, while the prosecution continued merrily along.

Constitution Taboo

The US Constitution is taboo in Judge Anna J. Brown’s courtroom. Even sidewalks surrounding the federal building where people are threatened with arrest for passing out copies. It seems to cause hysterical reactions. The jurist flat-out blocked any portion of the Constitution to be read or recited on several occasions, which brought audible gasps of disbelief from the gallery. Even reference to the Constitution, as well mentioning specific Oregon laws (which defendants are charged with breaking), is discouraged.

Brown orders them to consider all references to the document solely as a matter of the “state of mind” of the defendants, as if it inspired criminal acts. Inference that the defendants share mental problems stemming from belief in the powers of the Constitution, comes across loud and clear. Since many of the defendants base their actions and motivations on the Constitution, their defense is effectively knocked out at first base.

http://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C168
Clockwise, from left: Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Jeff Wayne Banta, Neil Wampler, David Lee Fry, Kenneth Mendenbach.

Seven defendants currently being tried in Brown’s courtroom.But Brown doesn’t stop her censorship with only the Constitution. Malheur defendants are denied everything from witnesses to time. The lengthy prosecution case against them went on without a hitch and no complaints from Anna J. Brown. Now the judge is in a rush, reminding Ammon Bundy’s lawyers Marcus Mumford and J. Morgan Philpot, of all the time their client wastes while they attempt to put up a defense. Bundy has been charged with numerous crimes and would be expected to address them all.

Some witnesses for the defense fared better than others. The Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) took the stand to testify for the defendants on September 29, 2016. He wasn’t interrupted or threatened, undoubtedly due to his celebrity status. Graham praised the non-violent nature of the last remaining four occupiers at the Refuge and convinced them to leave. The evangelist also described defendants’ terror and his personal fears for their safety at the hands of the government.

Un- Constitutional Political Manuvering

Political machinations were evident early on. On July 15, 2016, months before the actual trial, Brown ruled that Ammon Bundy and the others were not allowed to discuss any number of things that occurred, before, after, or during the occupation. Specifically, they denied pretrial evidence of FBI agents who had [falsely] claimed to be militia with the occupation. Caught in the act of ratcheting up conflict and fear in Burns, Oregon, the FBI was instrumental and possibly took the lead in killing spokesman LaVoy Finicum. It is reported that the DOJ is currently investigating this. The apparent murder of LaVoy Finicum at what is euphemistically labeled a “traffic stop” is the other forbidden subject in Brown’s court. His name alone sends prosecutors into reactionary objections. On September, 23, 2016, Brown threatened Mumford with $1000 fines and “contempt of court” citations for each mention of LaVoy, including testimony on the government informant driving Ammon Bundy’s car during the fatal ambush.

LaVoy, An ‘Off Limits’ Subject

Brown insists LaVoy’s death is not “related to the refuge occupation” although his actions there are clearly the reason he is dead. Also, FBI malfeasance is a reasonable defense for several defendants, who claim they remained at Malheur for fear of being gunned down. As occupation spokesman, LaVoy was present in several scenarios of which defendants are required to testify, but are hamstrung by inability to refer to him by name. Brown’s arbitrary restrictions are especially onerous, since prosecution made it clear that “intention” of occupiers is central to whether they are considered to have committed crimes.

Since then, Brown routinely changes rules and instructions to the jury, mid-stream. Mumford challenged her jury instructions to disregard his objections over tagging defendants “terrorists.” This was in discussion over the imprisoned Oregon ranch family, the Hammonds, who are being charged under the “Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.” Early on, the Malheur group were labeled “militia” or “terrorists” in legal communications and by much of the press. None of this has been substantiated. Some Malheur occupiers/visitors were unarmed and others are even members of religions believing in pacifism. Defendants are “using the term [terrorist] improperly,” Brown instructed, as she is apparently an authority on linguistics.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C170
Atty.s J. Morgan Philpot & Marcus Mumford represent Ammon Bundy.

Questioning the Bench a Threat?

At this point Mumford charged the court with “taking sides” and accused Brown with not allowing him to present evidence. Perhaps running out of rationalizations, Brown claimed to then be “threatened” by Mumford, as she apparently interprets questions over legal matters as menacing.
Government is allowed to enter all exhibits, data, video or witnesses, from any place, any source or time. Defendants are given no such latitude. Brown denied them discussing the killing of their spokesman LaVoy, because it didn’t happen on Refuge grounds, but a few miles down the road. Attorney Mumford risks the rage of Brown as he obliquely slips his points into questions, such as how close police were when they “shot Finicum three times in the back” on January, 26, 2016.

Restrictions on defense access to prosecution evidence in discovery and later was so extreme that Ammon Bundy’s original lawyer, Mike Arnold, resorted to crowd sourcing and social media appeals to gain the evidence refused him in court. This only led to censoring by the Oregon State Bar and his resignation from the case.

Presenting defendants as rational actors is paramount to defense because occupiers and supporters are portrayed as terrorists and right-wing zealots. But they have friends in high places. Donald Trump wrote a scathing opinion piece in the Reno Gazette Journal during the occupation in January, 26, 2016. “How is it that we have a president. . .who encourages faceless, nameless bureaucrats to manage public lands as if the millions of acres were owned by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy?” Trump asked. He also noted the “draconian rule of the BLM” in damaging local economies. All are subjects defendants are not allowed to bring up for various pretexts.

Defense was not allowed to play several videos. One was of Senator Harry Reid calling the original ranch protesters in Nevada “domestic terrorists” in 2014. Reid’s insult seems to have inspired the FBI and Homeland Security to become heavily involved in ranch and farm land disputes. They’ve also borrowed his terminology. Current Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Neil Kornze was previously a Reid aide. He was appointed almost to the day that the original “Bunkerville” land dispute began in Nevada in April, 2014. Only a coincidence. Another banned video, backed defendant Jeff Banta’s declared purpose for his visit to the Refuge. The video was made in 2012 of BLM initiated fires in French Glen, Oregon (BLM is one of chief plaintiffs.) The BLM fires raged out of control, consuming farms, livestock and a home. For making controlled burns, ranchers are currently imprisoned with serious charges. This BLM policy and government prosecution since 1989 was one of the major motivations for the Malheur occupiers. Ironically BLM is lodging suits against the ranchers in civil court as well and have first claim privileges against their ranches. BLM signs are up on Bundy land at this time. The Hammonds previously sued and won cases against the BLM, and there is bad blood between the agency and many ranchers and farmers in Western states.

According to several defendants, their central purpose was to force court battles over the government’s procurement and property rights of the Malheur Refuge and other federal properties. Proximate cause of the occupation was the re-imprisonment of the Hammonds: Dwight (74) and son Steven (46). This came after they served time, had already released and for the same crime. Judge Brown barred defense lawyers from bringing up any questions over “who owns the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” even as she instructed the jury seek to understand the “state of mind” and motivation of the seven current defendants.

Defense objected to the presence of FBI agent Ronnie Walker in the courtroom as an observer, although he was on the prosecution witness list. When this was brought up to Brown, she failed to remove him, although no other witnesses are allowed to watch court proceedings. This is a general rule from official US Department of Justice materials, but apparently not required in Judge Brown’s court.

Michele Fiore for the Defense

http://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-...size=300%2C228
Michele Fiore, a defense witness for Malheur Refuge occupiers, is also a Nevada Assemblywoman

Michele Fiore, a defense witness and Nevada Assemblywoman, refused to be intimidated by Brown on October 6, 2016. Fiore visited the Refuge in January, 2016, as a representative of the Coalition of Western States (C.O.W.S.). Fiore claimed that she determined “through Oregon officials” that “no laws were being broken” at the Refuge. Brown berated Fiore, ordering her to “stop making statements before the jurors and interpreting law.” Although Fiore is a lawmaker and Brown is not, Fiore’s statements are only “her opinion” Brown insisted. The Assemblywoman made a dramatic turn when she defied Judge Brown and passionately spoke of the “murder of LaVoy Finicum."

The farcical nature is almost comical, if not for the high stakes. A federal court is making a case their agencies may confiscate private land, deny speech and assembly, challenge gun rights, control local police, supplant state and county laws and terrorize people while imputing it to targeted groups. It’s a big deal with surprising little publicity, although it is picking up steam. Early on, there were surprisingly few observers at the trial and this is no accident either.

A remarkable small chamber was used for this titanic trial. Defendants are allowed only two seats each for family or supporters. The public gallery is tiny, requiring observers and media to queue up an hour or so in advance for a chance at a seat. A larger public overflow area is available via video, but even that is threatened with closure at times and it is apparent the state resents public observation.

In one of Judge Brown’s more monomaniacal declarations, the gallery folk forgot themselves and snickered after a sarcastic remark by Ammon Bundy. An agent ordered silence, warning the possible loss of viewing privileges. Brown declared her ire over such offenses as “page turning”, throat clearing or clicking pens. Yet Brown jokes around on the stand and not only allows the courtroom a chuckle, but appears to enjoy it.

Brown’s delusions of grandeur in her little Federal fiefdom are growing as this case waxes on. Sometimes she forgets there are witnesses and appears to be losing control. On Oct 4th, while defense questioned Chris Briels, Brown suddenly exclaimed “sustained.” But there had been no objections. Rather than recuse herself or allow a mistrial, Brown rationalized her erratic behaviour and continued her dogged work for the prosecution. “I’m not going to let the witness speculate” she insisted as an excuse. The sheer autocratic attitude of the woman and her aversion to civil rights is spectacular. Brown appears a perfect face of the contempt some of these Federal agencies have for the people they are prosecuting.

Ammon Bundy’s attorneys are seeking a postponement until there is a ruling on appeals over Brown’s inconsistencies, and asserted mistreatment of their client in jail. They claim Bundy is malnourished and not being allowed access to materials to prepare for his defense, such as the internet. Their requests have been disregarded, which are becoming a theme in this courtroom. The Judge Anna J. Brown show goes on.

SOURCES:
US District Court, Portland, OR. / Interviews with other observers and witnesses

Redoubt News http://redoubtnews.com/2016/10/07/br...t/#comment-996

Reno Gazette-Journal http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voi...-law/78422530/

Scribd https://www.scribd.com/document/3034...on-Bundy-et-al

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 51
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  51
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
• Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Malheur Protest Trial - Week 2 - THURSDAY *Updated*September 12, 2016In "BLM"

Malheur 7 – The Defense RestsOctober 17, 2016In "BLM"

Judge Anna Brown vs the ConstitutionOctober 9, 2016In "BLM"

The statute that governs the US District Courts of USC Title 28 June 28, 1948 the same year these courts were created. Read the definition of Vessel of the United States.

This statute determines the jurisdiction of Anna J. Brown's court. Regardless of the cloud on the title of Malheur Reserve the Congress and the Constitution have not given her jurisdiction over "public land", only over land reserved or acquired for the use of the United States
http://uscode.house.gov/images/stat/62/685.png

So The Feds don't have jurisdiction over the land, but do have jurisdiction over their people. Just shows the merit of staking your claim to your State. Notice claim your State, but not State citizen, instead State National.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

So The Feds don't have jurisdiction over the land, but do have jurisdiction over their people. Just shows the merit of staking your claim to your State. Notice claim your State, but not State citizen, instead State National.

---

The way I interpret it is straight from the 14th amendment. Indeed, State National.

Scott Rohter, Less Gov is the Best Gov

The Independent Voice for Conservative Values!
Less Gov is the Best Gov, Because Less Government
is the Best Government!
© Scott Rohter - All rights reserved



Misportrayed – The Most Mischaracterized Trial and the Most Misunderstood Defendants in Oregon History… Ammon and Ryan Bundy

Posted by Scott Rohter on Saturday, October 22, 2016

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...e-Refuge-2.jpg

The trial of Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five other defendants who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January of 2016 is notable both for what is being discussed in the courtroom and for what is not being discussed in the courtroom. What isn’t being discussed or barely being discussed in the courtroom forms the underlying basis for all of the defendant’s actions and the alleged crimes which they are accused of committing…

Read More »

Categories: International, National, Oregon Tags: Ammon Bundy, Dwight Hammond, Judge Anna Brown, Kenneth Medenbach, Lavoy Finicum, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Marcus Mumford, Matthew Schindler, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Stephen Hammond

^ That was a good article. Adverse possession is something that I think a lot of people are unaware of. It's something I've been aware of most of my life. I've been involved in disputes over adverse possession of land and water rights and so have family members before me. When you have water and land rights you have to defend them. I don't recall anyone getting shot over them but they have ended up in court to get them settled.

I grew up knowing about adverse possesion, land patents, water rights, and grazing rights too. I think most of us who come from farming /ranching families learned that as a matter of survival. I currently have an adverse possession case in the court system.

One thing that stands out to me in this article is the chart showing the last 12 states admitted to the union were all after 1850, right after the "Gold Rush". The jew bankers put pressure on Congress to withold the public land from these states because of their mineral and timber recources.

30 page jury instructions on Outpost of Freedom website

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/do...structions.pdf

The government and the judge in this case want to make an example of these guys. It takes some courage to disregard some of a judges instructions and do what's right with jury nullification. I hope the jurors can see what the judge and government are up to and will have the courage to go against them. It's really obvious why the government doesn't want jurors to know anything about nullification. The jurors are the judges of the law and what's right or wrong and they have the power to do the right thing no matter what a judge says.

If they do come back with a not guilty verdict it'll piss the judge and states attorney off. When a jury uses nullification and comes back into the court room with a not guilty verdict you look those sob's in the eye because you're telling them to go to hell, they know it and that really pisses them off and there's nothing they can do about it. I've been there and done that. ;D

The persecution of the Bundy good guys. . . . .

LewRockwell.comanti-state•anti-war•pro-market

• ARCHIVES
• AUTHORS
• BLOG
• BOOKS & RESOURCES
• POLITICAL THEATRE
• PODCASTS
• STORE
• ABOUT
• CONTACT
• DONATE
• ADVERTISE

Bundy Prosecutors Admit That Undercover Informants Outnumbered Defendants In Recent Trial

By Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.
October 24, 2016

https://www.lewrockwell.com//wp-cont...cons/email.png https://www.lewrockwell.com//wp-cont...cons/print.png






For the past six weeks Oregonians have been treated to a political trial of the “Malheur 7” (Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Jeff Banta, David Fry, Neal Wampler and Ken Medenbach,). I was privileged to have a ringside seat at the trial as a volunteer researcher and paralegal for Ryan Bundy (who represents himself) at the trial.

As I write these words, the jury is out, considering whether the defendants conspired to prevent U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or Bureau of Land Management officers from performing their duties at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural eastern Oregon. The Bundy brothers and other defendants are alleged to have participated in an “armed standoff” occupation of the Refuge during January 2016 (while protesting the unconstitutional occupation by the federal government itself over the Refuge and other public lands).

The trial has revealed an astounding brave new world of modern surveillance and surreptitious “law enforcement” techniques. Drones flew over and recorded much of what went on. FBI agents captured and monitored every phone number connected between every participant. A search warrant after the fact gave the government permission to surf through 36 Laptops, smartphones, flash drives and other devices to build the government’s case. The FBI turned the analysis of Facebook likes, dislikes, messages, and posts into a science, with multiple agents assigned to that social media alone.

Outside the Refuge, FBI, Oregon State Police, and other law enforcement agencies swarmed over the countryside. Government snipers appeared on local rooftops. Barricades and barbed wire were erected to protect the school and courthouse from the alleged militia danger. Undercover FBI agents dressed as redneck militia members roamed through local stores and menaced the streets.

Myths, Misunderstandings and Outright lies about owning Gold. Are you at risk?
Money was spent at such an extravagant pace that one professional auditor told me that the dollar amounts should have themselves triggered a separate criminal investigation. The Feds have publicly claimed that the 41-day occupation caused at least “$6.9 million” in damages. At trial, prosecutors objected, however, to every request to examine such claims. “Irrelevant!” said the prosecution. (In the event that any defendants are convicted, the Justice Department will surely assert such dollar claims in a demand for ‘restitution.’)

And there were undercover government informants. Everywhere. Suspicions that the government’s narrative was largely erected with undercover agents were borne out during the first week of trial. It was revealed by an Oregon State trooper that one of Ammon Bundy’s “bodyguards”—a man who drove him to his arrest—was an undercover informant.

Another informant (“Mama Bear”) was revealed when a defense lawyer subpoenaed her for the defense. The woman admitted that her entire trip to the Malheur Refuge was funded by the San Diego FBI office and that she was paid thousands of dollars to inform on the occupiers while helping out in the kitchen.

Each of these informants were revealed by accident. Federal prosecutors vociferously refused to provide the names of other informants—citing case law that holds such revelations may put informants in danger. Prosecutors even used secret information—not provided to the defense—to cross-examine “Mama Bear,” to the prejudice of the defendants.

For days, Marcus Mumford (attorney for Ammon Bundy) demanded more information about the extent of undercover informants. Mumford pointed to the fact that the defendants were charged with conspiracy, and no one can be convicted of conspiring with undercover government agents. (The trial was filled with unanswered questions about who brought and left ammunition and guns, who damaged property, and why some people but not others were charged.)

Finally the Justice Department stipulated (without naming any names) that at least nine occupiers were undercover informants; a number greater than the number of defendants on trial. (Heavily redacted documents in the hands of the defense suggest the number of informants was actually at least 15.)

Significantly, the prosecution’s most damning evidence collapsed at the end of the trial when it was revealed that the man who ran a militia shooting range at the Malheur Refuge was himself an undercover agent. Through the hard work of defense lawyers, “John Killman” was identified as a paid (“reimbursed,” he said) informant who traveled to the occupation at the behest of the government in a beat-up pickup truck to lead the occupiers in combat “safety” training. “Killman” had even trained defendant Jeff Banta to stop cars and pull out their drivers at gunpoint.

Stay tuned!

The Best of Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.

https://www.lewrockwell.com//wp-cont...cons/email.png https://www.lewrockwell.com//wp-cont...cons/print.pnghttps://www.lewrockwell.com/wp-conte...s/facebook.pnghttps://www.lewrockwell.com/wp-conte...ns/twitter.png

https://www.lewrockwell.com/wp-conte...ave_120_16.png

Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D. [send him mail] is attorney, sociologist, and a member of the advisory board of the Fully Informed Jury Association. He is author of The Conviction Factory: The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts.

Shawna Cox has filed an affidavit in support of motion to disqualify Judge Anna Brown
filed 24 Oct..

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...17b0e8f2c57eaf


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...727b876958b464


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...a016f5fbfb9af6

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...39d31550b2dcaa

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...68&oe=589852FA


https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...c9&oe=58A16241


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...5d558b27951b97

This video was put together from a series of photographs 8 months ago, A tribute to Lavoy Finicum and the Malheur Protest

http://youtu.be/lVhpD6Q2IrM

https://youtu.be/lVhpD6Q2IrM

This is a compilation of pictures from various people. This is the first time I have ever put something like this together, I do apologize if it runs too fas...
YOUTUBE.COM

Double Standard? Shawna Cox copied government documents to investigate unconstitutional acquisition of land at Malhuer Reserve, Hillary destroyed 30,000 emails to hide her influnce peddling. . . . . .

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...-standard.html

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...9/rss-icon.jpg http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...logo-small.jpg

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

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...ebook-icon.jpghttp://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...ibus-icon2.png

Double Standard

Posted by Scott Rohter on Monday, October 24, 2016

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...ns-of-2014.jpg

Double Standard

By Scott Michael Rohter, October 2016

“Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.” – US Code 18 Part 1 Chapter 101 Section 2071



http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...Shawna_Cox.png
Shawna Cox

As a private citizen, Shawna Cox copied government documents and stored them on a thumb drive in order to investigate the government’s unconstitutional land transfers that created the Malheur National. Wildlife Refuge. She was charged with stealing government documents and prosecuted as part of a conspiracy…



http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...te-300x225.jpg
Hillary “Rotten” Clinton

In her official capacity as Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton stored over 30,000 government emails on her own private server. Then she deleted them all in a deliberate attempt to conceal the evidence of her influence peddling when she was Secretary of State. The FBI didn’t even bother to charge her with a crime…Hillary Clinton may be above the law but she is not above your vote and your condemnation. Send Hillary Rotten Clinton and the entire Democratic Party a strong, clear message, Vote for Donald Trump…. Truth, justice, and the American election depends on it.

Be Sociable, Share!

• http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/.../32/vuible.png
• http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...mages/more.png

• 
  Share

• http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...ges/vuible.png

Unfortunately she will move out of the US to avoid prosecution, but sometimes it does suck when in hiding.

This facebook poster is responding to an article written by Cheri Roberts who I was told by a reliable source is a paid gov't. troll and possibly has a criminal record, https://challengingtherhetoric.wordp...y-deliberates/. I didn't read it because I don't like the way she twists the facts. Some say she is attempting to exhonerate Mark McConnell

Quote:

---

Bill Goode It seems this author is attempting to exonerate McConnell. It was McConnell that organized the trip to John Day. He was urging people to get into the vehicles and get going. He was in some sort of hurry to get the convoy on the road. Perhaps he did...See More

---

This lady tells it like is:

Judy Lee
Giving 3 hours more thought to this article I cannot go without pointing out this for comment, "One informant stands accused, by Bundy supporters, as being responsible for Finicum’s death." I have not heard this from any supporter and I do think I have been around enough. What bothers me about this writer's 'observation' is that it points away from the actual perpetrator in Lavoy's murder. And my objection falls in line also with my obejction to one of the Bundy women posting an FBI 'feel good' article about the FBI's recent arrest of 82 alleged sex traffickers.

Here is the problem I have with this writer's observation that coincides with what I think of a Bundy posting some 'feel good' about the FbI, and it is as follows.

The ones who chose the informants (what I will also call the instigators) was the FBI. We have seen before in other situations, like that of Schaeffer Cox's, where the FBI has surrounded a target (for no HONEST reason) with informanats and provocateurs who have entrapped people.

This is undeniable. And what makes matters worse is that the FBI not only does this but the courts and law enforcement (and very obviously media) has its backs.

Furthermore anyone who objects is labeled anti government, gun huggers, terrorists, zealots, and even worse...MILITIA! I am none of those things. I am tired of the soft shoe attitude and the pussy footing around, and especially I am tired of the desires of cowards to paint the government as nice guys, just victims of their subordinates (contractors, hired instigators, paid provocateaurs, etc) when the FBI is far from being the victim.

All of my life I have watched the government operate, and I have always believed what it says. I have thought if I am a good little citizen then I will never befall what came down on the student protestors at Kent State, Ohio, or what befell Randy Weaver's wife and young son, or what happened years ago in Waco, Texas, or what was done to Schaeffer Cox, and now about what has been done to LaVoy Finicum.

And the idea of this article suggesting anyone is responsible for the incarcerations and the deaths of many of the people referenced herein is someone other than the FBI employees is absurd and it is pandering to a very violent FBI that is rife with corruption and arrogance (not unlike many other government corporate entiries including the I.R.S. and the D.O.J, too, I don't care who does not like what I am saying, because what I am saying is true.

Schaefer Cox is in the Federal Penitentiary, and the FBI (taking care of what D.C. referred to as the Schaeffer Cox problem - because he had taken 35% of the Alaskan vote for cleaning up government corruption) wanted to have him dead instead (ask me about Bill Fulton) because of what D.C. called Schaeffer's having committed a thought crime.

What is a thought crime? It is when the FBI thinks something that scares them or someone else in the government, so they think of a reason to make their own thoughts happen, which ends up involving a targeted person for them to frame and harm. I don't care if the FBI likes me or not for saying it. either. I've been insdie the Beast to see how it operates, and what it thinks. Better us then them, right? Take one for the team, right? And I am very aware if the FBI doesn't like someone they will kill us, just like they killed LaVoy Finicum.

There is NOBODY to blame for LaVoy's death but the murdering FBI, and I am sick and tired of everyone pussy footing around and feeling sympathy for the FBI employees who dream up their crap against Americans then set out to trap and to kill us because its just their jobs. And I am sick and tired of the (in)justice system that suports their crimes. And now that we are learning who has set up the FBI and who fills its rank and file, and more than ever it past time for the natural born Americans to put the FBI (and other government corporate agencies) under the magnifying glass for getting pink slips with a note on them they may be called back to stand trial before the Grand Jury for treason.

It is a pity anyone with guts ends up dead or in prison. But, then, that's just those nice guys at the FBI doing their jobs to keep all of us safe right? HA! Safe. Not hardly. God help us. If I am killed, start first looking first at the FBI, because killing those of us who object IS what they do best. And this is why everyone uses supportive adjectives and helps the FBI to deflect from the sheep the truth. Just ask their Special Unit out of Atlanta, Georgia who shot those two first blanks to get the action going on the road to John Day?. :/ So how many do the FBI get to kill while everyone keeps turning away from the truth? And ask yourselves when it is your friends and/or family what you could have said or done to stop them. Stand up free people. Stand up!

https://www.facebook.com/WithChastit...17269758596030

Jury has questions for the Judge. One juror announces at begininng of deliberarions that he has extreme bias.

http://youtu.be/U3lOdXLlDkQ

https://youtu.be/U3lOdXLlDkQ

Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom "the law as I give it to you"



« Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – I – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute


Burns Chronicles No 35 – From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”

October 25, 2016, 6:50 am
Burns Chronicles N^o 35
From the Law Giver: “the law as I give it to you!”

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...10/Jury-05.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 25, 2016

Having obtained a copy of the Jury Instructions, as given to the jury in the U. S. v. Ammon Bundy, et al, by Judge Anna Brown. I had sought them, as I was curious as to whether the instructions, at least, conform to the laws. In Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute, an example of what is referred to as “Pattern Jury Instructions”, and how the wording of the instructions is contrary to the wording of the Statute. So, let’s delve into Anna Brown’s mental state and cognitive abilities in advising the jury on the “letter of the law”. (A PDF format of the Jury Instructions. References will be to {page} number.)

What is the Law?
Regarding the obligation of the jury, with regard to their deliberations, on {4}, she says:“Upon your return to the jury room, it is your duty to weigh and to evaluate all of the evidence calmly and dispassionately and, in that process, to decide what the facts are. To the facts as you find them, you must apply the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with the law or not, which is just as you promised to do in the Oath that you took at the beginning of the case.”

John Peter Zenger was tried in a New York court, in 1735. He had violated the written law on sedition by an article he had printed. Though in violation of the working of the law, the jury acquitted him, and in so doing, vacated the law.

Later, when the Constitution was written, the jury’s action in that trial provided an understanding that the People were the final arbiters of the laws enacted by Congress, as the colonists did with regard to Crown written laws.

Now, I do not intend to discuss FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), though I would suggest that you would find them a source for what was intended to be the role of a jury in our justice system. I am going to provide an historical context as to what “jury” meant in the age of the Founders, and what one State did to assure that the original intent would be adhered to.

Maryland ratified their Constitution on November 11, 1776. From that Documents Declaration of Rights, we find:III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstancesXVII. That every freeman, for any injury done him in his person or property, ought to have remedy, by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.XIX. That, in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the indictment or charge in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; to be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses, for and against him, on oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.

Now, those are the only references to juries, and I will suggest that it was understood by everyone, in all of the colonies, that the jury could judge both facts and law. To support this, we also find that the People are the ultimate authority under that Constitution.I. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.II. That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof.

But, I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it, so let’s look at their 1867 Constitution. This was ratified after the chaos and turmoil created by the Civil War. Apparently, concerns over the acceptance of the past understanding of both the jury process and the authority of the People, we find these changes in the new Constitution, ratified on September 18, 1867. Again, from the Declaration of Rights:
Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

So, they have the right (not the Legislature) to alter or reform. However, it does not say how that would be accomplished

So, since the power resides with the People, they have provided, and reinstituted, a means by which those laws enacted by the legislature can be judged by the people.

Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

For a final affirmation of what was intended, and readily understood, back in 1852, we have an “Essay on Trial by Jury“, by Lysander Spooner. We find Spooner’s explanation of the right to judge the laws in Chapter I, Section I (page 4 of the PDF.):
“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”

He goes into a greater explanation, though I believe that this is sufficient for our purposes. Unfortunately, today, the Rules being used by the Court allow the Judge to deny that which is in the Constitution, by the intent of the Founders, and clearly what was understood to be the right of the jury, without question.

However, as we see by the instructions, the Rules and the words of Judge Anna Brown obviously circumvent the intent of the Constitution. And, isn’t that what this trial is about?

Later, on {4}, she says:“
Because you must base your verdicts only on the evidence and on the Court’s instructions, it remains essential that you not be exposed to any information about the case or to the issues it involves beyond what has been received here in open court in your presence and the presence of the parties.”

She reaffirms that her “instructions” must be obeyed, and, by the way, don’t think very hard. I’ll do that for you”.

Government’s Use of Informants

On {12-13)}, we have the Judge vindicate some characters that are far more unscrupulous than any of the Defendants — by a long shot.
“You have heard evidence that one or more informants may have been involved in the government’s investigation in this case. In order to investigate criminal activities, law enforcement officials may engage in stealth and deception, such as using informants who may assume the roles of members in an alleged conspiracy.”

I find it interesting that the “informants may have been involved“. Heck, it has been admitted (stipulated) that they were involved. Why couch that instruction in language that defies the testimony and evidence? It seems likely that she does not want the jury even to think of the ramifications of a police state, where paid individuals infiltrate and spy on Americans, and then have the audacity to claim it is gospel. The question as to whether their efforts are rewarded on performance, and the more dirt they get the more compensation they receive. Nor does it preclude the possibility, since they have already given up their integrity in favor of the police state, and be willing to lie to increase that payment.It is also worthy to note that the Court, in a sidebar, acknowledged that there were 15 informants, though by stipulation, the Defendants could only acknowledge nine of them. After all, it would look far worse if informants numbering over twice their number, instead of a paltry 2-person advantage, outnumbered the seven people on trial.

The Written Word

Given that the law is composed of written words, it should be those words and what they intended that controls the Jury. It is those words that, of themselves, should be the objective of the determination of the Jury as to the validity of the law.

So, let’s look at some of the Counts that the jury is charged with determination as to whether each of the parties is guilty, or not. If someone is named in a Count, then that person, and any others named therein is a separate deliberation. In some instances, we will have to look to the past to understand the intent, and we will also have to look at a legal definition that applies to us, though the government redefines that same word when it works to their benefit.

The General Charges:

On {13-14}:THE CHARGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANTSThe government has charged the Defendants, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, and Neil Wampler, with committing various crimes in violation of three different criminal statutes as follows:

In Count One the government charges each of these Defendants with “Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States” in violation of 18 United States Code § 372.

In Count Two the government charges Defendants Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, David Lee Fry, and Jeff Wayne Banta with Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation of 18 United States Code § 930(b). You may recall at the beginning of this trial I told you Count Two was also pending as to Defendant Shawna Cox. Count Two as to Shawna Cox is now no longer before you. Do not speculate about why that charge is no longer part of this trial.

In Count Four the government charges Defendant Kenneth Medenbach with Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.

In Count Five the government charges Defendant Ryan Bundy with Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.

Please note that Count Three is not pending in this trial.

Now, you will note that Count One has seven Defendants, Count Two has four Defendants, Count Four has one Defendant, and Count Five has one Defendant. Therefore, the Jury is, in a sense, deliberating on 13 different cases — Each Defendant, singularly, to each Count that he is charged with.

Note, also, the wording of the violation within each Count. There will be even more detail, below, but, then, this is where it gets really interesting.

However, a final comment, before we proceed:
On {16}, we find a simple statement:
An informant may not be considered a co-conspirator. Thus, the acts and statements of an informant cannot form the basis of an illegal conspiracy or be attributed to any Defendant.

So, these are not even law enforcement officers, yet they have immunity from being charged with criminal activity that you or I could be charged with. Now, that is police state reasoning.

Count One

From {17-19}:
As noted, each of the Defendants are charged in Count One with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States in violation of 18 United States Code § 372. In order for any Defendant to be found guilty of Count One, the government must prove as to that Defendant each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, beginning on or about November 5, 2015, and continuing through on or about February 12, 2016, there was an agreement between two or more persons, and an object of that agreement was to prevent an officer or officers of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of his or her office by force, intimidation, or threat; and Second, the particular Defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of that objective and specifically intending to help accomplish it.Now, we have all heard the legal expression, “on or about”, but here we have three months and one week in which the alleged crime occurred. I understand that her instructions sort of, kind of, explain it, but if someone is charged with a crime, shouldn’t the day, with reasonable tolerance, be necessary to establish that a crime had been committed? Or, is it sufficient to just sort of throw the whole darned calendar in and say that it happened on one of those days?

Now, is arrival at the Refuge proof of involvement in the conspiracy? If so, would that date, or at least the day that the accused became hardcore is indispensable to the charge? How can the jury determine if someone did something, when the jury really doesn’t know exactly when they did it? Or, is our justice system based on the guess/opinion of law enforcement officers?However, this gets even better. There is an article that covers this aspect more extensively at “Officer? What Officer?“. However, we will address the short version, here. To do so we must first look at the wording of the Statute:18 U.S.C. § 372: Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If etwo or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Now, we are a nation of laws, and those laws are written so that we can, as the People, read and understand just what the law is. Not what some judge wants it to be, since then we would be a nation of men, not of laws.You will note that the law says “officers”, it does not say employees.

However, on {19}, she provides a redefinition of officers:
The term “officer of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land Management” means any person who is employed either full-time or part-time by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or Bureau of Land Management.

So, she has redefined “officer” to include secretaries, custodians, and even part-time employees, as officials of government. However, if you decide to read “Officer? What Officer?“, you will see that “officer” is a much higher level of employee than what the Judge has decided (rule of man) to force upon the jury, in their deliberations {21-22}.

ELEMENTS OF COUNT TWO: POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES
As noted, Defendants Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, David Lee Fry, and Jeff Wayne Banta are charged in Count Two with Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation of 18 United States Code § 930(b). In order for any of these Defendants to be found guilty of Count Two, the government must prove as to that Defendant each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, beginning on or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, the particular Defendant possessed or caused to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon;
Second, in a federal facility;
Third, the particular Defendant acted knowingly;
andFourth, the particular Defendant — or someone the Defendant intentionally aided and abetted — acted with the intent that the firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime (in this case the Count One charge of Conspiring to Impede Officers of the United States) at least in part within that federal facility.

A defendant may not be found guilty of Count Two unless he or she is found guilty of Count One. If your verdict on Count One is “not guilty” as to a particular Defendant, then your verdict on Count Two must also be “not guilty” as to that Defendant.

The term “federal facility” means a building or part of a building owned or leased by the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

She then further defines this Count Two in more detail {23-24}:
First, Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities, as defined in these Instructions, was committed by someone;
Second, the Defendant aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured that person with respect to at least one element of Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in FederalFacilities;
Third, the Defendant acted with the intent to facilitate Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities, as defined in these instructions;
andFourth, the Defendant acted before the crime was completed.

Note that the second set seems to suggest “aiding, counseled, commanded, induced or procured“, however, we find no such wording in the Statute (below). We have to wonder just how Judge Anna Brown makes this stuff up.

So, let’s look at what the Statute says, though with irrelevant paragraphs omitted, and qualifying paragraphs included:18 U.S. Code § 930:
Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d),
whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law;
or(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

By omission, the Judge has left the jury with a total misunderstanding of the law. Some information can be found in “Firearms Not Allowed“, which will explain that the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in their brochure, stated that firearms come under State law.

Now, the Indictment addresses only paragraph (b), and the instructions, in both First and Second, say:
“possessed or caused to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon… in a federal facility”

The Third and Fourth give us:
“Defendant acted knowingly… acted with the intent that the firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime (in this case the Count One charge of Conspiring to Impede Officers of the United States).”

I believe it was rather gracious and surprising, that the qualifier of having to be found guilty of Count One was included. However, she leaves the jury with an impression that it is illegal to possess a firearm in a federal facility.

For example, (a) makes it illegal, without the crime aspect, subject to the exceptions in (d)(3), which makes that “other lawful purposes” demonstrates that possession in such a facility is an accepted practice. Then (h) provides that the property must be posted.

If the jury had such information, would they be less likely to find someone guilty? After all, the Second Amendment, as was attested to in Court, provides that the Defendants had every right to possess those firearms, providing a completely different standard to the jury, upon which to weigh any aspect of firearm possession.

At least, given the entire Statute, the jury could determine, supposing that someone was found guilty of Count One, whether their possession of a firearm at the Refuge would have been within the acceptable provisions of the Statute, or was specifically with criminal intent. As the Judge gave it, if they were Guilty of Count One, they would also be guilty of Count Two.

Count Five
This Count charges Ryan Bundy with theft of a camera, or cameras. However, the evidence shows that the cameras were retained and made available for the FBI to pick them up at a press conference, or at any other time, at the Refuge.

So, perhaps we should start with “theft” in common legal usage — which would apply to you, or to me. This is from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:
Theft. A popular name for larceny. The taking of property without the owner’s consent. People v. Sims, 29 III. App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, 179. The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.

It is also said that theft is a wider term than larceny and that it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession of property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker’s own use is guilty of a “theft”. Kidwell v. Paul Revere Fire Ins. Co., 294 Ky. 833, 172 S.W.2d 639, 640; People v. Pillsbury, 59 Cal.App.2d 107, 138 P.2d 320, 322.

Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.

See also Auto theft; Embezzlement; Extortion; Intimidation; Larceny; Robbery; Theft by false pretext.

There was never any intent to convert the property to the use of Ryan Bundy, or any other person at the Refuge. The offer to return the property was made within hours of the removal of the cameras.

Now, as far as consent, well, there was no name on the cameras, so there was only an assumption that they were owned by, or under contract to the FBI. However, let’s look at what you might do if someone were spying on you. Suppose you found an audio “bug” in your house. You don’t know who it belongs to, but you assume that it is either a private contractor (private eye) or the government. Now, if you took it down, is it stolen? Suppose you put a sign on your front door, “Bug Found, will return to the owner upon proof of ownership. Please enquire within.” Have you stolen it?Now, if you sold it, or managed to connect it to your Smartphone, for your own use, then, well, you have stolen it.

However, let’s, once again, look at the Statute that Ryan Bundy is charged with:
18 U.S.C. § 641: Public money, property or recordsWhoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof;
orWhoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted –Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

Well, I can find nothing in that Statute that is applicable to the circumstances of the charges made against Ryan Bundy.

So, now, let’s look at how the Judge decided to instruct the jury, with regard to his Count {25-26}.
First, the Defendant knowingly stole or converted to his own use or the use of another cameras and related equipment, with the intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of this property;
Second, the cameras and related equipment belonged to the United States;
andThird, the value of the cameras and related equipment was more than $1,000.00.

A person acts “knowingly” if the person is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. You may consider evidence of a Defendant’s words, acts, or omissions, along with all of the other evidence, in deciding whether a particular Defendant acted knowingly.

A person acts “with the intention of depriving” the owner of the property if the person has a purpose or conscious desire to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property.

Now, note that in the First, it begins with the “stole or converted to his own use or the use of another”, while the Statute says, “Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another.”

So, both the instructions, which were somewhat ambiguous, and the Statute are contrary to the word “theft”, as it would apply if something were stolen from you or me. However, we can look to the definition of “with the intention of depriving“, which was never the purpose of the actions by Ryan and others. Their sole purpose was to protect themselves from intrusive spying being conducted on them, and nobody has come forward with a warrant to allow that spying by the federal government.

Comtinued:

continuation . . . . .

For a final thought on the legality of the government spying, the camera was mounted on a public road. To install those cameras, it would require both a “right-of-way utilization permit” and permission from the owner of the poles that they were mounted on, to be legal. The government has shown no proof of either, nor have they shown proof that the cameras were owned by the government. They simply want not to have to answer those questions to the jury, so the issues are obfuscated in the Jury Instructions.

How did we convert (not for our own use or the use of another) the Rule of Law into a system that has become a Rule of Man? Or, in this instance, woman, who converts the written word into something that it was never intended to be the law that was enacted by the Legislative Branch of Government — the Congress?

Deliberations

In the final portion of the 30 pages Jury Instructions, we find what is probably the most problematic portion of the document.

We have all taken multiple-choice quizzes. So, what happens when you find that your answer lies somewhere between two choices, or not at all? Now, when the courts decided to give a simple yes or no worksheet for determination of guilt, what happens if your answer is somewhere between the two? So, here is that Instruction {29-30}:

A separate verdict form has been prepared for you to complete as to each Defendant. After you have reached a unanimous agreement as to the verdict for each Defendant, your Presiding Juror should complete the verdict forms as you have agreed, sign and date them, and then advise the Courtroom Deputy that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

In the forms I have seen, before, it would have a statement such as, “If you find that Mr. X did hold a weapon, you must find him guilty”. Have we become so dumbed down that we cannot, as a jury, rely on the law and the facts, and then judge both?

Let’s look at it this way. We are supposed to obey the laws. The laws are written in English. Those few remaining Americans who speak English should be able to understand the laws, as they are written. So, if they are the laws that we are supposed to read, understand, and then obey, why does the Jury have to have someone interpret them into terms that the Defendants are bound by at trial? Bottom line is that the Jury is not judging the by the law, rather, by what the government wants the law to be.

Challenging that same government for subversion of the Constitution and denial of the enumerated rights of speech, assembly, and redress of grievances has resulted in the government, through chicanery at trial, proving the point that was being addressed when those Americans entered the Refuge back on January 2, 2016.Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  39
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

John Lamb's report

http://youtu.be/5XY4p7lFtXM

https://youtu.be/5XY4p7lFtXM

Kelli Stewart on juror 4 questioing juror 11's bias

http://youtu.be/gDAos3p4Pj8

https://youtu.be/gDAos3p4Pj8

Judge Anna J. Brown didn't have her way, Juror #11 was dismissed and replaced with Juror #18. Deliberations will begin anew.

http://youtu.be/niTscU0spF4

https://youtu.be/niTscU0spF4

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...85d269e2aac87f
Scott Rohter58 mins

Now what about the "other occupation"?


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902)]https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...fs=1&upscale=1[/COLOR]

Ammon and Ryan Bundy – The Other Occupation and the Other Trial « Less Gov is the Best
In case you don’t already know it there are actually two trials going on right now involving the Malheur…

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...her-trial.html

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

Ammon and Ryan Bundy – The Other Occupation and the Other Trial

Posted by Scott Rohteron Wednesday, October 26, 2011http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/...es-300x222.png

Oregon Standoff Trial

The Other Occupation and the Other Trial

By Scott Michael Rohter, October 2016

In case you don’t already know it there are actually two trials going on right now involving the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. One trial is about the occupation of the Refuge which lasted for 41 days and resulted in one death and at least fourteen persons charged with conspiracy. The other trial concerns the occupation of 700 million acres of land in twelve States by the Federal Government. This occupation has been going on for over a century. In some cases it has been going on ever since the end of the War Between the States. This occupation involves 25 % of the land in the whole country.

One trial is being held in Federal District Court in Portland, Oregon where Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five other defendants are being prosecuted on charges of conspiracy to impede federal officers. The other occupation trial is going on in the court of public opinion all across the world where the United States government is on trial for its unconstitutional land use policies in the West, for the way it prosecuted two Oregon ranchers named Dwight and Stephen Hammond for a controlled burn they set on their land to eradicate weeds, and for the violent way in which it brought the 41 day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to an abrupt end, by shooting Lavoy Finicum in the back and leaving him to die in the snow.

In the court of public opinion the liberal news media acts as a kind of filter so you don’t hear the whole story, while in Federal District Court a liberal magistrate acts as a filter so the jury doesn’t get to hear all of the corroborating evidence that defense attorneys want the jurors to hear. So much for “THE TRUTH… THE WHOLE TRUTH… AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP US GOD”… According to Judge Anna Brown so much of the truth is just “too cumulative” to waste the jury’s time with it. She doesn’t want to waste the jury’s time with too much of THE TRUTH!

There is a bitter irony here that hasn’t escaped my observation… If you occupy Wall Street the liberals will sing your praises. If you occupy the waterfront across from downtown Portland they will support you and give you all of the publicity you want.

If you occupy 700 million acres of State land the liberals will defend your motives, extol your virtues, and they will even erect a monument to you out of stone after your death like they did with Teddy Roosevelt. Later they will encourage other Presidents to seize even more State land…

But if you occupy a remote Wildlife Refuge and your name happens to be Ammon or Ryan Bundy and you dare to challenge the Federal governments ownership of State land then that is labeled a conspiracy and the liberals will castigate you and throw you in jail without bail and without a trial. They will deny you the presumption of innocence which is normally afforded even to murderers who do not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community. They might even shoot you in the back with your hands up in the air while you are attempting to surrender.

Pointing out that the government isn’t following the Constitution is a very serious crime worthy of the most severe retribution, including long prison sentences, solitary confinement, and even death. Welcome to a liberal’s view of America.

Categories: International, National, Oregon Tags: Ammon Bundy trial, Coalition of Western States, Sagebrush Rebellion