From J Grady youtube. God Bless these men and women for standing up for what is right
http://youtu.be/P-n00ZGwV_4
https://youtu.be/P-n00ZGwV_4
From J Grady youtube. God Bless these men and women for standing up for what is right
http://youtu.be/P-n00ZGwV_4
https://youtu.be/P-n00ZGwV_4
KOIN TV full interview with LaVoy Finicum's widow
http://youtu.be/OjGjDMyCzPQ
https://youtu.be/OjGjDMyCzPQ
John Lamb, Kelli Stewart John Day Meeting Jan. 28, 2017
http://youtu.be/kyvF1gIXcBo
https://youtu.be/[QUOTE]kyvF1gIXcBo
http://youtu.be/gTBt-j5saQM
https://youtu.be/gTBt-j5saQM
http://youtu.be/IWIs3Yu3XC4
https://youtu.be/IWIs3Yu3XC4
Sheriff Glenn Palmer message to people of John Day, Oregon about the 'Meeting That Never Happened'
https://s19.postimg.org/l8wke3tb7/IMG_1489.png
Jeanette Finicum's John Day Oregon meeting is being live streamed:
https://www.facebook.com/cowboystand...type=2&theater
The meeting that never happened part 1 on youtube great speakers!
http://youtu.be/36p1UIfIBLg
https://youtu.be/36p1UIfIBLg
Speech by Kate Dalley at John Day, Oregon - freedom of the press and fake news. Everyone needs to listen to this woman tell about the manipulation of the mainstream news.
http://youtu.be/bJ081oDbg3E
https://youtu.be/bJ081oDbg3E
That was really good over all but there's one thing she brought up she shouldn't have because she's guilty of doing what she accuses others in the press of doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
When she bashed NS Germany she was spewing the lies of the Jew controlled government and press. She should study M. S . Kings three books "Planet Rothschild and the Bad War". That would be a good start for her in searching for and speaking the truth as she promotes.
I didn't realize she had done that. I am going to listen to her again. Here is the Part 2 of the meeting KrisAnne, Hall, Jeanette Finicum's attorney M. Philpot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
The audio is poor. I wasn't able to hear much of what anyone said except Kris Anne Hall
http://youtu.be/VYkGiMmy5yo https://youtu.be/VYkGiMmy5yo
Gary Hunt has been vilified by a man posting on facebook as John Wayne whose real name is Mark West. Gary Hunt responds:
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/west.htm
Statement re: Mark West, aka "John Wayne"
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/im...ark%20West.jpg
A little background. In early January, as a person who has a Facebook page, "Dolly Singer", suggested that he was in communication with the Trump Team and that John Lamb and I would soon be meeting with them. This is explained in my "Statement re: Dolly Singer".
On January 13, around the time the "Singer" started his misplaced claims, I received some text messages from Mark West, who is on Facebook under a fictitious name, "John Wayne". Perhaps an allusion to his immature, egotistical, impression of who he thinks he is.
At first, he was just consuming my time, interrupting my writing. However, from the way I was raised and my experience with my own business, years ago, I tend to be curious, so long as the other person is, as well. I return phone calls, and I reply to Private Messages.
After "Singer" was disposed of, West became sort of irritating. He started demanding answers, and prying into what I was investigating. He felt that I had an obligation to answer any and all questions posed by him. If I answered, he was not satisfied, or disputed my honest answer to his query.
Because of what I do, investigating events or people, and reporting on them, my research is not public knowledge, unless and until I write and publish an article. Otherwise, I would be participating in the rumor mill of accusations (pissing contests) that is so prevalent today, especially on Facebook.
Even though I was taking the time to answer West's questions, on January 23, we had a PM discussion that began casually and then was been blown into extreme proportions. During that discussion, he said, "I wish I could trust you... I really want to". Now, that is an interesting statement. If he wished he could trust me, and by now, he does not trust me, then, what is the point?
My response was, "If you have doubts, you can't trust me." I think that is fair, as I would not want anyone to go against their feelings to provide me information. If they cannot find emotional/mental comfort in telling what they know, I can expect that there might be incomplete, biased, or even false, information. I do not want to rely on such. So, I continued, "Besides, I doubt that what you have is anything I could use." That should have shut the door. However, it began to escalate.
Now, I don't pretend to be a psychologist, but when someone praises your work and then damns you, next, you have to wonder just what motivates that person.
After that episode, he started posting all over Facebook rumors and false allegations that have been made against me since 1993. In numerous phone conversations, he says he believes me, yet he encourages others to join in the condemnation of me.
One thing that stands out is that he has, twice, told me that Jeanette Finicum does not want to talk with me. However, this emanated from a radio show that she and I were both guests on. I had asked, on air, if I could call her. She said that I could. West then says that she did not want to speak with me, acting both authoritative and assertive. So, perhaps Jeanette really didn't want to speak with me, and I was willing to leave it at that. However, in talking with one of my sources, I was asked if I had spoken to Jeanette. I said that I had not, and explained why. While we were talking, she texted Jeanette. Jeanette said that she was willing to talk with me, but that she would be busy through the event in Burns to recognizing "The Meeting That Never Happened". Though not a condition, I respect that she is busy and decided to call her after the event. That event, by the way, is going on as I write this. On at least three occasions, one given by West the other two given by other sources, Jeanette Finicum has stated that Mark West does not speak for her.
Though I have not gone into all of the details of the numerous conversations, the promises West made, and then failed to comply with, you can either trust that it was extensive, or, heck, say that I'm lying. But, this brings me to a question that always arises when I do an article. What is behind this?
Absent an answer, or at least an obvious conclusion, I can't do the story. However, in this instance, I will make an exception. What are the possible motivations behind West's attacks, tied with his condescending articulations? Let's list them:
1. Is he protecting Jeanette Finicum, as he has suggested?
Answer: No, since the Finicums had turned their back on him, long ago -- also by his own admission.
2. Does he feel that he has a moral responsibility to protect Jeanette Finicum?
Answer: If so, his self-righteousness goes beyond reason, assuming that he has requested responsibility to protect some from what, themselves. I doubt that Jeanette Finicum has such need, and the evidence suggests that she needs protection from West, not by West.
This, then, leads us to the question of motivation from an outside source. Thursday evening (Jan. 27), I spoke with West and asked what his game was. He told me that I was doing good work and should keep doing so. I explained to him that my courtesy in spending time PMing and on the phone with him, which to this point, exceeded ten hours, was keeping me from my writing. He agreed to take down all of the critical posts, and by morning, all but one had been removed. I accepted friend requests from him and thought that he was a man of his word. During the course of that conversation, I also expressed that if he were a man, I would expect a public apology by Sunday evening. That would be the least that he could do to mitigate the damage that his tirades has accomplished. He did not commit to that, so life went on.
Well, he has jumped back on his bandwagon of endeavoring to smear my name and reputation on the rumor mill, so it appears that neither of the above possibilities had any role in his decisions. More than likely, there is someone, somewhere, bending his ear, and attempting to undermine what he and I had agreed to, by the next time we communicated. It has been a ping-pong sort of situation.
Now, I have a number of members on my team. Their names are not public, but they assist me in many ways, including research, proofreading, consultation, and advising. They are indispensable in allowing me to achieve what I have, whether exposing informants, or allowing me to bounce ideas off of them to help my thought process for my other articles.
It seems as if they think that the government might be behind it, based upon their efforts to silence the press, with regard to my exposing informants from the Burns occupation. The government has dropped their legal pursuit of forcing me to remove all the articles on the subject. So, now we can look at additional possibilities.
3. The government has set someone out to both attack me and intrude upon my time, to minimize any effectiveness I might have with additional articles.
Answer: I doubt that the government would risk the possibility of exposure for doing something as covert, unprofessional, and probably illegal. The risk of being caught would be far more damaging than my articles.
4. An informant is concerned that I might expose him for his participation in infiltrating the patriot community. Now, this is the most probable of all of the possibilities. So, let's look a bit deeper.
Answer: First, a bit of a disclaimer. I don't expose someone, unless I have proof. However, in this situation, I am going to go with my gut.
The suspicion begins about two years ago when Kevin "KC" Massey was set up and charged with felon in possession, for which he is currently serving time in Texas. Massey was running a border operation, encouraging illegals to return to the south side of the Rio Grande River, which had been quite successful. I was the only exercise in Texas that had been continuously operating.
Massey and I talk weekly, if not more often. We have done so since before his trial, and have continued to this day. We have looked at the players that were in a position to do so, and where their activities suggest the possibility of being informants.
Two of those players were also in Burns, though only one was inside of the Refuge. The one inside was Allen Varner (Wolf).
The other, who will be named shortly, did not go into the Refuge, but was present outside. There is a CHS (Confidential Human Source - informant) report that may be this person, though it is not strong enough to make the case, as I have required on all of the other exposures. This person is a "friend" on West's Facebook page.
Back in October, I posted a video, hoping that it might lead to some information that would lead to someone providing some tangible evidence to support of that suspicion. Therefore, I am breaking my own rules, though this is of necessity, and is being done because of the circumstances outlined above. If I am correct, that person is CHS #3, who only filed one report. By so doing, he may have qualified for expenses for his trip to Burns. If I am in error, that would be the first informant that I have failed to identify properly.
I can conclude with, I would not have done so. However, enough is enough. And, West had been advised, in a phone conversation, that his persistence would lead to this being written. When I did, he did seem to spend an excessive amount of time trying to convince me that it was not true.
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 29, 2017
Note: Subsequent research shows that Mark Rulon West violated Six Protective Orders in 2015. Seehttp://utah.arrests.org/Arrests/Mark_West_26398916/
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/images/mail60c4.gif
Outpost of Freedom
Go to Outpost of Freedom home page
Maxine Bernstein's "unbiased" report on Jeanette Finicum's JohnDay, Oregon meeting
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...lavoy-finicum/
Crowd of 500, including some Oregon standoff defendants, salute Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum
Posted on January 28, 2017 by Doug Knowles
- https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C639&ssl=1
- https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...0%2C1411&ssl=1
- https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C630&ssl=1
- https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C622&ssl=1
- https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...0%2C1360&ssl=1
- https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C654&ssl=1
- https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C627&ssl=1
- https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C641&ssl=1
- https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C637&ssl=1
- https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...60%2C615&ssl=1
By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
JOHN DAY -- Caravans of trucks with American flags and "Don't Tread on Me'' banners rolled into town over several days to gather Saturday night for a conclave that was part memorial, part reunion and part religious revival.
A crowd of more than 500 people grew still as Jeanette Finicum took the microphone.
"They silenced one man's voice,'' she said, speaking of husband Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, an Arizona rancher shot and killed by police as he and others occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were traveling north to this eastern Oregon town of about 1,700.
"But in doing so," she said, "they created 13 more very loud voices'' - Jeanette Finicum herself and the couple's 12 children.
A year ago on Jan. 26, LaVoy Finicum and other protest leaders had planned to speak at a community meeting here, but never made it when their trip ended with his death and the arrest of the armed takeover's key figures. On this night, the meeting finally happened.
Jeanette Finicum said the year has been difficult, but the love and support she's received, plus her faith in God, have helped her family endure. They're submitting a notice of a claim with the FBI before filing a federal wrongful death lawsuitagainst Oregon State Police and the FBI, she said.
"It is a long road, but it is a road that we, our family, is willing to make,'' she said.
Thirty minutes before the start of the gathering, a line of people stretched outside the Grant County Fairground's Trowbridge Pavilion waiting to get in, coming from Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Washington and California. Finicum's daughters greeted them at the door and inked black stamps of LaVoy Finicum's cattle brand "LVF" on their hands.
They paid $15 to hear a slate of speakers and balanced plates full of spaghetti on their laps as they listened to critiques of federal government regulations that restrict farmers and ranchers.
The speeches mocked mainstream media, the prosecutors who tried occupation leader Ammon Bundy and his followers and the judge who presided over their trial.
"The not guilty verdict was the most amazing verdict of the century!" Kate Dalley, host of a radio talk show on a Fox News affiliate, cried out from the stage. She drew rousing applause from the crowd, filling more than 25 rows of folding chairs that stretched from one end of the pavilion to the other.
Four of the seven defendants who were acquitted last fall -- Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler - were together again. They slapped each other on the back and hugged each other.
http://youtu.be/kmaJkt-pyqc
Robert "LaVoy" Finicum's last interview with The Oregonian on the day before his death
Cox, who came from her home in Utah, stood by a table, selling and signing copies of her book, "Last Rancher Standing: The Cliven Bundy Story a Close-Up View.''
"This is the first time I ever got to John Day,'' said Cox, a back-seat passenger in Finicum's truck when he sped off from a traffic stop on U.S. 395 and then crashed into a snowbank at a police roadblock. State police shot him after he emerged from his truck and reached at least two times into his jacket to grab what police suspected was his gun. He had a loaded 9mm gun on him at the time, the FBI later said.
On her way to John Day, Cox said she drove by the spot where Finicum was killed. "I didn't think it was going to be that tough,'' she said.
In the three months since she was acquitted in the federal conspiracy case, Cox said she's been "so busy trying to help the other people" -- the seven other defendants set to face trial next month, as well as Ammon Bundy, his brother, Ryan Bundy, and their father Cliven Bundy, who await trial in Nevada in the 2014 standoff with federal agents near the elder Bundy's ranch.
Jeff Banta, who also was acquitted last fall, said he drove 14 hours from Nevada to attend the meeting. "It's great to be here,'' he said. "It's great to be a free man.''
Since the October verdict, Neil Wampler, who served as a cook at the refuge during last winter's occupation, said he's been happy staying out of the limelight, back at his home in Los Osos, California.
"I hardly even go anywhere,'' he said. "But I couldn't miss this meeting.''
Strangers kept coming up to Wampler, introducing themselves and shaking his hand. "It's kind of overwhelming because I have so many friends here and a certain degree of fame now, not that I ever wanted it,'' he said.
One local woman on Twitter expressed concern about a social media post that Medenbach placed on Facebook this week, contending the Grant County Public Forest Commission, nullified by a Circuit Court judge, "HAS POWER TO BUY, SELL AND TRADE PUBLIC LANDS IN GRANT COUNTY, OREGON.''
He also posted a photo of a white van plastered with a sticker that read, "Grant County Resource Center,'' a takeoff on the "Harney County Resource Center'' stickers that refuge occupiers plastered on U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service trucks at the bird sanctuary.
Medenbach, wearing "Not Guilty'' and "Justice for LaVoy'' buttons on his shirt, smiled and said his probation officer contacted him and told him to "tone it down.'' Medenbach is on probation for unlawfully occupying and camping on federal public land in Josephine County in May 2015.
Supporters could choose from an array of memorabilia to buy: black "LVF" caps that said "It Matters How You Stand," bumper stickers declaring "Liberty Rising" and "In God We Trust," shirts with the words "Defend the Constitution" and "Original Intent'' printed around a picture of an eagle and LaVoy Finicum's book, "Only By Blood and Suffering."
Lawrence Arata of Colfax, Washington, said he drove 300 miles to John Day. He was angry about the treatment of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, sent back to prison to finish serving five-year sentences for setting fire to public land.
Liz Pettibone of Heppner said she supports the Bundys and believes it's unfair that federal prosecutors are pursuing trespass charges against the remaining refuge defendants. "How could they say trespass if it's public land?" she asked.
The defendants are accused of entering and occupying the refuge without authorization.
Toward the back of the crowd, Bob Salinger of the Audubon Society of Portland stood quietly. "Public lands are under assault," Salinger said.
He said he came to the meeting "out of curiosity and to understand the threat.''
The wives of Ammon Bundy and his older brother, Ryan Bundy, were there to support the Finicum family. Finicum's parents, David and Nelda Finicum of Arizona, said they were comforted by the large turnout.
Robert Finicum, LaVoy Finicum's son, said he drove to the site where his father died on his way from Utah to John Day. It was the first time he had seen it.
He wishes his father would have come home during the refuge takeover, but said: "He was passionate about his cause.''
Bryce Poulsen of Utah said he was impressed by the crowd. "I just hope it will keep growing bigger and bigger, and people see that we're not violent.''
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
source
Share this:
Kelli Stewart made a couple of videos of the meeting. The sound is better but the view is not good.
http://youtu.be/u4O_Q-YJ7mY
https://youtu.be/u4O_Q-YJ7mY
http://youtu.be/sH4H3ZTrY_E
https://youtu.be/sH4H3ZTrY_E
KrisAnne Hall's speech from John Day, Oregon Jan 28, 2017
http://youtu.be/iXgheiWI434
https://youtu.be/iXgheiWI434
Sheri Dovale - Redoubt News, The meeting that never happened in John Day, Oregon
http://redoubtnews.com/2017/01/29/me...ened-john-day/
The Meeting That Never Happened in John Day Oregon
LAVOY FINICUM WAS TRAVELING WITH PROTESTERS FROM THE MALHEUR REFUGE A YEAR AGO WHEN HE WAS AMBUSHED BY FEDERAL AGENTS, THOUGH THE FBI LIKES TO CALL IT A "TRAFFIC STOP".
January 29, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Oregon, Spotlight
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...oin-banner.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C378
The Meeting That Never Happened in John Day Oregon
by Shari Dovale
Patriots from most of the Western States gathered in John Day, Oregon this weekend to celebrate the life and message of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum.
It was said that the room capacity was close to 900 and it was full. People from Montana to Arizona, Idaho to Colorado poured in to hear Jeanette Finicum and many other speakers.
https://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=300%2C225
Before the meeting, people are still coming in.Radio personality Kate Dalley spoke on Truth in Media. Dalley was well versed in her topic and had great response from the audience. The exception to be expected was the main stream media in the room. Looking for a story on right-wing extremists, they only found people questioning the spin that the Left-leaning media typically presents.
Young attorney Garret Smith did a good presentation on the importance of the Constitutional Sheriff. Discussing the controversial arguments of the ‘Constitutional Sheriff’, Smith reminded the audience that they will not find this title spelled out in the US Constitution any more than they will find the ‘Federal Reserve’ or the ‘Bureau of Land Management’. Yet, the Sheriff is still the highest law enforcement officer within his jurisdiction.
Bundy attorney Morgan Philpot gave updates on the upcoming trials in Portland and Las Vegas. Author Bill Norton, from the Center for Self-Governance, spoke on property rights.
http://youtu.be/iXgheiWI434
https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=187%2C285
Kenneth Medenbach in Grant County Resource Center vehicle.The audience was hushed and waiting when Trent Loos introduced Jeanette Finicum. Jeanette is the widow of Lavoy Finicum who was traveling with protesters from the Malheur Refuge to this same town a year ago when he was ambushed by Federal agents, though the FBI likes to call it a “traffic stop”.
Finicum was shot and killed during this ambush. Jeanette gave an update on the civil suit the family intends to press against the principles in that ambush.
The Finicum family was represented by many of LaVoy’s children and grandchildren, as well as his siblings and parents. The Bundy Family was also present with the wives of Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy taking part in the evening.
Malheur defendants Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler were present, sharing the message and praying for the next round of defendants preparing for trial.
The Keynote speaker was KrisAnne Hall, a Constitutional Attorney and teacher. She gave a shortened version of her class on State Sovereignty. Hall is an energetic speaker that engages a crowd and this was no exception.
The crowd had multiple questions on a variety of topics when the speakers were finished. They made time for a question and answer period, you can view here.
http://youtu.be/lb_lscFAyxU
Several fundraisers were held throughout the evening, with one in particular going for 7th and 8thgrade students in John Day raising money to travel to Washington DC. Their intent is to meet President Donald Trump and present him with a letter requesting the pardon of local ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond.
Share this:
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
- Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Coeur d'Alene Memorial Rally Draws Large CrowdFebruary 7, 2016In "BLM"
Govt Blames Protesters For Finicum DeathJanuary 27, 2016In "BLM"
In Burns with the Oath KeepersFebruary 12, 2016In "Constitution"
This is a good read. There are several very basic Constitutional problems with Judge Brown's order.
Is a misdemeanor a crime or is the court a crime? Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom
Burns Chronicles No 56 – Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?
January 29, 2017, 10:40 am
Burns Chronicles No 56
Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ge-300x240.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 29, 2017
Perhaps we should start with Article VI, clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Now, that is easy to follow and understand. First, “This Constitution“, and, next, “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof“, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
Article V of the Constitution states that when an Amendment is ratified, it “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”
“Shall” is mandatory. It is imposed, without recourse, and must be obeyed. The requirement that any “Laws… which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” precludes any enactment, statute, or rule, to be in violation of the intent of the Constitution and the Laws made Pursuant to it
In a previous article, “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments were discussed. Now, let’s go to the top, the Constitution itself, and see what it says. This led to the more descriptive wording in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. This case has to do with misdemeanor charges of trespass, tampering with vehicles or equipment and destruction of property. This is the Article that established the Judicial Branch, Article III, § 2, clause three:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…
The subsequent Amendments set no limit on criminal charges and a minimum of twenty dollars in civil actions, each requiring a jury trial. The Amendments made clear, without ambiguity, that any case tried in a court of the United States must fall within those two described areas. There are no exceptions.
However, this Court, appearing to be inquisitorial rather than just, has opted to circumvent those limitations imposed upon judiciary, by the very document that created the judiciary. It has put in place, by two methods, a means of deception, whereby the can circumvent the Law of the Land.
Chicanery, defined as “deception or trickery, especially by the clever manipulation of language”, is certainly involved in this current circumvention and “inquisition”.
First, chicanery is often used in the “case law method”, where higher court decisions are based upon previous decisions, not necessarily in accordance with the Constitution. This method began being applied in 1872, shortly after the Civil War. Harvard University set forth the “method”. It has since become what appears to be the primary foundation for decisions, most often, without regard to the Constitution..
We can see from two paragraphs in Judge Brown’s (pictured above)
“Order Setting Bench Trial on Class B Misdemeanor Counts in Conjunction With Jury Trial of Felony Counts“.
In ruling against the Defense’s objection to the bench trial (without jury) on the newly added misdemeanor charges, she states:
On the other hand, the Court also finds unpersuasive the out-of-district authorities on which Defendants rely. In particular, the Court finds United States v. Greenpeace, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2004), to be unpersuasive because it did not adequately account for Congress’s knowledge that no right to a jury trial attached to a petty offense or the failure of Congress expressly to grant the federal courts with discretion to nonetheless provide a trial by jury. Similarly, the remainder of Defendants’ primary authorities are of limited value because they arise from a period of time when the state of the law regarding a right to jury trial was very different from current caselaw.
The Court finds the significant uncertainty in the law regarding whether it has discretion to provide a jury trial where no right thereto otherwise exists is itself a compelling reason why the Court should not choose to provide a trial by jury on the Class B misdemeanor counts in this case. Simply put, the Court declines to exercise discretion to take an action when it is not at all clear that the Court has such discretion in the first place.Breaking this down, in discussing Greenpeace, she writes that the Second District Court of Florida “did not adequately account for Congress’s knowledge that no right to a jury trial attached to a petty offense“. So, the Court did not know that Congress knows that no right to a jury trial is allowed in a “petty offense”. Congress’ knowledge seems to have been taken, by Judge Brown, as some sort of law. Then, she suggests that Congress failed “expressly to grant the federal courts with discretion to nonetheless provide a trial by jury.”
Is it possible that there exists another language containing the same words, though with different meanings? This presumption that a “petty offense” is not a crime simply astounds me.
Second, and this is where the rubber really meets the road, she says, “Defendants’ primary authorities are of limited value because they arise from a period of time when the state of the law regarding a right to jury trial was very different from current caselaw.”
What? They arise from a different time? We must be back under British rule. But, then, there are the magic words, “case law”. Not in the Constitution…
Not in the Amendments to the Constitution…
Not in laws made pursuant to the Constitution…
Rather, by judge’s decisions, and their decisions are in VIOLATION of the Constitution. It is also suggestive that “current case law” can change, at the whim of whichever judge is making a decision.
If it is within the purview of the Judicial Branch of government, then it may interpret the Constitution. However, nothing provides it any authority to legislate, which is the sole prerogative of the Congress. The Judicial Branch is attempting to pervert the Constitution, and in so doing, pervert the court.
Next, Judge Brown moves on to whether her discretion allows her to determine if the case must be heard by a magistrate, or if she can hear the misdemeanor charges, instead of a magistrate. Additionally she addresses whether she has the discretion to decide if the defendants have the right to a jury trial. In so doing, she states:
The Court finds the significant uncertainty in the law regarding whether it has discretion to provide a jury trial where no right thereto otherwise exists is itself a compelling reason why the Court should not choose to provide a trial by jury on the Class B misdemeanor counts in this case.
Simply put, the Court declines to exercise discretion to take an action when it is not at all clear that the Court has such discretion in the first place.
Nevertheless, even if the Court had such discretion in this case, the Court would decline to exercise that discretion. The Court notes Congress explicitly intended the trial of petty offenses to be tried to the court, and expressly permitted magistrate judges to conduct such trials in order to facilitate their efficient resolution without the process associated with a jury trial. See 28 U.S. C. §§ 636 (a) (3), 3401 (b). In light of the fact that there are eight parties who will present argument and evidence on the Class B misdemeanor counts, the Court concludes the most efficient method of trying the misdemeanor counts is to conduct a trial to the Court.
What did she say?Judge Brown cites two statutes, 28 US Code §§ 636 (a) and 3401 (b). Adding to her discredit, there is no 28 US Code 3401, with or without the “(b)”. However, that problem will be resolved, shortly.
First, however, let’s look at 28 US Code § 636(a)(a)
Each United States magistrate judge serving under this chapter shall have within the district in which sessions are held by the court that appointed the magistrate judge, at other places where that court may function, and elsewhere as authorized by law –
(1) all powers and duties conferred or imposed upon United States commissioners by law or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts;
(2) the power to administer oaths and affirmations, issue orders pursuant to section 3142 of title 18 concerning release or detention of persons pending trial, and take acknowledgements, affidavits, and depositions;
(3) the power to conduct trials under section 3401, title 18, United States Code, in conformity with and subject to the limitations of that section;
(4) the power to enter a sentence for a petty offense; and(5) the power to enter a sentence for a class A misdemeanor in a case in which the parties have consented.
Those are the powers and duties of a magistrate (judge, commissioner, etc.). You will note that reference is made to 18 US Code § 3142 and 18 US Code §3401(b). As discussed in the previous article, 18 US Code is titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures“. So, once again, we have the word expressed, without equivocation, in the Constitution, “crime”. In this instance, we see that a magistrate is limited in what he can rule upon, entering “a sentence for a petty crime“. Of significance to this case, firearms are an element that will be presented in both felony and misdemeanor portions of the trial. Is it possible that Judge Brown intends to apply a firearms enhancement to her verdict, which a magistrate would not be able to do?
By sleight of hand, or typing fingers, the Order states, “28 US Code §§ 636 (a) and 3401 (b).” However, 28 US Code § 636(a) does tell us that the “3401(b)” is actually in Title 18, and 636 does not limit 3401 solely to paragraph (b).
Here is:18 U.S.C. § 3401(b)(b)
Any person charged with a misdemeanor, other than a petty offense may elect, however, to be tried before a district judge for the district in which the offense was committed. The magistrate judge shall carefully explain to the defendant that he has a right to trial, judgment, and sentencing by a district judge and that he may have a right to trial by jury before a district judge or magistrate judge. The magistrate judge may not proceed to try the case unless the defendant, after such explanation, expressly consents to be tried before the magistrate judge and expressly and specifically waives trial, judgment, and sentencing by a district judge. Any such consent and waiver shall be made in writing or orally on the record.
Within all of § 3401, there is no authority for a magistrate to apply any enhancements. However, District Judge Anna J. Brown sat in an appeal of a magistrate’s imposition of restitution on a “petty offense” (United States v. Stanfill El). She ruled that the restitution could be applied, even though the amount $3,468.03 was in excess of the constitutionally minimum $20. The Ninth Circuit upheld her ruling. I have to wonder if she believes that she can impose criminal penalties on a “petty offense”. In fact, we all need to wonder about whether the federal judicial system has become the tool of tyranny and inquisition.
Share this:
Federal prosectors want judge to order Gary Hunt to appear in court to show cause he he shouldn't be held in contempt
Fed prosecutors want judge to order Gary Hunt to appear in court to show why he should not be held in contempt of court
Posted on January 30, 2017 by Doug Knowles
https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C463&ssl=1
https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C521&ssl=1
Share this:
36- [COLOR=#777777 !important]Print
[/COLOR]
Trent Loos reflects on his experiences at 'The Meeting That Never Happened"
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=640%2C200
John Day, Oregon, The Meeting that Never Happened, inspiring a Western ‘Revolution’
January 30, 2017 editor Leave a comment
Farmer, radio host, blogger, and patriot, Trent Loos reflects on his experiences at “The Meeting that Never Happened,” in John Day, Harney County, Oregon.Two days following the 1-year anniversary of the killing of rancher, LaVoy Finicum on a lonely highway in Harney County, Oregon, his wife and torch-carrier, Jeanette, held a public meeting at the very hall where LaVoy and his associates were scheduled to meet on January 26, 2016. Neither LaVoy nor his passengers made it to the town hall gathering in John Day, where they were going to meet with locals and talk about why ranchers from across the West had gathered at the Malheur Refuge to protest what they believed was the unjust imprisonment of father and son ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond.
Instead of a public meeting, there was a roadblock, instead of boot steps into a public gathering place, gunshots rang through the trees, instead of a pledge to the Flag, a man’s blood stained the snowy drifts off of U.S. Highway 395, instead of the voices of citizens discussing the rights to life, liberty and property, there were screams from inside LaVoy’s truck.
One year later, Jeanette, her children, and the friends that LaVoy left behind when he was killed in am ambush by FBI and Oregon State Patrol officers, held that meeting where, at last, folks from all over the country gathered freely, those boot steps could be heard, that pledge to the flag of the United States could be made, and the voices of citizens discussing the rights to life, liberty and property could be ring through the meeting hall at John Day, Oregon, and beyond.
Here, Trent Loos, who helped host The Meeting that Never Happened, reflects on the life and work of LaVoy Finicum, sharing LaVoy’s own words about ranching, resources, prosperity and freedom.
Trent thanks Jeanette Finicum and all those who took part in The Meeting that Never Happened, in order to bring national attention to the issues that inspired LaVoy Finicum and his friends to protest acts of the federal government one year ago.
This is Trent Loos Podcast One Cowboy’s Stand for Freedom.
Podcasts produced by Trent Loos of Loos Tales
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C484
Attendees park outside John Day community center.
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C484
Trent Loos speaks to the gathering crowd
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C484
Folks, many who traveled far distances, fill the hall for The Meeting that Never Happened
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=683%2C456Free Range Report
Jeanette Finicum with some of her children and grandchildren Oregon Public Broadcasting photo
Occasionally a news organization prints a story without the spin. Video and brief report. KTVZ
Hundreds pack LaVoy Finicum 'meeting that never happened'
Standoff spokesman was killed on trip to John Day
By: Dani Fried
Posted: Jan 28, 2017 11:35 PM PST
Updated: Jan 29, 2017 12:26 AM PST
Draining the Oregon End of the Swamp
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2...ide_bullet.jpg
Monday https://gallery.mailchimp.com/678e02...es/johncol.jpg Jan 30th A MESSAGE FROM JOHN D. TRUDEL, THRILLER AUTHOR AND BLOGGER http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2...es/divider.jpg
Draining the Oregon End of the Swamp
“What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.”
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now.”
President Donald J. Trump
The Current Status (January 2017)
The Burns “Standoff” and other intense Federal Efforts in the Western United States to seize private land leaves carnage in its wake. Ranchers, reporters, and women with cameras WHO NEVER HARMED ANYONE have been tried in the media and treated as terrorists. Some were abused. Some were killed.
LaVoy Finicum was chased into a kill zone, shot down in a deliberate, planned ambush on January 26, 2016, allegedly by Oregon State Police under the orders of Governor Kate Brown. The focus of this note and action plan is on circumstances IN OREGON surrounding this event.
Officials at high levels are involved, from the infamous Hillary Clinton “Uranium One” deal that drove the desire (need) for Federal Seizure of the Hammond Ranch and the “Adverse Possession” of what is now called the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, to the direct involvement of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Governor Kate Brown, and strong supportive statements justifying the Finicum killing from both of Oregon’s Senators.
An elite FBI team claimed they were not involved except to observe and never fired a shot. They were found to have lied, to have lied about lying, and to have tampered with a crime scene – which is a crime.
Besides Finicum, largely unnoticed, four other people connected with this event – three nurses and the son-in-law of one of the defendants - died suddenly. Two of the deaths were ruled “suicide” and two were ruled “mysterious circumstances.” Over 50 people from all over the country have been arrested and held without Habeas Corpus, held incommunicado without bail. This has not happened in America since the Civil War.
There is much disinformation and conflicting opinion, much of it because of what we now call the “Fake News Media.” Many believe the Hammonds were guilty of arson. They think this because the Hammonds were harassed into making a guilty plea and voiding their rights to appeal in exchange for promises that were not kept.
This unjust treatment of the Hammonds brought outraged citizens to Burns. Some were armed and all were arrested.
A Federal Trial acquitted the first batch of defendants on ALL CHARGES. Despite this, some are still being held. An attorney who objected to this was tasered and thrown to the ground IN THE COURTROOM.
Most think that the charges involved guns and violent acts on the part of the (now acquitted) defendants. This is simply not true. The Federal Authorities could have so charged them if they wished, but they did not.
In court, that was never alleged. Defendants were instead tried as TERRORISTS, not for acts they committed but for what they may have been thinking, for "conspiracy to interfere with Federal Officers." This is Orwellian. Incarcerating people who have not been convicted of anything and holding them incommunicado is unconstitutional, but these ranchers, reporters, and women with cameras were so held for months.
Some are still in prison, and this at a time when Obama was releasing jihadists and violent felons.
“The 2014 Bundy Ranch protest has been mischaracterized by the media and the government as an armed standoff or a militia standoff. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. It was actually a peaceful protest. Here’s video evidence of the peaceful nature of the protest.
There’s no need to debate whether the government narrative is correct. The protest is on tape. You can watch it for yourself. And when you do, you will see Ammon Bundy being peaceful and talking calmly with law enforcement. You’ll hear him tell law enforcement, “You have authority here.”
- Arnold Law Firm
The events in Burns, Oregon in January 2016 were essentially a repeat of the BLM assault on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada in 2014, but this time the government used lethal force against peaceful protestors. Oregon has strong laws for transparency and public disclosure, including that ALL OREGON STATE POLICE RECORDS SURROUNDING LETHAL FORCE INCIDENTS WILL PROMPTLY BE MADE PUBLIC.
A year after the Finicum killing, these records are still sealed.
Here are some independent links to facts about Burns:
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Burns-Standdown-Standoff-Attorney-ebook/dp/B01MU1JYV5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_0...ature=youtu.be
http://blog.johntrudel.com/bloodshed-in-burns-oregon-who-to-bless-who-to-blame/
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?page_id=1702
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLHiU8gYWY
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/summary-evidence-shows-lawfully-armed-protesters/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNPNRmEHBb0&t=41s
Here are some media interviews I have done about Burns: Link1 Link2 Link3 Link4
One year later: The meeting that never happened. Link.
Oh Whoops!People plan and God laughs.
It was assumed by virtually everyone – all the polls, all the media, all the pundits, and most of the world – that Hillary Clinton was certain to be elected President of the United States. Instead, she went down to a massive defeat. This upset many plans.
What was supposed to happen was this:
- Hillary would be elected President.
- Kate Brown would be elected Governor of Oregon, and Brad Avakian (the wedding cake guy) would be elected Secretary of State.
- Before the Burns records were made public, Kate would take a position in the Hillary Administration.
- With Kate gone, Avakian would take over the Governor’s position the same way she did, by appointment.
- With Hillary as President and Kate long gone from Oregon, the Burns records would never see that light of day, the Russians would get America’s Uranium, the ranchers would be crushed, and Oregon would remain as one of the four far left socialist states in America for the foreseeable future.
The problem now faced for those behind Burns is that neither Hillary nor Avakian were elected. Worse yet, despite the full force of the Obama DOJ, the trial of the first batch of defendants from Burns resulted in total acquittals.
Worst of all, if you are a socialist, is that the dog did not bark. Hillary did not get a pardon from President Clinton before he left office. Neither did Loretta Lynch.
What’s Next?
Oregon has been turned into the "Peoples Republic of Oregon." Law and order have suffered. If there is a full, objective investigation of the Finicum shooting, we get to see what happens when the irresistible force (the rule of law) hits the immovable object (Special Interests and Ruling Elites).
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/678e02...7402eb265d.jpg
It is possible that much good can result from truth coming out, statewide, and perhaps even nationally. Oregon’s (now-elected) Governor Kate will be in office for two more years. If she resigns or is removed from office, Oregon automatically gets a RepublicanGovernor, the first one in 30 years.
Will the records surrounding the Finicum killing see the light of day? It could go either way.
This will not be easy. It can only happen if there is statewide and national public and legal pressure to compel the Federal Government and the Oregon Legislature to take an active role in releasing public records. If Oregonians wake up and take action, the Trump administration and the rest of America will support us -- just as LaVoy Finicum and other citizens came to the tiny town of Burns to support the local ranchers.
We can be sure that any move to fully disclose the events surrounding Uranium One and the Burns Standoff will be fiercely resisted. There have been massive efforts to keep the records sealed. Opening the records is required by law, and it is the best chance that the ranchers and others being held prisoner have of being pardoned, freed, and made whole.
I think our little state may be in for a wild ride. The purpose of this note is to describe current reality and keep hope alive. Good luck to us all.
About My Novels
Thank you for reading and feel free to pass this along. My novels are doing well. They are up on Amazon and will remain there, available though all of Amazon's channels. Amazon is the the largest seller of E-Books, but it is no longer the only bookseller for my novels. I have added two new publishers and over 60 new distribution channels
My intent is to get ALL my books available in ALL channels and ALL formats. Here is a link that discusses the many positive editorial reviews and awards that my novels have won. The first chapters of all my books are posted for FREE on www.johntrudel.com.Please share these links with your friends.
Good luck to us all, and may God Bless America.
Best,
John D. Trudel
P.S. I give media interviews and have an Author’s Website, Amazon Author’s pages in key Western Countries, and a blog. I have a presence for my novels on social media, from Facebook, to Twitter, Linked In, an RSS feed, etc.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2.../black_dot.jpg http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2.../black_dot.jpg
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2...es/divider.jpg Copyright © 2017 John D. Trudel D/B/A The Trudel Group All rights reserved.
Unsubscribe • Update Subscription Preferences
A woman who grew up on a ranch in central Oregon describes the effect that Ammon Bundy's and LaVoy Finicum's words had on her life and how she realized the media was not telling the truth in her letter to President Trump
Paula Hart
10 hrs
January 26. 2017
Dear President Trump,
First off, I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations on becoming our President. I will continue to pray for you as you uphold your promise to make America great again. I’m writing to you today because I know of one way you can do just that. Before I begin, though, I’d like to tell you something about me and how I came to be involved in my reason for writing to you.
I will be 50 years old this year. I grew up on a ranch in Oregon in a time when America was a much better place. People looked out for each other and didn’t think twice about helping their neighbor. People used to truly care about their fellow man and the world around them. These are some of the things that used to make America a great place. As I grew older, though, I was so busy working and raising a family that I stopped paying attention to, or even really caring about, the world around me. I had no “American pride”- I just happened to have been born here. The American flag was a symbol of our country but had no real significance to me, personally. American history was just some class that I was forced to sit through in school, and the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights were just a bunch of old, inconsequential papers written by a bunch of men and had nothing at all to do with me. I never bothered to register to vote in any election because I, like many people, felt that my vote-my voice- didn’t really matter. I’m ashamed to admit that his was my life and my attitude and I was okay with it.
Fast-forward to December of 2015 when my entire life and attitude about so many things underwent a drastic change. I was watching the local news one night and heard the words, “A group of heavily armed, anti-government, extremists have just taken over a bird refuge in Burns, Oregon”. I live in Central Oregon and knew where Burns was. All I could think was, “what kind of ding-bats would take over a bird refuge miles from nowhere in the dead of winter? What’s the point?” I actually laughed it off. A few days later, I heard that the local news was going to be filming live from the refuge and was going to be talking to some of these people. I turned the TV up and went to the kitchen to make dinner. A few minutes later, I hear the reporter go live from the refuge and then heard a couple different men speak. I wasn’t paying as much attention to what they were saying as to the voices themselves.
I was expecting to hear loud, harsh, demanding voices, not the gentle, kind, respectfully quiet voices I was actually hearing. These voices could not belong to the “domestic terrorists” (as Harry Reid labeled them)! I started to pay attention to what they were saying. I listened as Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum talked about the Hammond family and the horribly unjust abuse they had suffered at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management and the federal justice system for decades. I listened as they calmly and clearly explained why they were there and what they hoped to accomplish. Right then and there, I knew that the media wasn’t telling us the whole story and so I took to the internet and social media to find out the truth. Believe me, it didn’t take long.
I realized that everything they were saying was the absolute truth. I read page after page-story after story- of ranchers and landowners across the west who had been and were still being abused, bullied and tyrannized at the hands of, both, the BLM and other federal agencies and the courts- were not only turning a blind eye to what was happening, but actually taking part in the abuse. I read about cases such as the Hage family, the Dann sisters, the Bundy family, the Finicum family, the Hammond family and hundreds of others who were all going through the exact same things. I truly couldn’t believe what I was reading and just how common an occurence this was.
The men and women who “took over the refuge” didn’t “take it over” as an act of aggression. They were in town holding a huge rally in support of the Hammond’s and in protest of them being sent BACK to prison under Terrorism charges for 5 years. Then and there, they decided enough was enough. They were sick of being abused, sick of watching their friends, family, and neighbors being abused, and tired of being ignored by our elected officials, courts, and the federal government. The People needed to be made aware of how often this has been happening and stand together to change things. They were not violent. They didn’t destroy anything. They weren’t rude or obnoxious. They were friendly and respectful. They invited the public to come and listen to what they had to say. They invited the media to come and talk to them to help them get the truth out. They taught the Constitution to anyone and everyone that would listen. They were waking people up in droves……which proved to be their downfall.
Our government and elected officials realized that they were getting the truth out in a big way and decided they had to stop them. They called what these people were doing a ‘virus that needed to be stopped from spreading’. Speaking the truth, exposing the corruption and teaching the Constitution is a virus? Since when?! That’s when the government decided to send a clear message to all American’s; stand up to us and we will take you down or out. A random handful of people were arrested and one was killed. The media continues to hide the truth and flat out lie. The courts are acting in opposition to the Constitution. The judge in Oregon stated in the courtroom, during trial, that the Constitution was not allowed in her courtroom! Isn’t the Constitution STILL the Supreme Law of the land? Why is it no longer allowed in a court of LAW?!!
I have spent every day, all day for the past year, getting to know these men and women, their families, and their friends. These are good, honest, hard-working patriotic Americans. My heart aches for what they are all going through at the hands of our very own government. These men and women have done far more good than they even know. They have taught several thousand people to take an active part in making this country better. To have pride in America again. To get involved in positive change. To learn our history and what our founding father’s intended for us as a country. They showed us what happens when we follow the Constitution and the abuse that happens to the People when we don’t. They have taught us what the American flag really means. They got people, just like me, to get up and vote for the very first time.
In many ways, these men and women remind me of you. You walked away from a good and satisfying life and entered the political arena because you saw a need for change and you knew that no one else was going to make the changes you knew we needed to make. You faced media attacks at every turn. You saw the corruption within our government and the lawlessness of our Justice system. You stood your ground and refused to give up because it was too important for our nation. They did all of this, too. Only you are sitting in the White House and they are sitting (or soon will be) in concrete cells.
Mr. President, I’m not asking for your help, I am BEGGING you to help these people! You said that as long as you are President, the men and women who feel forgotten will be forgotten no more. These men and women have been locked away for over a year now. The system is doing all it can to silence them and make people forget them. I refuse to see that happen, so I’m coming to you for help. These people are truly great American’s that still believe in helping their neighbor, in standing up for what’s right. Don’t allow them to spend the rest of their lives in prison for it. The government spent decades ignoring them and their pleas for help, don’t let them be forgotten, as well.
I know others have written you with the names of all the political prisoners so I won’t list them here, now, but I can get you any information you may want or need to look into the TRUTH of the matter,
Email me at
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Paula J. Hart
FLASHBACK:Did pressure from Oregon Governor Brown lead to killing of LaVoy Finicum?
January 27, 2017 editor Leave a comment
Brown’s appeal to Loretta Lynch for a ‘swift resolution’ to the matter was a rhetorical grenade thrown into the middle of an otherwise peaceful–though sometimes tense–situation. It’s ironic that ‘swift’ federal action was requested of the United States chief law-enforcement officer simply because a couple dozen peaceful ranchers were camped out at an abandoned federal structure on public lands. The leftist mantra, ‘keep public lands public’ apparently doesn’t apply when ranchers and property rights are involved.Families, friends and supporters of the ranchers who arrived at the Malheur Refuge on January 2 of 2016 to protest the imprisonment of Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond on federal terrorism charges, could not have predicted the vicious and violent reactions by mainstream media and state and federal government agents.
LaVoy Finicum, a rancher from Arizona with a large family, was among those who traveled to Oregon to protest the imprisonment of the Hammonds. He became both a father-figure and de-facto spokesman for the protesters. Finicum, an avid reader, author and devoted patriot, began making videos years ago about experiences on his ranch involving the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as well as more reflective pieces showcasing his philosophies on human liberty, and the roles of God, man and government. Although no tech whiz, Finicum understood the importance of PR and social media, and was savvy about messaging on paper and in front of the camera. Since he was willing to speak openly to all reporters, and due to the coverage by national media of him sitting on a camp chair, covered by a tarp against the wet and cold of the southeastern Oregon winter, LaVoy Finicum became known as the “man under the blue tarp.”
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=542%2C431
But as they were mischaracterized by mainstream media as ‘domestic terrorists’ and ‘armed militants,’ and as they and their families were assaulted by a barrage of social media smears, leftist politicians, including those in the Obama Administration, grew increasingly uncomfortable with the coverage given to the Malheur protesters. The anger and frustration of the Left culminated on January 26, 2016 with the killing of LaVoy Finicum, the quiet, gentle, freedom-fighter who had kept his patient vigil under the blue tarp.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown, 5 days before the killing of LaVoy Finicum, appealed to the Obama Justice Department for them to intervene and end the protests, despite the fact that the ranchers had simply camped out on public property at the Malheur Refuge, and had done nothing violent nor destructive during the preceding weeks. Brown’s letter follows:
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=657%2C827
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=643%2C585
Brown, a progressive Democrat, probably took her cues from the same left-wing special interest groups which orchestrated media attacks on the ranchers. Her portrayal of the sentiments of Harney County residents was blatantly dishonest. In fact, LaVoy Finicum and several friends were part of a convoy of ranchers on its way to a town hall meetingwith locals in John Day, Harney County, Oregon when his truck was forced off the road and he was killed by FBI agents and Oregon State Patrol officers.
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=570%2C342Brown’s appeal to Loretta Lynch for a ‘swift resolution’ to the matter was a rhetorical grenade thrown into the middle of an otherwise peaceful–though sometimes tense–situation. It’s ironic that ‘swift’ federal action was requested of the United States chief law-enforcement officer simply because a couple dozen peaceful ranchers were camped out at an abandoned federal structure on public lands. The leftist mantra, ‘keep public lands public’ apparently doesn’t apply when ranchers and property rights are involved.
CBS News photo
Just days after Brown issued her letter, agents from the FBI took over the operation and set out to end the ‘occupation,’ doing so with deadly results. Although media reports immediately claimed that LaVoy was reaching for his gun and posed a mortal threat to the officers surrounding him, video and audio evidence has made it clear that he exited the truck with his hands in the air, and was shot–likely with a rubber bullet–prior to reaching towards his side. After Oregon State Troopers killed him with several bullets, one to his face, government agents continued to fire on the passengers in his truck, who sat terrified until the shooting stopped.
http://youtu.be/0fpO6Oh0r2U
The question still lingers of whether or not Governor Brown’s letter to Obama’s DOJ incited the lethal overreaction by the FBI and Oregon State Patrol which ended in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of most of the protesters, including Ammon and Ryan Bundy.
Although no progress was made under the Obama Administration into investigating this deadly attack on an innocent man, the family and friends of the Finicum, Bundy, and Hammond families, have determined to continue to appeal to the Trump Administration, and the likely new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.
Earlier this week, LaVoy Finicum’s widow, Jeanette, filed a lawsuit in federal court citing Civil Rights violations in his killing. Although the life of LaVoy Finicum ended a year ago, it appears that, with a new administration in D.C., which was put into office largely by America’s rural voters, investigations into government attacks on LaVoy, and other law-abiding folks in the West, are only beginning.
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=733%2C410
Free Range Report
Related
John Day, Oregon, The Meeting that Never Happened, inspiring a Western 'Revolution'January 30, 2017In "Federal Police State"
Obama backs off Owyhee designation, could Oregon Standoff be why?January 21, 2017In "Federal Overreach"
What's behind media smears of ranchers victimized by federal actions?September 8, 2016In "Media Bias"
Share
Tweet
Share
Share
Share
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS #5 Tilting at Windmills
Gary Hunt - Outpost of Freedom
Freedom of the Press #5 – “Tilting at Windmills”
January 31, 2017, 3:36 pm
Freedom of the Press #5
“Tilting at Windmills”
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ndmills-02.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 31, 2017
Well, it has been almost three weeks since the government’s most recent effort to suppress Freedom of the Press. Not really surprising, since they have nothing to go on; they just think that they do. However, Billy J. Williams (aka Don Quixote) and Pamala R. Holsinger (aka Sancho Panza) have spent a bunch of taxpayer’s money on “Tilting at Windmills”. They just do not seem to believe that the Constitution is the very document that created them, and the government that they represent. Well, it didn’t really create them, but it did create the positions that they hold.
Back on January 10, 2017, the government filed the “Government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1689)“. This was discussed in Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, published on January 11. That same day, just hours before #3 was published, the Court filed an “Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order (1691)“. This, of course, led to my response, on January 12, with Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order. Rather a hectic pace, for three days.
Apparently, the government had some heavy homework, for it wasn’t until January 30 that they made their next move. They filed “Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1788)“, and, not to be out done, they filed an “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (1789)“. The Motion (1788) is only 6 pages, but the Affidavit (1789) is 14 pages, 8 of which are actually entering my Article #4 into the record. I sure like it when they expand my readership. Thank you, Don and Sancho.
So, let’s look at the Affidavit (1789), first. The first three paragraphs are explanations of Ronnie Walker’s qualifications. In that third paragraph, we find this rather curious limitation of her authority:
I am an “investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States” within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510(7), authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.
Now, it says that she is “authorized to conduct investigations into alleged violations of federal law.” It does not say that Walker cannot investigate other allegations, but if Walker could, would not Walker have made the point clear. It kinda makes you wonder, since nobody has found the time to provide a statute that I am in violation of. This was first discussed when I received the “Letter- Demand to Cease and Desist“, which I reported on in Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI, when “I asked the agent what statute bound me to the Cease and Desist portion of the letter?” I received no reply. Since they have not provided me a statute (federal law), I am just wondering if maybe SA Walker is moonlighting for the US Attorney.
Now, here is the kicker. In the next paragraph in the affidavit, Walker states:
4. This affidavit is intended to show only facts pertinent for the requested motion and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter.
So, let’s see some facts. In paragraph 15, Walker states that I received:
a Supplement to the original Protective Order, court record #1692, which prohibits any individual or entity from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefromto any other individual or entity by any means.
Well, that is a fact. Any individual or entity that disseminates those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity[,] by any means. Now, that would make almost any person who has read and shared certain of my articles, and presumably, even if you did not read them and only shared them, you have been brought into the “long arm of the Protective Order”, and are subject to the very same punishment that they want to try to hang on me. And, as Walker said, that’s a fact.
Do not let that scare you, because we still have to see if the Court can find some way to reach out of their jurisdiction and grab me, or you, unless, of course, you live in Oregon. But, even if you do live in Oregon, unless you are party to Ammon Bundy, et al, the trial, which will start, again, with Group 2, on February 14, it would not apply to you, either. The reason I say that it can’t reach you is that you have to have aided and abetted a party in the action. That condition exists when two parties work together. We’ll touch on that, a little later..
Then in paragraph 17, we find:
On January 23, 2017, I reviewed the Outpost of Freedom blog at http://outpost-of-freedom.com and observed that HUNT not only had not removed the protected material but had posted new additional discovery information subject to this Court’s original Protective Order (#342), January 11, 2017, Order (#1691), and January 11, 2017, Supplement to Protective Order (#1692). The new CHS discovery information was posted January 23, 2017, in an article by HUNT titled “Bums Chronicles No 55.” In this post, HUNT alleges two individuals are FBI CHSs. HUNT fully identifies one of the individuals and refers to the second individual only by first name and physical description. HUNT draws conclusions based on five FD-1023 reports provided in the CHS discovery. HUNT quoted verbatim text from the CHS discovery reports.
Now, we can move on to the Government’s Motion (1788).
From that Motion:
Hunt told SA Catalano that he did not intend to comply with the terms of the letter. Hunt stated he had two more articles outing CHSs; those articles were in their final review stage before he planned to upload them.
Now, the Affidavit confirms that I had added the one article naming two people, though in the Motion, Catalano’s report indicated that I had informed them that I had two articles nearly completed. Even if the Order were valid, I had advised them of two articles that predate the Order, though they had not, yet, been published.
The Motion then states, after going through the various events that led up to January 30,The Order states that in the event Hunt fails to comply with the Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings.
How very nice of the Court to authorize the government to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings. However, the Order was issued, “in part“. The “in part”, though it had other parts, did address the problem of jurisdiction. As explained in Article #4, the Order clearly states:
4. In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. 1
And, the referenced footnote (1) says:
1 Because the question is not presently before it, the Court does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings.The question was NOT before the Court. The Motion does NOT address that touchy little matter of jurisdiction. So, no ruling has been made with regard to jurisdiction. Nor has the government offered anything within the Motion to suggest that jurisdiction exists for this Court to proceed any further than simply mouthing off, hoping to intimidate me into the Oregon federal District’s jurisdiction.
The Motion ends with the following:
Accordingly, the United States asks that this Court order third-party Gary Hunt to appear in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and show cause as to why this Court should not hold him in contempt.
Well, I doubt that the Court can do any more than the government has done, to ask me to visit Oregon. Unfortunately, my last visit left a bad taste in my mouth. Just two days after I arrived, LaVoy Finicum was murdered on the side of the road. Certain events that occurred just moments before, and shortly after, the murder took place have been left in the hands of the government to investigate. Those events include two shots fired by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the removal of evidence from a crime scene (removed brass), and the failure to report weapons fired by the HRT members. And, that investigation has allegedly been going on for over a year. I say “allegedly” because the government has been so silent on the matter that we do not know for sure.
So, if the government cannot do their job, unless it suits them, it must be left to the Press to inform the people of the misdeeds of that government.
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Ammon Bundy, Burns Oregon, Constitution, courts, FBI, Freedom of the Press, government, Harney County, Honor, informants, intimidation, law, patriots, press, public, US Attroney
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
Judge Anna J. Brown had a private meeting with Ammon Bundy's jury panel after the acquittal. It appears she was "fishing" for advice, suggestions additional charges for the prosecution that may result in convictions. That ought to be sufficient to cause an impeachment hearing.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...4598350419706/
Bill Goode uploaded a file.
2 hrs
This document, Document 1804, Filed 02/01/2017, is a motion for Anna Brown to recuse herself from the 2nd trial coming up on 14 February in Portland. I just received this document tonight from Jon Ritzheimer. The meeting described is absolutely unconscionable.
From page 3 - 4 of this document:
"This motion is based upon a private meeting the Court held with the September 7, 2016 jurors after the verdict was received. The Court not only answered questions the jurors had, but also discussed the merits of the case with specific reference to potential misdemeanor offenses that could have been used by the government, including trespass and the perceived inadequacy of a sentence to the government for misdemeanor criminal trespass in reference to the acquitted defendants’ conduct.
"Further, during this private meeting which lasted over an hour, the Court invited “advice for the prosecution” knowing that there still remained seven (7) defendants whose trial was scheduled to begin just a few months thereafter and a trial over which the Court was scheduled to preside."
This judge, Anna Brown, knows zero about judicial ethics. Her prejudice in this entire case is absolutely beyond question.
https://www.facebook.com/rsrc.php/v3...IJdJuO43aG.png
MNWR Doc 1804, 1 Feb 2017 .pdf
Portable Document FormatDownloadPreview
Defendant files motion to have Judge Amma Brown remobed from Malheur Mosdemeanor Trial
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...emeanor-trial/
Oregon occupation defendant asks court to remove judge from misdemeanor trial
Posted on February 2, 2017 by Doug Knowles
By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown shouldn't preside over the trial of defendants facing misdemeanor charges in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge because she met privately with jurors who acquitted Ammon Bundy after the first Oregon standoff trial last fall, one of the defendants argues in a motion filed late Wednesday.
"The Court not only answered questions the jurors had, but also discussed the merits of the case with specific reference to potential misdemeanor offenses that could have been used by the government, including trespass and the perceived inadequacy of a sentence to the government'' if it had pursued such a charge, Duane Ehmer's lawyer, Michele Kohler, wrote in a motion to recuse the judge.
Kohler argued that Brown also invited jurors' "advice for the prosecution'' during her private meeting that lasted more than an hour after the Oct. 27 acquittals of Bundy, his older brother, Ryan Bundy, and five other defendants on felony conspiracy and weapons charges.
Twenty-six people were indicted on conspiracy and weapons charges in the 41-day occupation of the federal wildlife sanctuary in eastern Oregon last year. Eleven have pleaded guilty. Seven were acquitted last fall of felony charges. Seven, who face both felony and new misdemeanor charges, are set for trial Feb. 14. Charges were dropped against one person.
Kohler's motion follows a recent ruling by Brown that the remaining seven defendants don't have a right to a jury trial on the new misdemeanor allegations. The judge ruled that she would hold a bench trial on those charges once a jury is deliberating on the felony charges of conspiracy to impede federal workers, possession of weapons in a federal facility and depredation of government property.
It's not unusual for judges to meet with jurors after a trial ends to answer questions they may have and personally thank them for their service.
After the acquittals in last fall's five-week trial before Brown, the jurors met with the judge, according to Juror No. 4, who spoke to The Oregonian/OregonLive after the case concluded.
He said he and his fellow jurors didn't feel prosecutors proved the elements of the conspiracy charge and questioned why other charges weren't filed against the defendants.
Ehmer's lawyer argues that the judge's discussions with the jurors should disqualify her from serving as the arbiter of the misdemeanor charges, which include trespass, tampering with vehicles or equipment and destruction of government property.
"The defendant believes that the actions of the Court in discussing the merits of potential misdemeanor offenses with the discharged jurors ... calls into question it's ability to be impartial,'' Kohler wrote.
Brown, in her ruling late last month that the remaining defendants don't have a right to a jury trial on the less serious charges, also wrote that she doesn't find any reason she couldn't preside over the misdemeanor prosecutions.
"This Judicial Officer is not aware of any basis in the record for recusal, and does not find there is anything about presiding over this case to date that would necessitate disqualification,'' Brown wrote.
Yet Brown said she'll refer any request for her recusal to Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman for consideration, who will decide if he'll need further legal filings or oral argument on the matter before issuing a decision.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
Five page motion viewable at source
Page 1 / 5
Zoom 100%
source
Share this:
115- [COLOR=#777777 !important]Print
[/COLOR]
Teresa Bookshire, Bundy supporter from North Carolina who took time from work to attend a few days fo the first Malheur trial has posted this interesting bit of information on facebook:
Join this group to post and comment.
News Feed
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...b5&oe=59005470
Teresa Brookshire
11 hrs
This is being discussed openly on Facebook, so I will post about it. Darryl Thorne posted an email from his attorney discussing a plea agreement. He states in it that all charges would be dropped, except the misdemeanor trespassing. This includes dropping the conspiracy. The sentencing would be bench probation (which is basically policing yourself) for one year and a nominal fine. He stated that Sandy, Sean, and Dylan Anderson were taking the plea and would go before the judge on Monday or Tuesday. They will not lose their gun rights.
I have believed all along they would drop the conspiracy charges before it went to trial. If you cannot convict the "leaders", it would be even more difficult to convict the supporters. There a couple of reasons I feel they have offered a reasonable plea deal, one being that to just drop the conspiracy charge with an unknown verdict on the trespassing plus charges makes them look pretty bad. The prosecutors WERE upset that the judge was doing a bench trial. By severing the cases, the government knew they were going to be handed a clear cut not guilty verdict. The additional charges were their saving face. A jury is more likely to convict on the lessor charges if they feel the defendants did SOMETHING but they aren't convinced with the BIG charge. Next comes the motion Duane Ehmer filed. When Judge Brown decided she would hear the lessor charges on a bench trial, my first thought was the Oregonian article where she had discussed with the jurors the verdict and charges from the first trial. And I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. If it was a concern for me, judicially it should be a concern. So now this case becomes even more complicated. If a bench trial is upheld, a new judge would have to hear it. But, he would not have been in court for the conspiracy trial. Judge Brown had indicated she would hear additional evidence for the additional charges after the conspiracy trial, assuming most of what she needed to know would be revealed in the conspiracy trial (or relying on her memory from the first trial). All of this testimony and witnesses would have to be recreated for a new judge, on misdemeanor charges.
My next thought was the sudden changing of the winds. The investigation into Love started in 2015. Now, suddenly, right before the Nevada trial, he is found guilty of misusing his position. Then, almost tripping over each other, the enhancement charges in Nevada are dropped. Add in a sudden reasonable plea offer. We have a new administration, and with the public outcry that has been going on for over a year, I believe it is possible all of this is being directed by a hand we can't see (and of course, the might hand of God).
There will be some that will not be pleased that some will accept the plea offers. I ask you to still stand will all of our P3's and whatever decision they make. I will post what a very good woman and friend, Charlotte Sines, quoted:
Friends - I'm often reminded of James Monroe in times such as these..."There is a price tag on human liberty. That price is the willingness to assume the responsibilities of being free men. Payment of this price is a personal matter with each of us."
We have 3 that were not offered this plea deal for whatever reason. I know of one, Duane Ehmer, who says and repeatedly has said, that he would not take a plea deal as he was not trespassing. I will stand and support any that do not take a plea deal. To those that take them, well done-refusing all previous plea deals. It has been a long and hard year standing. My prayers continue for all of our men and women and their families.
2 Likes2 Comments
LikeCommentShare
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1553...5490819099412/
More on the plea bargain from Kelli Stewart
English (US) · Español · Português (Brasil) · Français (France) · Deutsch
Privacy · Terms · Advertising · Ad Choices · Cookies · More
Facebook © 2017
News Feed
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...12&oe=590C8C1D
Kelli Stewart
11 hrs ·
Just hung up with Sandy and Sean. THEIR CONSPIRACY/FELONY CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED UPON THEIR FORMAL MEETING NEXT WEEK-----Dillon, Daryl and the Andersons (only those 4) were offered a KILLER plea deal and are all moving forward with it. (Duane was offered a deal but unsure of what the plea offered was- he said no) Trespassing charges only .. no loss of 2nd amendment rights 1 yr probation instead of the 5 they could get of Brown finds them guilty .. No conspiracy charge either .. They prayed and debated and counter offered and in the end felt peace about moving forward. Sandy and Sean are truly the most bad *#% couple I have ever met (along with Jeff and David). I trust them completely and know that when death was at their door, they still stood. Each person has to look at their offers and do what is best for them. Sean was offered from day 1 a plea of 5 yrs in jail and Sandy walks free.. they both said NO! Had it been me, I would have considered that just to see my spouse walk. They have held out and made the government come to their terms and I say, do what you feel peace about doing. They know first hand how it feels to be abandoned in the middle of war and they themselves stood to the very end .. I have nothing but respect for their patriotism.
We still have Jake, Duane and Jason heading to trial on the 14th. Please do what you can to show up to trial and stand with us as we await the next NOT GUILTY verdict.
#stand
Sandy Anderson III.. more grit than most men.. https://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...1/16/1f602.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...1/16/1f602.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...1/16/1f602.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f1f1_1f1f7.png xoxoxo
Roger Roots
(Along with the conspiracy charge, They want Jake and Duane for digging the ditch, Duane on gun charges and they want Jason because he has been a very vocal Patriot who speaks up for his rights and they are hoping to silence these 3 with jail time.. lets show up and remind them they have NO CASE!!!!)
81 Likes 32 Comments 54Shares
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00011813922844
Arizona State Senators invite Finicum family to a special meeting on their day off
Arianna Brown with Jeanette Finicum and Tierra Belle Collier.
1 hr ·
I just had an incredible day. Yesterday, my family attended a meeting with some members of the Arizona State Senate regarding my dad’s killing and other actions of misconduct and abuse from our over-reaching Federal Government.
Senator Sylvia Allen heard what happened to my father and called this meeting to session, inviting my family to attend. She and eight other members of our senate met together, on what would have been their day off, and discussed several instances where our own Federal Government were acting lawless.
The main talking points were my father’s killing, BLM abuses, and the Patriot Act (and it’s successful shredding of our constitution) These senators were shocked and upset and it was heartening to see members of my own senate want to take a stand. They are writing letters and requesting a congressional hearing, they want the State of Arizona to be behind my family in the wrongful death suit when it comes to court. It was incredible to witness!
51 Likes 13 Comments 45 Shares
https://www.facebook.com/arianna.m.b...10475482816170
Amazing photo of LaVoy's saddled horse in the funeral procession. A shaft of sunlight through the opening of two juniper trees across the empty saddle
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...c7&oe=5949DDA9Lee Gayer RobbinsCitizens for Constitutional Freedom Support Rally
20 hrs ·
The “light of the Lord,” shines on that empty saddle …. LaVoy’s in good hands! He left Hope, Determination, and Inspiration in that saddle. Rest In Peace Cowboy - It’s Our Turn To Ride!
Collusion or Conspiracy - Gary Hunt - Outpost of Freedom.
Gary Hunt says Anna J. Brown is an Article III judge. She may be, but Dr. Trowbridge has cast much doubt on her court being an Article III court. From his research and writings it is an Article IV administrative court. She may also be an administrative law judge. Both the court and the judge must be Article III to hear constitutional arguments.
According the the President her compañero en trabajo in the neighboring state of Washington is a "so called judge".
Burns Chronicles No 57 – Collusion or Conspiracy?
February 4, 2017, 9:40 am
Burns Chronicles No 57
Collusion or Conspiracy?
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ponse-Team.jpgGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 4, 2017
On October 17, 2016, shortly after the very just verdict of “Not Guilty” was announced in the Ammon Bundy, et al, Group 1 trial, a meeting was held in the Mark O. Hatfield Federal District Courthouse. The 12 jurors, Judge Anna Brown, and a court reporter, attended the meeting. It lasted about one and a half hours.
It is my understanding that such a meeting is not unusual. However, circumstances surrounding this particular meeting are, to say the least, quite unusual, considering context. That is exactly what we are going to do.
The first irregularity occurred when the Prosecutor moved to have the trial declared “complex”, which allowed the Court to circumvent the right to a speedy trial and to break the defendants up into two groups. The first Group (mostly leaders) was tried in September and October 2016, and the second Group to be tried beginning in February 2017. While the delayed trial date was agreeable, as the Defendants needed the additional time to prepare their defense, one drawback is that many of the Defendants were held in custody until the verdict was reached, in the first trial. The latter trial date made the government’s case easier, as they had smaller groups to try, and it gave time to elicit plea bargains, thereby reducing the number who would be prosecuted at trial.
Next, during the pre-trial “paper chase”, with hundreds of motions filed, answered, and finally ruled on, there is no doubt that bias existed on the part of Judge Anna Brown. Behind the scenes, many of us followed this legal maneuvering for months. It seemed that even when the arguments presented by the defense were well supported, Judge Brown would still rule against the defense and in favor the Prosecution.
During the trial, there were rather strict rules imposed on the defense, especially when they sought to call additional witnesses to testify. Judge Brown ruled that to allow that would be “repetitive”. However, the prosecution showed a 1-minute video of approximately twenty of the occupiers firing across a canal. The fact that the Prosecution showed that footage four times, however, was not considered “repetitive”.
Finally, and here we get to the meeting, Judge Brown called all of the participating jurors into the meeting, after dismissing the alternate jurors. In that meeting, she explained that she would answer their questions, if they had any. She also asks some questions, and explained that the answers would help the prosecution and the defense. So, just how could it help the defense? The Defense prevailed. It could only help the Prosecution gain insight into the jurors’ minds in order to determine what they would need to overcome to obtain guilty verdicts in the Group 2 trial.
Some jurors indicated that had the charges been less serious, like simple “misdemeanor trespass”, it would have been much easier to render a guilty verdict.
Let me interrupt, for a moment, and point out that the Judge holds office under Article III (Judicial Branch of Government), and is, in essence, an impartial referee. Her job is to “administer law in a court of justice”, “to control the proceedings”, and to make “decisions of questions of law or discretion”. Her job is not to favor one side over the other, but rather to stand aside, interjecting only to the extent necessary to assure a fair trial.
There is no doubt that Judge Brown, confounded by the not guilty verdict, passed the insight she obtained from the meeting with the jurors to the Prosecution. The Prosecution, after waiting a few months, charged some of the remaining defendants with several misdemeanor charges, though all seven defendants were charged with “misdemeanor trespass”.
Remember, the jurors said that they might have convicted if the charges were to lesser offenses. So, the likelihood of getting a conviction, no matter how small the charges, would be a sort of redemption for the dismal failure in the first trial. After all, the government has spent, according to some with access to such information, over one-hundred million dollars on the persecution, with nothing to show for it. So, Judge Brown adds these new misdemeanor charges to the trial docket.
Concerned that even though the first jury might have found them guilty on lesser charges, Judge Brown, in a rather patronizing manner, asks both sides to present arguments as to whether the misdemeanor charges should be heard by the jury or treated as a bench trial, where the Judge would rule on innocence, guilt, and punishment. Of course, we knew what her decision would be, even before the arguments were presented. With total disregard for the Constitution, as explained in “To Jury, or, Not To Jury“, she used her “discretion” to hold the trials at the same time, in front of the jury. When the jury goes to deliberate the felony charges, she will continue with the bench trial, and find them guilty as charged and will withhold any sentencing until after the jury verdict has been rendered.
Now, there are three parties in a trial. There is the Judge, a member of the Judicial Branch of government. Then, there is the US Attorney, a member of the Executive Branch of the government, and, finally, the defendants, members of the “We the People” Branch of the government.
Judge Brown, the supposed neutral party, has already crossed the line that is to separate the Branches of government, in our tripartite system of government. And, that is an illegal act, defined as collusion.
collusion An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or an object forbidden by law. It implies the existence of fraud of some kind, the employment of fraudulent means, or of lawful means for the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose. A secret combination, conspiracy, or concert of actions between two or more persons for fraudulent or deceitful purposes. Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition
Under this circumstance, the collusion between the two separate branches of government, to defraud the defendants of their rights, we can find a more apt descriptor for what has transpired throughout, though even more so, in these waning days of the legal battle between government and the occupiers. Since both parties to the collusion are officials of government, the higher descriptor of conspiracy (Yes, that same charge brought against the defendants) is far more appropriate.
[T]hough individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.
Alexander Hamilton – Federalist Papers #78* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Epilog
As this article was being written, the Prosecution offered four of the seven remaining defendants a plea deal that they chose not to refuse. They will be found guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, sentenced to time served, given one year of “bench probation” (meaning no reporting, etc., simply stay out of trouble), and will not lose their right to bear arms. The only stickler is that “restitution” will be determined at a later date.
So, the government did get some of the defendants guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, perhaps assuming that the charges of “misdemeanor trespass” will flow more easily from the lips of Judge Brown, when she will surely convict the remaining defendants of the same “misdemeanor trespass” charges.
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Anna Brown, Bundy, Burns Oregon, courts, demonization, FBI, government, Harney County, Honor, Judge, judicial tyranny, jury, law, Moral Values, patriots, Prosecution
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
Could be a lot worse but it isn't justice!Quote:
Epilog
As this article was being written, the Prosecution offered four of the seven remaining defendants a plea deal that they chose not to refuse. They will be found guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, sentenced to time served, given one year of “bench probation” (meaning no reporting, etc., simply stay out of trouble), and will not lose their right to bear arms. The only stickler is that “restitution” will be determined at a later date.
So, the government did get some of the defendants guilty of “misdemeanor trespass”, perhaps assuming that the charges of “misdemeanor trespass” will flow more easily from the lips of Judge Brown, when she will surely convict the remaining defendants of the same “misdemeanor trespass” charges.
The restitution could be in the 100s of thousands of dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2
From Bernstein's twitter it looks like Dylan Anderson was fined $1000.00Quote:
Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...0e&oe=5945CFD4
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...0b&oe=593B7880
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...7e&oe=58FDE858
Edit: added Teresa Brookshire
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...77&oe=59456877
Teresa Brookshire Sean and Sandy were sentenced to one year probation, ordered not to return to the Malheur National Wild Life, and pay $1,000 fine each. Sean has permission to bow hunt during probation, and after 1 year can get his 1911 heirloom pistol back.
Like · 12 mins
Some of Maxine Bernstein's tweets regarding Duane Emher's oral arguments in Judge Brown's court today.
I am not sure I have them in the right order
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...94&oe=593B5F7E
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...6c&oe=58FE7415
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...53&oe=590C30F7
Sean and Sandy Anderson press conference after guilty plea.
http://youtu.be/7Rge5P6q7dI
https://youtu.be/7Rge5P6q7dI
Kelli Stewart with a recap of the days events in the Portland, Oregon Malheur hearings. 2/6/17
http://youtu.be/wJadHPwMpkI
https://youtu.be/wJadHPwMpkI
Duane Ehmer has heated exchange with prosecutor 2/6/17
Oregon standoff defendant Duane Ehmer gets into heated exchange with prosecutor
Posted on February 6, 2017 by Doug Knowles
https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...76-1.jpg?ssl=1
By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
February 06, 2017 at 7:14 PM
Note: Graphic language included in story.
***
Duane Ehmer, one of four remaining defendants set for trial this month in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, got into a testy exchange with a federal prosecutor when he took the witness stand Monday during a pretrial hearing.
At one point, Ehmer blurted out: "That's bullshit!'' in response to a prosecutor's remark and question. U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown interrupted to remind Ehmer that he was in a courtroom and to "please refrain from using coarse language.''
Ehmer's court-appointed lawyer, Michele Kohler, urged the court to throw out evidence that FBI agents collected when they arrested Ehmer on Jan. 27 at a roadblock several miles from the refuge.
Ehmer and his lawyer argue that the FBI coerced Ehmer into gaining his consent to search his red Chevrolet Tahoe and horse trailer.
They found a black powder pistol in the saddlebag on Ehmer's horse Hellboy, a rifle hidden in hay in the trailer and a maroon pouch containing checks, cash and ID cards belonging to the Friends of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge under a passenger seat of the SUV.
FBI agents testified that Ehmer voluntarily signed a consent form allowing the search.
But Ehmer described how he thought he'd be shot as he drove out of the refuge and to the roadblock. He saw three armored vehicles and men in tactical gear aiming their firearms at him and thought they were from the military, he said.
"I believed I'd be shot on sight,'' testified Ehmer, wearing his signature American flag button-down shirt.
After state police fatally shot occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum" when he sped away from a traffic stop on Jan. 26, 2016, "everything had kind of broken down'' among those remaining at the refuge, Ehmer said. They started turning guns on each other, he said.
"Chaos ensued,'' he said. "It was a madhouse.''
The remaining occupiers thought the FBI was going to raid the refuge. "We said our goodbyes,'' Ehmer testified.
"Why?'' his lawyer asked.
"We were all gonna be killed,'' Ehmer replied, his voice shaking.
Ehmer said he didn't sleep at all that night. He had been sleeping in his truck and later in a barn with his horse during the refuge occupation.
When he drove out to the checkpoint on the east side of the refuge on the day after Finicum died, Ehmer said he felt as if he was a "prisoner of war.''
Contrary to FBI agents' testimony that they ordered him to stop, get out of his SUV, remove his coat and lift his shirt so they could check his waistband for any firearms, Ehmer said he was ordered to strip completely.
"You were asked to drop your underwear?'' Kohler questioned.
"Absolutely,'' Ehmer said.
FBI agent Todd Scott said Ehmer was calm and compliant and agreed to go back into the refuge to try to persuade others to leave as well. They gave him an hour to do so.
The agent said he told Ehmer that those who had no felony warrants would be allowed to leave the refuge and return home. At that point, Scott said he was unaware that a federal arrest warrant had been issued for Ehmer, saying the communication between his FBI SWAT unit and the command center was poor, with information delayed in reaching him.
"I was trying to get my friends out of the refuge alive,'' Ehmer testified.
Ehmer drove back to the refuge and returned to the checkpoint about 45 minutes later, with two others in separate vehicles following him.
This time, the FBI took Ehmer into custody, having learned about the federal warrant for him. Agents said they also asked Ehmer if they could search his trailer and SUV, and he signed a consent form while sitting beside an agent in the back of one of the FBI's armored vehicles.
Scott said he apologized to Ehmer when he was arrested. " I felt bad about what happened there ... because he had been compliant," the agent said. "I felt like he had had been honest with me.''
Ehmer thought the FBI had lied to him because he said he thought he "would be free to go as promised.'' He also said he had signed the consent form only after the agent told him the FBI would do the search even if he didn't. FBI agents said they made no such comment.
During cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel pointed out that Ehmer knew he wouldn't be shot the second time he drove up to the checkpoint because he had convinced two other people to come out with him.
"I still don't trust the FBI,'' Ehmer responded.
"That wasn't my question, sir,'' Gabriel said.
"You had two guns in your trailer,'' Gabriel continued. "You're a felon.''
"They were sponged off my records,'' Ehmer said. "No, I'm not a felon.''
"You had actually performed guard duty at the refuge. ... You had a gun up in the tower?'' Gabriel said.
"A black powder pistol, yes,'' Ehmer answered.
Wasn't it true, Gabriel asked Ehmer, that he had told the FBI at the checkpoint that he brought a black power pistol and rifle to the refuge but that the guns remained at the refuge.
"That was a lie?'' Gabriel asked.
"Yes,'' Ehmer said.
And wasn't it true that Ehmer didn't object to the FBI searching his trailer and car, Gabriel asked.
"I didn't verbally object to anything when they're pointing rifles at me,'' Ehmer said.
How, Gabriel asked, could Ehmer have thought the men with rifles were from the military when all the FBI agents wore "FBI" in "big white letters on a black patch?''
That's when Ehmer blurted out the expletive, and the judge admonished him.
The judge said she'd take further argument on Ehmer's motion Tuesday morning.
As Ehmer stepped off the witness stand, he turned to the judge and told her, "I'm sorry about the cussing.''
The prosecutor conceded that an FBI agent's opening of the saddle bag, where the pistol was found, during a second sweep of the horse trailer went beyond the agent's authority.
Later Ehmer, when asked if he would consider any plea deal in light of three co-defendants pleading guilty Monday to a misdemeanor trespass charge, Ehmer told The Oregonian/OregonLive, "I will not. I got to take it all the way.''
He's one of four remaining defendants set for trial on Feb. 14.
In other action Monday, the judge said she wasn't sure she had authority to order Gary Hunt to appear in court to explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt. Hunt has posted information from confidential FBI reports on a blog about informants who were part of the occupation investigation.
"The record is insufficient for me to act,'' Brown told Assistant U.S. Attorney Pamala Holsinger.
She directed Holsinger to either ask a federal judge in California to order Hunt to appear in a district court there, or file a supplemental motion explaining how Brown would have jurisdiction, and whether prosecutors are seeking Hunt be found in criminal or civil contempt of a court order.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
source
Malheur Protest trial number 2 update from Teresa Brookshire
https://www.facebook.com/groups/237360123055985/
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...52&oe=59077EB7
Teresa Brookshire
4 hrs
The morning is proving to be very interesting in Oregon. At the start of the pretrial conference, apparently Jason Patrick chose not to stand. When asked about it by Judge Brown, he stated he would stand for the jury.
Duane Ehmer is asking through Facebook for photos that show the militarized checkpoint photos we have all seen. Yesterday, he asserted that that it was not evident that some of those at these checkpoints were FBI. The prosecution countered that they had on jackets with big white letters stating FBI. I have followed this closely, and I cannot say I recall any pictures as the prosecution describes them, and I have seen hundreds of pictures. This may be a moot point as we have a little problem...
It seems the warrant that was used to arrest Duane was dated on January 28th, 2016. Duane was arrested on January 27th, 2016. Judge Anna Brown stated "It is very curious to me all of them (FBI Agents) testified to an arrest warrant when there isn't one-so this is a problem."
Duane's attorney is asserting the second sweep of the trailer is unlawful as there was no warrant for it.
There were 1,000 jury questionaires sent out, with only 800 returned. Judge Brown expressed disappointment that 200 were not returned. Jury selection will begin on February 14th, 2017 and the trial will most likely begin February 21st, 2017. There will be 12 jurors with 4 alternates.
I hold steadfast in my belief the prosecution will drop the conspiracy to impede charges against all 4 defendants. If it were not embarrassing enough for the prosecution with the first trial, why would they expose themselves to yet another fiasco. The ones they accused as being the leaders were aquitted, the jury met with Judge Brown and discussed their absolute confusion why conspiracy to impede would be the charge of choice for the prosecution. Enough money has been wasted on a false narrative-this is my and your tax money, and I don't approve.
LikeCommentShare
Lisa Bennett, Larry Cocchiarella, Bobby Payne and 15 others like this.
2 shares
Comments
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...77&oe=59456877
Teresa Brookshire I did forget to mention Judge Brown does intend to fly Ammon and Ryan Payne to Oregon from Nevada to testify.
Like · 2 · 4 hrs
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...b7&oe=59055A3F
Sue Sorg All the videos I've seen they didn't have on FBI tags , looked like some foreigners emblem .
Like · 2 · 3 hrs
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...8b&oe=590F160B
Daniel Harvey i dont have any pics but there are plenty out there i watched from the start and lots never had fbi as who they were with,there is even a video asking who they were with in town,they had no markings and wouldnt respond
Like · 12 mins
Why should ordinary Americans care about what happened to LaVoy Finicum. FreeRange Report gets a city dwellers perspective
http://freerangereport.com/index.php...lavoy-finicum/
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=601%2C143Why should ordinary Americans care about what happened to LaVoy Finicum?
February 7, 2017 editor 2 comments
“As I spoke to these folks I realized that they weren’t hateful or on the fringe. Instead, they were neighborly, they love each other as humans. They are the kind of folks that would stop and help you change your tire. They’re the type of people that care about each other and for our rights as Americans and humans. Why did corporate media skew the story instead of looking into the reasons that the protest was taking place? I guess we are just conditioned to trust our news outlets. I think that trust is waning and I would like to propose that the Malheur Refuge protest and the death of one of the protestors should be looked into for yourself.”Free Range Report was present at the memorial for LaVoy Finicum which was held by his widow, Jeanette, and their children, exactly one year and two days after he was slain by government agents along a snowy stretch of highway outside John Day, Oregon.
That day, Finicum and some friends were on their way to a town hall meeting in the small town of John Day when they were forced off the road and surrounded by officers from the Oregon State Patrol and FBI, in what many believe was an ambush. Because of LaVoy’s killing, and the detentions and arrests of others stopped by government agents that day, the town hall meeting in John Day never happened.
LaVoy’s memorial on January 28 was given the title, “The Meeting that Never Happened” because the gathering would fulfill the aims of those who traveled with LaVoy Finicum on January 26, 2016, to meet with local folks, and talk about the constitutional rights to life, liberty and property which he came to Oregon to defend. The Meeting that Never Happened was attended by around 500 people, many from other states, who wanted to tell the story that LaVoy Finicum simply wanted to share when he was gunned down; the story of a rancher who loved his God, his family, his country, and his freedom, more than life itself.
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C484
Following are the reflections of Macon Richardson, a 41 year-old technology professional from Bellingham, Washington, which is located about 9 hours north of John Day, Oregon.
FRR: Please share your impressions of eastern Oregon. How is it different than Bellingham?
Driving south to John Day from Bellingham, I thought to myself just how far away from the urban setting eastern Oregon is. Not just far in the sense of distance but far in the sense that people out here live a different life than most people in America. Out here folks care about each other, they know each other. They look out for each other. They have to, if they don’t look out for each other, who will? Without all of the comforts of large emergency service infrastructure and a grocery store on every corner the people of eastern Oregon have to be there for each other.FRR: Being unfamiliar with the people out here, what did you expect after hearing media accounts of the Oregon Standoff? Did anything surprise you about your interactions with them?
A day in eastern Oregon made it clear to me that these folks are good, hardworking, caring Americans. I don’t understand why have some of them been deemed terrorists by the media. Why did a small group of ranchers decide to form a protest in such a remote part of Oregon? Why not protest in a big city like normal protesters?Why didn’t they burn things and assault people like the “normal” protesters that we’ve seen throughout America? I wanted to take a good look at it first-hand. There has to be more to the story than it just being some fringe group taking over a federal building with guns, as CNN reported.FRR: What did you know about the background of the story, and the motives of the Oregon Standoff protesters before tonight?
I knew a little. The Harney basin has been a real hotbed of land deputes and outright destruction of natural resources for decades. By reading the news about the protest in Oregon last year you may think that all of this wrong-doing must be caused by the people who live there. But I learned that all of these transgressions and aggressions have been perpetrated by our own Federal Government.FRR: Since you are drawing a contrast between they ways certain groups of people have handled disputes with the federal government or other authorities, do you believe LaVoy Finicum and his friends had a legitimate reason to protest, and do agree with the way they handled it?
Just think, when one group of Americans who feel that they have been marginalized and treated poorly by our own government burn down their town, threaten police and civilians with violence, and even commit violence they are called ‘protesters.’ When another group of Americans who feel that they have been marginalized and treated poorly by our government launch a small protest at an actual remote government-run building, they are deemed to be ‘terrorists.’ What’s the difference? I mean, other than burning property, destroying police cars, and beating innocent people.
The difference is that the protesters at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge were ranchers and their friends and family. They were trying to bring attention to a very serious grievance they have with how the federal agencies have been behaving throughout out western states. Their grievance was and is sincere and it affects each and every one of us. Two of their neighbors were tried and convicted as terrorists for just doing what they always have done. What were they doing that would cause them to be tried twice for the same offense. What terrible activities were these two ranchers engaged in that would land them in a federal prison after being convicted of terrorism? They were taking care of their property by back-burning their grasslands in order to promote fresh growth and keep noxious weeds at bay so that their cattle would grow up healthy.Well, the wind direction changed and the fire did spread onto federal land, also once thought of as “public land”. It burned more grassland and some fire fighters came out to suppress it. Done. Still a slow news day out there. It happens all of the time. No one was hurt and everyone went home for dinner.FRR: What do you think America needs to know about the motives of LaVoy Finicum and the other Malheur Refuge protesters? What details have mainstream media outlets left out of the ‘whole story?’
The short story is that the father and son ranchers are now sitting in a federal penitentiary as convicted terrorists.Then other ranchers protested the abuse and heavy hand of our federal government and were swiftly also labeled “terrorists” by our own media. By the end of the protest nothing was burned down, no civilians or police were assaulted, no police cars were burned. None of those things happened. Unfortunately the peaceful protest did end in violence. A protester was shot down by our own government officials on the side of the road standing with his hands up. LaVoy Finicum was that protestor. The Finicum family lost someone they loved that day. No one rioted in the streets for LaVoy. No one beat anyone with a pipe or blocked traffic. We all watched the video of this man being shot down, yet most Americans went on about their day. Shame.FRR: Do you think that during the year since LaVoy’s death the attitudes of other Americans have changed about him, the Bundys and others involved with the Oregon Standoff?
When I heard that the Finicum family was holding memorial for LaVoy, I wanted to travel to John Day to pay my respects too. I was astounded by how one-sided the press had been about the protest and eventual death of LaVoy Finicum. I didn’t know anyone at the memorial, not personally at least. I was an “outsider” in many ways. I live in a city. I don’t own land, or raise livestock. I pay a water bill and sometimes go out for brunch. I did not know how I would be received by these folks, many of whom where there at the protests one year ago. According to the media I was supposed to be among a fringe group of potential terrorists. What I found in John Day was the very opposite of what CNN said I would find. So, I guess, since my entire perspective changed, probably thousands of others have, as well.FRR: What would you tell our readers about the things that impressed you most about your visit to LaVoy’s memorial? What would you say to others who have not had the opportunity to learn more about the people involved and the events leading up to this remembrance?
The people that showed up for the memorial were, well, friendly! They were Americans, like you and I. They had jobs and families, and bills, just like you and just like me. They showed up at the memorial because they were friends and family of LaVoy or other members of the protest. As I spoke to these folks I realized that they weren’t hateful or on the fringe. Instead, they were neighborly, they love each other as humans. They are the kind of folks that would stop and help you change your tire. They’re the type of people that care about each other and for our rights as Americans and humans. Why did corporate media skew the story instead of looking into the reasons that the protest was taking place? I guess we are just conditioned to trust our news outlets. I think that trust is waning and I would like to propose that the Malheur Refuge protest and the death of one of the protestors should be looked into for yourself.https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C573
Free Range Report
Related
LaVoy Finicum: Killed by government agents while defending property rights, human dignityJanuary 28, 2017In "Bureau of Land Management"
Obama backs off Owyhee designation, could Oregon Standoff be why?January 21, 2017In "Federal Overreach"
Flashback: Did pressure from Oregon Governor Brown lead to killing of LaVoy Finicum?January 27, 2017In "Civil Rights"
Share
Tweet
Share
Share
Share
Jason Patrick order from courtroom by armed marshalls at his own hearing.
http://libertyfight.com/2017/Feb/Jas...armed-cop.html
Malheur Refuge Defendant Jason Patrick Ordered To Leave Oregon Courtroom By Armed U.S. Marshals During His Own Hearing
Patrick's trial is scheduled to begin February 14th along with addifional defendants Darryl Thorn, Jake Ryan and Duane Ehmer. They all still face felony charges for their part in the occupation protest of the wildlife refuge against the Bureau of Land Management last year.
Five hours ago Jason Patrick wrote on his Facebook page:
"Attention- please like, share and comment on this post. I was just ordered to leave the courthouse by U.S. Marshalls."The post has 77 comments, 81 shares and 88 likes.
Patrick was scarce on additional details, but is understandably concerned for his safety given what was done to his friend LaVoy Finicum, murdered by The FBI as he exited his car in an attempt to surrender with his hands up.
One of his friends asked, what does this mean brother??"
Patrick replied, "It means I could be shot for being there or hunted down and shot for not being there. Marshals choice?"
In response to another facebook friend, Patrick elaborated "I tried to enter like every other day and was ordered to leave."
Another friend asked "What??? You don't have a right to be there?" to which Patrick replied 'Right'??? LMFAO", revealing his feelings about the unfair nature of the system. OPB reported yesterday that at Tuesday's hearing, when U.S. District court Judge Anna Brown walked into the court to begin proceedings, everyone stood except Patrick, at which point Judge Brown asked "Is there a reason you didn't stand, Mr. Patrick?" To which he replied "I'll stand for the jury." Judge Brown didn't push the issue, replying "Allright, we'll leave it at that."
Judge Anna J. Brown is 64-years old, a Bill Clinton appointee who took office as a federal judge in 1999. In 2013, Judge Brown took part in a law school eventwith Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. A cursory internet search of Judge Brown reveals that she apparently has a lot of enemies, particularly Constitutionalist types who think she is a criminal who should be impeached and removed from the bench.
Based on my experience, I believe that the Marshals took it upon themselves to kick Patrick out because they wanted to exert their power and punish him for what they view as lack of respect. What they're doing is illegal and a violation of his due process.
Jason Patrick is a good guy who was named a 'National Hero' by FOX News in 2014 for rescuing a motorist in distress. I don't know him personally but first became acquainted with his activism online when he was the first person to publicly name the two cops who killed Idaho rancher Jack Yantis in November 2015.
You can read the original post from today and all the responses at Jason Patrick's Facebook page here .
You can visit the LibertyFight.com Malhuer Wildlife Protest Archives here .
You can find the most recent articles from LibertyFight.com here.
To get notice of the latest material you can follow LibertyFight on Twitter or contact me to join our e-mail list.
NOTE: The 'DISQUS' feature has been added to this site so you can leave your comments below. No login is required, you can post as a guest.
WRH Link: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/co...-marshals-duri
http://libertyfight.com/2017/profile17.jpg
Martin Hill is a Catholic paleo-conservative and civil rights advocate. In 2015, President Donald J. Trump in front of a live international TV audience, said Hill was "very committed" and "got a lot of energy," adding that "he's on our side" and "is a Trump guy." In addition to being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and The Daily Beast, Hill's work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association, RedState.com, AmericanFreePress.net, RomanCatholicReport.com, WorldNetDaily, HenryMakow.com, OverdriveOnline.com, Educate-Yourself.org, TexeMarrs.com, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show, InvestmentWatchBlog, Strike-The-Root.com, Antiwar.com, Mark Glenn's 'The Ugly Truth' Blog & radio show, Michael Hoffman's RevisionistHistory.org, John Friend's TheRealistReport.com, Sophia Smallstorm's Blog, DrDay.com, Pasadena Weekly, ActivistPost.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, IamtheWitness.com, Redlands Daily Facts, SaveTheMales.ca, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com, BeforeItsNews.com, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, CopBlock.org, DavidIcke.com, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer, and many others.
Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com, DontWakeMeUp.Org, RandPaukZionist.com and JohnInBarbados.com.
Be sure to see my meeting with President Trump:
http://youtu.be/WNmx7VQx524
- Front-Row Protester Disrupts Trump's Michigan Speech: "ISRAEL DID 9/11! Five JEWS Arrested on 9/11 In New Jersey, NOT Muslims!"
- Trump's Response To "Israel Did 9/11" Protester Is More Interesting Than The Heckle Itself:
- "He's A Trump Guy, He's On Our Side! He's Very Committed!" Trump says.
- Martin Hill interviewed by John Friend of The Realist Report (This is probably my favorite interview I've ever done. We cover the history of Libertyfight.com, my motivation, my confrontation of Donald Trump, and many other issues. Very fun show; One hour and 14 minutes. Download the MP3 here.]
Featured Articles From LibertyFight.com:
Misc:
- Fr. Coughlin's New Years Day Message, 1933: Not Despair, But Hope Of 'Understanding The Flagrant Financial Abuse Of The Rothschild System'
- POLICE ADMIT PLANTING GUNS AND DRUGS IN CARS, LAUGH ABOUT IT
- 81-Year-Old Man Beats Red-Light Camera Ticket, Pasadena Newspaper Credits LibertyFight.com With Know-How
- Rose Parade attendees surrender 4th Amendment rights in bizarre police squad program
FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyFight.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC S. 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can follow LibertyFight.com on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.
Malheur Protest Defndants Who Dug Trenches Contend They Were For Self Defense.
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...-self-defense/
Oregon standoff defendants who dug trenches on refuge contend they were for self-defense
Posted on February 8, 2017 by Doug Knowles
https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...65%2C276&ssl=1By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive February 08, 2017 at 3:24 PM
One of the trenches dug at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during the 41-day occupation of the federal wildlife sanctuary in eastern Oregon last winter. (Archeologist Timothy W. Canaday's report)
There's no dispute that Oregon standoff defendants Duane Ehmer and Jake Ryan used a government excavator to dig two trenches during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
The argument during their trial starting next week will be whether the two "willfully'' broke the law, knowing the excavator and land belonged to the federal government, and that they went ahead anyway.
Prosecutors will play videos taken by David Fry, another refuge occupier, and aerial surveillance videos showing Ehmer and Ryan taking turns using the excavator to dig the trenches on Jan. 27, the day after the arrest of takeover leaders and the police shooting of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum.
Ehmer dug one trench and then Ryan took over and dug a second one, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Barrow. The videos are to support the charge of depredation of government property, a felony, against each man.
Ehmer, 46, of Irrigin, and Ryan, 28, of Plains, Montana, are among four remaining occupation defendants set for trial. Jury selection begins Tuesday. The others are Jason Patrick, 43, of Bonaire, Georgia, and Darryl Thorn, 32, of Marysville, Washington.
Defense lawyers will counter that the two dug the trenches for protection, suspecting that the FBI planned an attack on the people remaining at the refuge after Finicum's death.
Defense lawyer Jesse Merrithew, representing Ryan, said the men created a "physical barrier'' to "any law enforcement coming in to assault them.''
The initial information that filtered back to the refuge about the circumstances of Finicum's fatal shooting terrified those who remained behind at the refuge, Merrithew said. Ehmer and Ryan had a reasonable belief by the next morning "that law enforcement was out to kill them,'' Merrithew said.
Two state troopers shot Finicum after he fled a traffic stop and ran his truck into a snowbank at a roadblock on the way to a community meeting away from the refuge in John Day. He was fatally shot by police after he got out of the pickup and police say he reached at least twice inside his jacket, where the FBI later found a loaded handgun.
Ehmer and Ryan, who remained at the refuge, saw drones flying overhead and spotted from a high vantage point armored vehicles on the edge of the refuge, Merrithew said.
"It appeared to the people there that a military buildup was happening around them,'' he said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight called the defense argument absurd, and argued that defendants shouldn't be able to claim self-defense as a legal challenge to the depredation charge.
He also argued that any unsupported opinions offered by the defendants about an imminent FBI raid or attack would prejudice a jury.
If the government can't have refuge employees testify about their fears during the occupation - as U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown has ordered - yet the court allows defendants to talk about fears of an imagined FBI attack, "that we think is fundamentally unfair,'' Knight argued.
"And that is an issue we believe affected analysis of evidence in the first trial,'' Knight added. A jury acquitted occupation leader Ammon Bundy and six others of all charges in a five-week trial last year.
Finicum's shooting occurred miles away from the Harney County refuge, the prosecutor said. People who remained at the bird sanctuary couldn't have had an objectively reasonable fear of imminent physical harm, Knight said.
But that's "why they did what they did," Merrithew responded.
Brown said defendants will have the chance to challenge the allegation that they "willfully" dug the trenches, meaning they knew their conduct was unlawful and they did it anyway.
She disagreed with Knight's argument attempting to draw comparisons to the court's denial of testimony from refuge employees about their fears.
"Here the government has chosen, chosen a charge that requires willful conduct,'' the judge said. "So their state of mind as to why they did what they did is relevant and admissible.''
The defendants have urged Brown to include in final jury instructions the legal principle of self-defense as an acceptable challenge to the depredation of government property charge. Brown hesitated to do so until all the evidence is heard.
"Whether you get a self-defense instruction remains to be seen,'' she said.
The judge also told the defendants and their lawyers that she won't allow them to argue about what happened in Finicum's shooting.
Ehmer and Ryan, if they choose to testify, can describe how they believed the shooting wasn't justified based on the reports they received at the refuge from others, but they can't say what those reports were.
Finicum's family is planning to file a wrongful death lawsuit against state police and FBI in connection with the shooting.
If Ehmer or Ryan are convicted of the depredation of government property charge, then a separate hearing will be held at a later date regarding any restitution the defendant may be asked to pay the government.
The cost of repairing two trenches and a road, dug last winter on part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was slightly more than $108,000, according to federal authorities.
In other matters, the judge intends to instruct Ammon Bundy, who will be one of the defense witnesses in the case, that he can't talk about his acquittal.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
source
Jason Patrick refused admittance to court "UPDATED"
http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/08/ja...ordered-leave/
*Updated* Jason Patrick Ordered To Leave His Own Federal Hearing
“I’LL STAND FOR THE JURY.”
February 8, 2017 BLM, Constitution, FBI, Featured, News, Oregon 2
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...oin-banner.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=602%2C381
Jason Patrick Ordered To Leave His Own Federal Hearing
by Shari DovaleJason Patrick is one of the final four defendants in the Malheur Protest Trial due to begin next week, February 14th.
As with all trials, there are pretrial hearings and more business to conduct before jury selection.
Patrick, who is representing himself with a standby counsel, Andrew Kohlmetz, attempted to enter the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon this morning to attend his pretrial hearing.
He reported that the US Marshals would not allow him entrance and ordered him to leave.
Entering the courthouse today should have been no different than any other day. Patrick observed most of the trial in that courthouse last fall, when Ammon Bundy and others were found Not Guilty. But, today was his own hearing which he was required to attend.
Yesterday, it was reported that when Judge Anna Brown entered the courtroom, Patrick did not stand. She questioned him about it. “Is there a reason you didn’t stand, Mr. Patrick?” Judge Brown asked him.
Patrick replied, “I’ll stand for the jury.” Judge Brown seem to accept that when she said, “Alright, then we’ll leave it at that.”
Maybe it wasn’t as easy as that? Maybe this was her way of enforcing her power to get him to stand and acknowledge her authority? It will be interesting to hear her response.
Patrick posted very little information on his Facebook page.
***Attention***
**Please like, share and comment on this post?
I was just ordered to leave the courthouse by US Marshals.
There were over 100 shares and 70 comments at last check. Patrick made few responses to the questions, but one very notable comment when he was asked what this meant: “It means I could be shot for being there or hunted down and shot for not being there. Marshals choice?”
The trial in Oregon for the final four seems to be playing out no differently that the first trial did. The Federal authorities are back to playing their power games.
**Updated by Jason on his page: It is a traumatic situation when I am given conflicting orders from the court and then the marshals. I showed up on time and in person at the courthouse as I have since the beginning. The marshal refused my form as identification. It is all I will have. He ordered me to leave the courthouse from the lobby and I did. This order upset the judge because I was not present and on time in her courtroom. I was at a nearby coffee shop where there were also off duty marshals who reported to the judge my location. The judge sent standby council to retrieve me from the coffee shop and I was quickly rushed back into the courtroom. The judge ordered $100.00 fines to any and all who are late in the future. I assured her I have never been late and will never be late accept by marshals assumedly “lawful” order. When my religious principles meet their perceived “power” these things tend to happen. Thank you again for sharing in my time of need and duress.
Share this: