150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Jeanette Finicum and two of her daughters were invited to a meeting with a group of Arizona State Senators.

Quote:

---

The information from this meeting will be used to craft letters to our Arizona Congressional Delegation and also to the Justice Department asking for an investigation into the death of LaVoy Finicum. We will also contact the BLM and investage their unwillingness to follow state and federal law. Look for Part II of this update focusing on why and how solid ranching citizens were labeled as domestic terrorists and their due process under the Constitution was suspended.

---

Arizona Freedom Aliance published a report of the meeting. Part 1:

http://arizonafreedomalliance.ning.c...Topic%3A119430

Watching the Feds

69 members
Description

Comments Discussions Members

[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/eSDBEi-sy3CxqzeM2Yi22xxQnVB9h1-zRc6cKgYYifcEVuZQ4qyI*qve3p*2x6IBktFK1rbKiHw7zyF8V Kv2V2aQpmMUGFHY/DeclarationofIndependence2.jpg[/IMG]

UPDATE - The Killing of LaVoy Finicum

by Arizona Freedom Alliance
yesterday

Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen

Lightning Bolt Update, February 7, 2017

He was born in the back hills of Northern Arizona, hunting and riding horses with his father and siblings. Born within him was a love for God, family and freedom. "We need to put God first in our lives, strengthen our families, and fight to restore our freedoms." LaVoy Finicum

This is a two-part update on the death of rancher LaVoy Finicum at the hands of the FBI and Oregon State Police. Western ranchers had gone to Oregon in support of the Hammond family. Their peaceful protest was labeled by law enforcement and some elected officials as domestic terrorism. Federal statutes were used to prosecute western ranchers who were trying to bring national attention to the overreach of federal agencies in taking western ranchers' leases.

Part I: LaVoy Finicum

Last summer I traveled to Cane Bed, Arizona, located on the Arizona Strip, to visit Jeanette Finicum, wife of slain rancher, LaVoy Finicum. I wanted to meet her and to get a firsthand knowledge, not tainted by the media, of her husband's death, why he went to Oregon, and how her family got caught up in Federal Agencies labeling her husband a "domestic terrorist." I found Jeanette to be a wonderful, gentle, and kind woman who was bravely trying to recover from this tragedy in her life and to find justice for her husband.

On February 3rd, 2017, I held a stakeholders meeting at the Capitol to discuss the overreach and lack of due process by the federal government in regard to western ranchers and the wrongful death of Arizona Citizen, LaVoy Finicum. Other legislators in attendance were Senators Sonny Borrelli (LD5), Gail Griffin (LD14), David Farnsworth (LD16), and Judy Burges (LD22), and Representatives Brenda Barton (LD6), Bob Thorpe (LD6), Mark Finchem (LD11), Becky Nutt (LD14) and Rusty Bowers (LD25).

Jeanette Finicum, two of her and LaVoy's daughters, Terra Belle and Arianna, her lawyer Morgan Philpot, a Utah attorney and former Utah state legislator also attended.
We also heard from Michael Gibbs, Deputy Director of Arizona’s Tenth Amendment Center.

The following is some of the testimony of Jeannette Finicum :

"LaVoy traveled to Oregon Jan 1st, 2016, to join with others in the peaceful demonstration-march and to visit the Hammond ranching family, showing his support for her husband and son who were facing imprisonment for a crime they had already served time for. (More about this in part II.) He considered them his neighbor, and wanted to help, to let them know that they were not alone. LaVoy was not aware of any plans to do anything other than march through town and deliver flowers. However, when asked to stay and continue in a peaceful demonstration 35 miles outside of town at the Malheur National wildlife Refuge, he agreed."

Note: The refuge was operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. It is not occupied during winter months. The buildings were not locked and the utilities were still on. But this wildlife refuge had been the center of much of the negative impacts that had happen to Oregon area ranchers including the Hammonds. It was a symbol of the excessive environmental regulations that were being used to remove ranchers from their grazing leases.

Reports that the ranchers caused damage to the property were lies. The ranchers took dated pictures of the condition they found the property in at the time they occupied the area.


Jeannette reported, "I believe there are many who are responsible for the negative outcome of this peaceful demonstration.

Sherriff Dave Ward, for relinquishing his authority to the FBI instead of allowing them some time to exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech and peacefully demonstrate as others throughout this country have been allowed to do."

"Judge Grasty, for refusing to hear or take into consideration the redress of grievances Ammon filed months before hand."

Governor Kate Brown, for her letter dated Jan 20, 2016, to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey, six days before they murdered my husband, which says, "I must insist on a swift resolution of this matter. I request…that you instruct your agencies to end the unlawful occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge as quickly as possible." Naming them as "Radicals" and "Criminals", claiming they "are harassing law enforcement and their family members," all of which was not true!"

Senator Wyden, who said to KOIN 6 news, "this should have ended a long time ago," this was "a situation where the virus was spreading, and action needs to be taken."

The FBI and the Oregon state police, for escalating things within the town of Burns, inciting fear in the hearts and minds of its citizens. By walking around town tacked out and armed to the hilt. And for the murder of my husband."

"Many times we have watched out of control protests:
BALTIMORE – MAYOR "Let it burn", give them "space to destroy."
FERGUSON – GOVERNOR – 48 hours before he offered support.
New York MAYOR DE BLASIO – told the police to stand down and to "Give them some time to blow off some steam."

DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE -months of protesting – destroying property-setting off a bomb on the bridge.
UC BERKELEY – 150 masked agitators mixed with the protest and caused thousands of dollars' worth of damage.

"All of these protests mentioned were not peaceful, they destroyed personal property, and harmed others. Yes, they were allowed to continue, some for months, maybe because they were politically correct?"

"None of this behavior went on at Malheur, NONE, they were peaceful. Wanting their voice to be heard. And yes senator Wyden was right, their message was spreading, people were resonating with the message of freedom, of liberty, of personal property rights. All of which are guaranteed in our Constitution – The Law of this land."

"Officials investigating the death of my husband, LaVoy, referred to the killing as a routine traffic stop. However, the FBI video shows this was not a typical traffic stop. It was a planned ambush involving a roadblock on a blind curve along a lonely stretch of highway, a "Deadman's Blockade," a "kill stop" which is illegal. Nothing routine about it, it was planned days in advance and executed by an elite kill team."

Jeanette explained that there were no warrants issued for those arrested on that day until the next morning. LaVoy's name was left off because he was dead. The FBI said LaVoy was reaching for a gun, that his death was justified. This allegation and finding is in dispute. The FBI's aerial video was of poor quality, edited, and provided no audio. The Finicum family asserts that he was shot with both hands up and that he did not reach for a gun but that he reacted in response to pain inflicted by a bullet. He was also trying to walk in 3 ½ feet of snow.

It has now been revealed that the FBI lied and removed evidence concerning the shooting.

In the Oregon trial against 7 of the defendants in the occupying of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge the jury found them not guilty on all federal charges. The news was devastating to the federal and state agencies who were convinced that they would get a guilty verdict. The tragedy of this is that LaVoy Finicum would have been found innocent also.

Jeanette's nightmare is not over. The BLM is not allowing for Jeannette to graze the allotment on their Tuck Up Ranch on the Arizona Strip. They claim that Jeannette does not inherit the lease from her husband, yet Arizona State law and Federal Law says otherwise. Yet the BLM refuses to follow state or federal law and is making this determination within the agency.

Jeanette said, "Since my husband's murder- I have had much to deal with on multiple fronts, working with the BLM has been a nightmare- they have delayed talking to me, delayed responding to me and my attorneys, delayed negotiations, refused to recognized me as the rightful owner, refused to apply their own regulations in my case, that would benefit me, stating that "they don't do it that way."

The information from this meeting will be used to craft letters to our Arizona Congressional Delegation and also to the Justice Department asking for an investigation into the death of LaVoy Finicum. We will also contact the BLM and investage their unwillingness to follow state and federal law.

Look for Part II of this update focusing on why and how solid ranching citizens were labeled as domestic terrorists and their due process under the Constitution was suspended.

Sheriff Glenn Palmer from Grnat County Oregon comments



https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...09&oe=593CA273


The Voice of Grant County, Oregon

2 hrs ·

Just in from Sheriff Palmer!

I hate picking at scabs.....and I don't much like talking about someone's family member who has passed. I also struggle with the fact that the case is still pending and with my position as an elected Sheriff there might be some inappropriateness in commenting on social media about LaVoy Finicum. One of my struggles is the fact that with what I know (and believe me, I am no expert in deadly force issues but I have had training) is that when someone flees the police, it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of using deadly force. What bothers me most is the fact that these people were allowed to come and go from the Refuge for over a month. They could have been stopped, detained or arrested at anytime. When I hear other elected officials refer to these people as "viruses" there is something wrong. "We must stop the virus" was another phrase I heard. These people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. As we all know, they were acquitted. Where is the justice for LaVoy and his family? The other issue that I struggle with is that these people were extremely peaceful. They met numerous times with law enforcement and there was always hand shakes. When you look at "other protesters" who are injuring and maiming, rioting, setting stuff on fire, damaging and destroying private and public property etc etc.....you have to look at the facts and wonder what brought the Finicum case to the level of force that was used VS what level of force that is or isn't being used with these people who are destroying our communities. Why is it that we have to rise to the level that Jeanette Finicum has to push the issue for resolution via a lawsuit instead of the investigation coming out and giving the facts as they are? Wrong or right, people need to know what the truth is and what the investigation revealed.

Because we as individuals choose to speak about constitutional rights, freedom, liberty and justice-does that make us a dangerous lot? Does speaking the truth about Jesus Christ and what we believe in make us someone to be hated or feared? Does mentioning what we believe in or how we feel and sharing that with others make us a danger to society that we have to be stopped no matter what the cost is? The fact of the matter is this: Those of us who stand for liberty, freedom and justice for all have been and continue to be a very peaceful and tolerant group or lot of people. For being labeled terrorists, and scorned in the media.....we have been nothing but the opposite. Is it so wrong that we have expectations of our government to listen to its people and those that represent us? That for standing out and standing up adds us to a watch list? What does our government fear the most? Are we feared because we seek the truth, honesty, integrity and justice for all? Why is our government hell bent on stopping freedom or liberty minded people?

I have to agree: "It Matters How You Stand".

Some main stram media coverage about LaVoy Finicum's assasination. Of course they media contols the narrative and portrays him as attempting to run ober an FBI agent and going for a gun.

http://youtu.be/t_ydO1ctrao

https://youtu.be/t_ydO1ctrao

Malheur second trial defense wants Pete Santilli To testify to impeach govt. witness

https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...nment-witness/

Oregon standoff defendants seek Pete Santilli testimony to impeach government witness

Posted on February 12, 2017 by Doug Knowles

Page 1 / 3
Zoom 100%

By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive

February 12, 2017 at 10:48 PM

Defense lawyers for the four Oregon standoff defendants set for trial this week want Pete Santilli, who awaits prosecution in Nevada, to be flown to Oregon to testify on their behalf and to impeach another co-defendant, Blaine Cooper, now expected to be a government witness.

Jury selection starts Tuesday morning for the remaining four defendants accused of federal conspiracy, weapons and depredation of government property charges stemming from the 41-day seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last winter.

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown already has issued orders for occupation leaders Ammon Bundy, who was acquitted of all charges, and Ryan Payne, who has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, to be flown from Nevada to Oregon to testify for the defense.

The defendants' request for Santilli was filed on Sunday, after defendants learned that Cooper, who pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge in the refuge case last summer, is expected to testify for the prosecution.
The defense team estimated that Santilli's testimony would last about half a day, and the lawyers have requested he be transferred to Oregon in early March.

"Peter Santilli is a journalist who reported on the protest at the refuge from its inception, and has extensive personal knowledge of events relevant to these proceedings,'' defense lawyer Jesse Merrithew wrote in his Sunday motion. "He was close to Blaine Cooper throughout the events at issue. Defendants intend to call Mr. Santilli to impeach the testimony of Blaine Cooper, who the government recently disclosed will testify as a government witness.''

Both Santilli and Cooper are in custody in Nevada. Santilli is awaiting trial in connection with the April 2014 armed standoff with Bureau of Land Management officers near the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada.
Cooper, of Humboldt, Arizona, in August pleaded guilty to conspiracy and assault on a federal officer in the Nevada case, and is set to be sentenced in mid-March. Prosecutors are expected to recommend a six-year sentence, but he can argue for less time.

In the Oregon refuge takeover case, 26 people were indicted on federal conspiracy, weapons and other charges stemming from the occupation of the federal wildlife sanctuary outside of Burns in eastern Oregon. Seven people were acquitted of the charges after a five-week trial in Portland last fall. Eleven people have pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, and three others have pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespassing charge.
Santilli had all charges dismissed against him on the eve of the fall trial. He never stayed overnight at the federal wildlife refuge, and his defense attorney in Oregon argued that much of the material he broadcast on his YouTube channel was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Cooper was part of the first convoy of people to drive to the refuge in Harney County on Jan. 2 from a demonstration in Burns, where he was protesting the return to federal prison of father and son ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond.

Cooper, who has registered a film company called Third Watch Media, carried a camera while co-defendants armed with firearms cleared the refuge buildings that day, a prosecutor said at his plea hearing. Cooper also was seen driving government trucks on the refuge.

On Jan. 3, Cooper appeared on a video with occupation leader Ammon Bundy, in which Bundy promised to make the refuge a base for patriots to live and stay for several years, according to prosecutors. Cooper introduced himself on the video, and urged those who come to the refuge to, "Bring your arms!'' Cooper left the refuge on Jan. 26 or 27, and was arrested in Utah on Feb. 11.

In the Nevada case, a Facebook exchange Cooper had with Santilli on April 8, 2014, was cited in court documents, in which Cooper wrote to Santilli that it was time to stop "all this huffing and puffing'' over the microphones and "go down and do what we got to do'' in Nevada. Prosecutors in Nevada described Cooper as a mid-level leader and organizer in the 2014 standoff there.

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

source

John Lamb ~ Day 1 of Second Malhuer Protest Trial ~ Jury Selection

http://youtu.be/0aQzjYptDpk

https://youtu.be/0aQzjYptDpk

Kelli Stewart ~ Breakdown of today's kangaroo court in Portland, Oregon

http://youtu.be/jX6MEPhAGko

https://youtu.be/jX6MEPhAGko

Shari Dovle ~ Redoubt News ~ Jury selectin for Malhuer Protest Trial #2

http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/14/ma...ury-selection/

Malheur Protest Trial 2 Begins Jury Selection #MPT2


THESE DEFENDANTS DO NOT SEEM TO STAND A CHANCE.

February 14, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured, News, Oregon 1

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C360Supporters for the first day of jury selection.

Malheur Protest Trial 2 Begins Jury Selection

by Shari Dovale

Jury selection began today in the Second Malheur Protest Trial (MPT2) in Portland. Four defendants stand ready to defend themselves and their Constitution against the overreaching government and Judge Anna Brown.

Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer, Jake Ryan and Darryl Thorn are the final four. The difference in this trial is the government panicked after the trial last fall found all defendants acquitted. It has been reported that the government has spent over a million dollars in the prosecution of these Patriots, yet they have very little to show for it.

To resolve their poor showing in the courtroom, the have devised a near surefire way to get the convictions. They are only allowing the jury to deliberate on a few of the charges. The remaining charges are going to be decided by Judge Brown in a Bench Trial while the jurors are deliberating.

Judge Brown decided that because the charges of trespass, tampering with vehicles or equipment and destruction of property are Class B misdemeanors and considered petty offenses, the defendants don’t have a right to a jury trial.

Yep, you heard that right.

The judge that made such a point of showing her bias against the last defendants has decided that she is the only one qualified to decide the fate of these Patriots on several charges, each bringing jail time.

She has already made it clear that the law in her courtroom is according to her, not the Constitution. She stated it multiple times last fall, and she, again ,made it clear today.

The jurors were also asked if they could judge this case according to the law even if they did not agree with the law She was making it clear that she will not allow jury nullification, even though it is legal. She has put her foot down again.

These defendants do not seem to stand a chance.

After 1,000 jury questionnaires were sent out, it has been whittled down to 75 prospective jurors. 9 more were released today for various reasons, mostly financial hardships. There are 25 more to be interviewed tomorrow morning. The afternoon should see the jury selections finalized. 12 with 4 alternates.

Judge Brown is continuing to show her bias in the jury pool. A good example is the gentleman that stated very clearly that the “occupiers” stole a truck and he felt that was illegal. He did concede that he would “reconsider” his opinion if selected because that was expected. However, the defense will have to use one of their challenges to get him removed because Judge Brown did not see a problem with him.

It was amusing watching the Judge battle with the decision to remove the juror that graduated from Burns High School and worked for one of the witnesses. It was not an easy or immediate decision for her, but she had to let her go.

The charges that the jury will consider are: Conspiracy to impede officers of the United States. Specifically the prevention of BLM and US Fish & Wildlife to carry out their duties through Force, Threats or Intimidation. This charge is against all 4 defendants.

Firearms charges are against 3 of the 4 defendants, the exception is Duane Ehmer. Depredation of Federal Property is charged separately against Duane Ehmer and Jake Ryan. This totals 9 charges for the jury to consider.

The prosecution in the second Malhuer Protest trial has hired a jury consultant firm. There is another article in the Oregonian about it I haven't been aable to copy because it is too slow loading. i will post a link for it.


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

http://youtu.be/Xh0Snd7rj3o
Defense lawyer raises potential conflict with prosecutors' jury consultant in refuge case

A defense lawyer Tuesday morning raised concerns about the jury consultant hired by federal prosecutors, moments before jury selection began in the trial of four remaining defendants charged in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Andrew Kohlmetz, who represents defendant Jason Patrick, said he had multiple conversations in November with an employee of Tsongas Litgation Consulting Inc., the same firm that prosecutors have hired to help them in picking a jury for the current trial.

Kohlmetz said he talked to the consultant several times about potential jurors that the defense team might seek and the need for a potential change in venue for the trial. He said he hoped his "private thoughts'' haven't been shared with the prosecutors' consultant working for the same firm.

"It did set off some alarms for me,'' Kohlmetz told the court.

Tsongas consultant Laura Dominic, hired by the Oregon U.S. Attorney's Office, sat with federal prosecutors for the start of questioning potential jurors for the refuge conspiracy case.

The prosecutors' use of a consultant is highly unusual in federal court -- former and present prosecutors who have worked in federal court in Oregon for 30 years couldn't recall a prosecution team hiring an outside consultant for jury selection in a federal criminal case in Oregon before this one.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight called Kohlmetz's concerns groundless because Kohlmetz and no one on the defense ever entered into a contract or formally retained any of the Tsongas consultants.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Xh0Snd7rj3o/hqdefault.jpg

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown said "retention'' isn't the standard, noting that Kohlmetz had a conversation with a former employee of the Tsongas consulting company.

"I had multiple conversations over a span of months,'' Kohlmetz added.

The judge directed prosecutors to file a declaration from Tsongas Litigation Consultants, affirming that it has taken all necessary steps to ensure nothing from its former employee's contact with Kohlmetz or any defendant has affected advice given to the U.S. Attorney's Office.''

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...b2cfdcdc77.jpg
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...dde9b3df83.jpg
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...ab8b9af7cc.jpg
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...7bb2824fdd.jpg







Dominic has a background in communications and is a senior consultant for Tsongas, where she's worked since 1997. She received her master's degree in speech communication from San Diego State University, where her primary research was in juror perceptions of witness credibility as affected by witness ethnicity and linguistic power.

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

Prosecutors take unusual move and hire jury consultant.

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

John Lamb with Malheur Protest trial updates and information on Marcus Mumford's case

http://youtu.be/KL1-AWGExDk

https://youtu.be/KL1-AWGExDk

Judge Anna J. Brown in her personal war on the Contitution orders Gary Hunt to appear in Portland.

http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/16/ju...er-free-press/

BREAKING: Judge Brown Signs Order Against Free Press


HUNT HAS BEEN ORDERED TO APPEAR IN FEDERAL COURT IN PORTLAND, OREGON ON MARCH 10, 2017

February 16, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured, Gary Hunt, Oregon 1

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C400

BREAKING: Judge Brown Signs Order Against Free Press

Gary Hunt Ordered To Appear In Portland Federal Court

by Shari Dovale

February 16, 2017
https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=209%2C300
ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION (#1788) FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

As we have seen all too often recently, US Federal Judge Anna Brown in the District of Oregon has had her own personal war on the US Constitution. She showed this stance on multiple occasions with the case of the US vs. Ammon Bundy, et al.

The second Malheur Protest Trial is proving to be no different from the first. She does not intend to allow jurors to consider the US Constitution as law, only what she dictates the law should be.

Additionally, she has decided that the defendants will not be allowed their right to a jury trial on all of the charges. She will decide on several of the verdicts herself through a bench trial.

But her fight with the people does not end there. She has decided to slap down the First Amendment, and Freedom of the Press. Specifically, she has begun with Gary Hunt.

Judge Brown signed an order today to claim jurisdiction over Hunt, though he resides in the District of California. She has directed him to appear in her court in Portland, Oregon on March 10, 2017 and to file a written response to her by March 3rd.

https://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=207%2C300
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

She has decided that Mr. Hunt should not be allowed to bring the truth to the public, specifically the truth about the Malheur Protest Trials and the the informants involved.

Brown had previously thought that the identities of the confidential informants was not to be public, or even go to the defense. The defense was finally allowed redacted information that was meant to confuse them and hinder their chances at a fair trial. She ordered that these documents were not to be published.

These documents have not been published.

However, nothing is good enough in this case unless the government can justify it’s $1million+ price tag by getting any kind of tally mark in their win column.

You can read all about the case here.

At the time of this writing, Hunt had not been served with these papers. When he is finally served, probably tomorrow morning, he will make a decision on how he will respond. Until then, we must inform the public of the continuing saga of Judge Brown v. US Constitution.

Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by our Constitution. We cannot let the overreaching government take away our right to the truth.

U.S. Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Share this:

http://youtu.be/yH6EHK_oSlY

Jason Patrick posted on facebook that Attorney General Jeff Seesions has endorsed the prosecution inmthe Malheur Trial.
I am not able to find where Patrick is getting his information. MrsB Stacy's video

http://youtu.be/X4vgYGHK9YQ

https://youtu.be/X4vgYGHK9YQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Jason Patrick posted on facebook that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has endorsed the prosecution inmthe Malheur Trial.
I am not able to find where Patrick is getting his information.

---

http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i...8/rtx30bsh.jpg

I think Jason Patrick made this up...no source linked. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is currently very busy working on the "Immigrant" thingie for Trump and probably doesn't even know what the Makhuer Trial is about.

:(??

This was published by Gary Hint on February 8, 2017. Because of the similarity of the title to a previous post I missed it.


Freedom of the Press #6
“Tilting at Windmills” – Redux

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ndmills-03.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 08, 2017

I have noticed over the years, that some believe in quality, as I do, and others believe in quantity. They think that throwing out a massive missive will drown the opposition in, well, paper. It appears this is the new approach by the United States Attorney, and minions, from Portland, Oregon. They have, with their most recent filing (Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause), on February 7, exceeded all my expectations, in terms of quantity. They have cited 30 court decisions. I have reviewed five of the cited cases, though I will comment on more of them. Since their research is of such poor quality, It would be my pleasure to review cases for them in the future. However, if I work for the government, my prices will not be discounted. Considering how poorly their current hired help performs, it just might be worthwhile for them to get it right, for a change.

Now, let’s get on with the boring stuff. However, there will be some really good stuff towards the end.They begin the Memorandum with a statement of what it will address:
1. The District of Oregon is the proper venue for this Court to enforce its own Protective Order against a third party;
2. Third-party Gary Hunt should be held in Civil Contempt of this Court’s Orders after he has had an opportunity to appear and Show Cause why he should not be held in contempt;
3. There is a factual basis to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that third party Gary Hunt is aiding and abetting a defendant (or defendants) in this case in violating the Court’s original Protective Order (ECF No. 342), the new Order (ECF No. 1691), and the Supplement to the original Protective Order (ECF No. 1692); and
4. There are no prior restraint issues or “press” privilege issues.

So, we will begin with Part I. Under the heading in the Memorandum:
I. The District of Oregon Is the Only Proper Venue for This Court to Enforce Its Own Orders
A. Proper Venue Under the LawThe first case cited is:Myers v. United States, 264 U.S. 95, 101 (1924). The Supreme Court in Myers held that venue is only proper where the court rendered the decree sought to be enforced.

Well, I did look that one up and here is what I found:
An information charged that plaintiffs in error willfully disobeyed the injunction lawfully issued in equity cause, St. Louis, San Francisco Railway Company, Complainant, v. International Association of Machinists, et al., Defendants, pending in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, by attempting, within the Southwestern Division of the same District, to prevent certain railroad employees from continuing at work. The order ran against men on strike, and the cause is treated as one within the purview of the Clayton Act.

Well, that supports my position. The case was in “Western Division of the Western District of Missouri”, however, the other jurisdiction mentioned was in the “Southwestern Division of the same District.”

Now, that “Clayton Act” does come under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, since it deals with the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Clayton Antitrust Act is an amendment passed by U.S. Congress in 1914 that provides further clarification and substance to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 on topics such as price discrimination, price fixing, and unfair business practices.

Well, I sought relevance, but did not find. So, let’s move on..

Next citation is United States v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 882 F.2d 656, 666 (2d Cir. 1989)
This was also brought under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Here we have a “consent decree”; however, it dealt with whether Twentieth Century Fox had a right to a jury trial over the contempt proceedings against one of Twentieth Century’s employees, for violating said “consent decree”.

Oops! There’s that pesky Sherman Antitrust Act, again.

Then, we have Steers v. United States, 297 F. 116, 118 (8th Cir. 1924). I haven’t been able to locate anything but citations referring to Steers. But, it appears that it had to do with Divisions within a District, not between Districts, just like Myers. So, they strike out.

Moving right along, we find Eli Lilly & Co v James B. Gottstein 617 F3d 186 (2d Cir 2010)
Gottstein was a party to the action. He was enjoined from disseminating the documents. If the Prosecution is looking for Mr. “X”, or perhaps “Waldo”; is it possible that what I have came from his own ranks? From that decision:
Understandably alarmed, Eli Lilly applied for and received a series of orders culminating in an injunction, which barred Gottstein from disseminating the documents and required their return. In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d 385 (E.D.N.Y.2007). Gottstein now appeals that injunction, claiming that the district court erred in finding that his issuing subpoenas was part of a sham proceeding, that he aided and abetted the violation of the protective order, that the documents at issue were confidential, that the court could bind him under the protective order and that the court possessed personal jurisdiction to issue the injunction against him. We affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

Gottstein was subject to the Protective Order, and he violated that Order. Are they trying to imply that I am subject to the Ammon Bundy, et al, Protective Order?

Finally, we come to In re Special Proceedings 291 F Supp 2d 44 (DRI. 2003). This is interesting in that they are not looking at me. Here, they are, once again, looking for “Waldo”.

On August 8, 2000, while Corrente was awaiting trial and the grand jury investigation of other, later named defendants was continuing, the district court entered a protective order prohibiting counsel in the Corrente case from disclosing the contents of audio and video surveillance tapes that had been made by law enforcement officials and furnished to defense counsel during discovery. The aim was to safeguard the on-going grand jury investigation of Cianci and to avoid pretrial publicity that could prejudice the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Well, this had to do with Corrente and a fellow named Taricani. “The aim was to safeguard the on-going grand jury investigation.” Taricani obtained discovery footage of a corrupt civil servant receiving a cash payment and then aired that footage. This is a far cry from exposing informants, the precedence, which, incidentally, was established by the Prosecution when they intentionally exposed one informant. Another informant came forward on her own, and the third was subpoenaed by the defense after their exercise of the same sort of diligence that is my standard practice.

There is no grand jury investigation in progress in the current case. At this point, the future condition of the defendants, as well as the knowledge of the means by which the police state government operates, is at stake. My acts will taint No investigation. And, unlike Corrente and Taricani, who were in the same district, I am not.

The next subject area in the Memorandum is:
B. Proper Venue Based upon the FactsThe government makes this allegation:
The District of Oregon is the proper venue to enforce this Court’s Orders because third-party Gary Hunt is aiding and abetting a defendant or defendants and their counsel in the violation of the original Protective Order.

Now, I am going to paraphrase a juror in a recent trial in Portland. The juror stated that the verdict was based on the fact that although there might have been an effect, there was no intent. The government is alleging that they know something, which must be true, since they say that it is. The information that I have put out in the articles may have the effect of aiding the defense, both defendants and counsel, though that was not the intent. I have sent nothing to the defense attorneys, unless they chose to join my mail list.

A thorough investigation of me by the prosecution would clearly demonstrate that there have been two objectives in my reporting for over two decades. First, to expose “the misdeeds of government“, and second, to cover stories where “the government is pointing their guns in the wrong direction“. The Prosecutor’s mere words cannot define my motives, and especially so when my motives have been made quite clear, both in the written words and the historical accuracy of my reporting. The public does have a right to know what their government does — behind their backs.

They go on to state:
Defendants or their counsel are the originating point of access and whoever provided the material did so in violation of the original Protective Order. Hunt has admitted the protected material is subject to this Court’s Protective Order.

Now, their assumption that “the originating point of access…” is just that, their assumption. Their assumption does not make it truth, it simply shows that they think that they know what they really don’t know.

They correctly state that the “protected material is subject to [the] Court’s Protective Order”, omitting that I have also “admitted” that I was not subject to the Court’s Protective Order. Of course, the Court later expanded the Protective Order to include thousands of people, but the government has offered nothing to suggest that the Court can, after the fact, revise a Protective Order when that Order was issued subject to the legal limitations of the imposition of that Order, which, by the way, is quite clear in the above cited cases. You can’t change horses in midstream. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, even to the Congress. Can the Court then assume that it can do what the Congress cannot? However, I might add that it was the Prosecution who first suggested that the Court should change that horse.The Prosecution continues,
As described in the Government’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order and Special Agent Ronnie Walker’s supporting Affidavit, defendant Ehmer’s Facebook post provides insight—when asked “Who is Gary Hunt?” the answer was “He is working with our lawyers.”

It is amazing that the government presents an unsubstantiated Facebook post as factual statement, and especially when they and Duane Ehmer were in the same courtroom. For whatever reason, it didn’t suit them to ascertain the truth, when it could have been so easily accomplished. Instead, they rely on the hearsay of Facebook.

Let’s be clear about what I have stated (In Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”):
“For the record, I have never spoken with any of the defense attorneys or investigators in this case. The closest I have come to that is speaking with some of the defendants. However, I have heard that the defense attorneys do like my work, and some even look forward to my next article. I also know that the government players read my work, though I have no doubt that they neither enjoy nor look forward to my next article. And, that is the way that it should be.”

So, the Prosecutor, who chose not to get affirmation as to the veracity of Duane Ehmer’s Facebook post, when the opportunity was right in front of him this past Monday and Tuesday (the latter being the date of this filing) during hearings, failed to do so. Further, having knowledge that I had made that statement, “for the record”, they chose, instead, to manufacture their own truth. It is apparent that justice has no role in this little ploy, the purpose of which is to win, at any cost, with any deceit, and that appears to be their mantra.

Then, they state:
This Court has authority to enjoin the actions of non-parties under the existing terms of the protective order when those non-parties aid and abet parties to violate the court’s order. See e.g., Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1390 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that courts have authority and subject matter jurisdiction to punish contemptuous violations of its order, citing 18 U.S.C. § 401);
I have discussed Reebok in both Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings” and Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order. Nothing has changed. The authority came from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and is not on point with regard to the current matter. At this point, we can assume that whoever drafted this Memorandum did not do any homework, or the government believes that neither the Court, nor I, are paying Attention.The same is true of Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepard Conservation Soc’y, discussed in #4, except that case was a direct aiding and abetting, which in this case is only a claim of the Prosecutor. They have offered nothing to show that aiding and abetting is a part of this current matter. It is extremely difficult to prove that something that is not true, is true, despite their feeble, yet desperate efforts to do so.

This Section, Part I, concludes with:
Venue for the Motion to Show Cause is properly in the District of Oregon and not in Eastern District of California. In addition, venue is proper in the District of Oregon because government has made a prima facie showing that Hunt is aiding and abetting one or more of defendants in violating this Court’s original Protective Order (ECF No. 342). The Orders has failed to comply with were issued by this Court and the District of Oregon is the proper venue to enforce those Orders.

The cases cited above, by the Persecutor, demonstrate that the Order cannot cross-District jurisdiction, unless other elements exist. In an effort to create that element, they claim that they have “made a prima facie showing that Hunt is aiding and abetting“. Apparently, the prima facie case is what one person said on Facebook, without regard to my clear and concise statement to the contrary. Now, if they can’t figure this out, then they have no idea what prima facie means.

Let’s move on to:
II. Third-Party Gary Hunt Should Be Held in Civil ContemptI will begin by admitting, as I did early on, that it was time consuming and that I am not being compensated for correcting their errors, with regard to citations.

This Part deals with contempt of court. The Prosecutor seems to base his arguments on whether it is civil or criminal contempt. However, contempt of court only applies to those who are parties to the action. I have addressed this from the outset. The Protective Order was directed to the defense attorneys, investigators, and the defendants. It did, however, fail to address the Prosecution, their staffs, the investigators for the government, or even the Court’s staff. It surely didn’t address me, though the aforementioned Supplement to the Order, if it is even legal to incorporate others at this late date, would even include those in the FBI (SA Ronnie Walker), the Prosecutions staff, and even the Court’s staff, for passing on my articles. Now, they are being coy, in that SA Walker does not use the words that were of the forbidden nature, addressing only the Bates number (example – MNWR _0059424), though surely, the articles were passed around FBI headquarters. The same would be true of both the Prosecutor’s staff and the Court’s staff. They are all included by the Supplement, though they were not addressed in the original Protective Order. How can that have retroactive merit? This doesn’t even touch on the jurisdictional limitations of the Court.

They do cite United States v. Chandler, 380 F.2d 993, 1000 (2d Cir. 1967. Well, let’s just look at what the Prosecutor says that Chandler says:
Contempt of court is an act of disobedience or disrespect towards the judicial branch of the government, or an interference with its orderly processes, and includes refusals by witnesses, without just cause, to obey a direct order of the court.

I have not been disobedient to the Court; as there is no nexus between the Court and me that warrants obedience. If I have been disrespectful, it has only been done to the extent necessary to assert both my rights as press and my reader’s rights to know the workings of their government. However, disrespect, when warranted, cannot be illegal. I have not interfered with the Court’s orderly process. I am not a witness, nor do I have any obligation to said Court. So, if that is all the Prosecution can make of Chandler, then they need a better drawing board to return to.

In citing United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1042 (6th Cir. 2007), they state:
Civil contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

What evidence have they presented? They had the opportunity to get verification of a few words posted on Facebook. I think that I understand why they didn’t question Ehmer, under oath, when the opportunity availed itself. That would have removed the only shred, and meager at that, of “evidence” of what they attempt to present as truth.They go on to state:

After third-party Gary Hunt has had an opportunity to be heard, the United States will be asking the Court to hold Gary Hunt in civil contempt and incarcerate him until he complies with this Court’s January 11, 2017, Orders directing him to remove the protected material from his website and not further disseminate the protected material. Civil contempt sanctions can be imposed in court proceedings upon notice…

There is an old saying about opportunity knocking, though I see no opportunity in voluntarily subjecting myself to the jurisdiction of the Portland District. Additionally, it is quite apparent that I am being heard by an audience, which has increased substantially due to the actions of the Prosecutor.

I do love how these guys think. If I were incarcerated, how could I remove anything from my website? Would they give me special privilege; allow me to take a laptop computer to jail, and then provide a hot spot so that I could connect? However, this does demonstrate an almost comical level of incompetence. This has become abundantly demonstrated, these past few weeks.

In Part:III. The Government Has Established by Clear and Convincing Evidence That Gary Hunt Is Violating This Court’s Lawful and Direct Orders
And, I make the best hamburgers in California.

They then go on to provide a history of their one-sided paper chase with the Court, giving the history from the Letter to Cease and Desist, mentioning my continued publication of forbidden material, and their additional efforts to quash the Freedom of the Press.

Then, in Part:
IV. There Is No Prior Restraint Issue or Qualified Press Privilege
A. There Is No Prior Restraint Issue Presented Here
They begin with:
This Court has the authority to issue protective orders protecting criminal discovery and, specifically, confidential source information. The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). This substantial government interest is unrelated to any suppression of expression and outweighs Hunt’s First Amendment rights. No one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order, and to permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger threatens to undermine criminal discovery and the interests identified in Roviaro – i.e., if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.

Well, I’m glad they brought up Roviaro. I brought it up, as well, in two previous articles (#1 and #3), though I didn’t really get to the meat of it. Come to think of it, the Memorandum didn’t get to the meat of it, either. So, let’s see if we can find the beef. I’ll just provide a few of the quotes from that decision:
First, however, let me address two of the points made (above) by the Prosecution. They say, “The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established.” That is correct. It is referred to as the informant’s privilege. Then they say,
[I]“f we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.” So, we can see that by quoting those two portions, the Prosecutor’s primary intention is to secure a continuing ability to monitor the activity, maybe even encourage illegal activity, of the targeted group of people. In escalating a police state, it is necessary to have the means of keeping track of the activities of dissidents, or in this case, the people that still believe that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land.”

However, they ignore the final decision in Roviaro. The lower court ruled that the government did not have to identify the informant. Here is some of the reasoning behind the final decision, which reversed the lower court.

We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.

In that balancing, it must show that the identification of the informant must rest on “the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” So, let’s look at the Group 1 trial. First, they no longer wanted McConnell, so they exposed him. Then, Terri Linnell came forward and testified. I spoke with an alternate juror and was told that Linnell’s testimony had very little to do with what her verdict would have been, though she did catch that the Prosecution tried to get Linnell to lie.

Next came Fabio Minoggio. His testimony was critical to the verdict. If he had not been tracked down and made to testify, the verdict may have gone the other way. However, his role in training the occupiers, demonstrated by a video that the Prosecution showed four times, was of someone working for the government who staged the violence.

Proof then, exists, that under the particular circumstances, and especially with the number of informants at the Refuge, that absent the names of the informants, to give the defense the opportunity to determine if their testimony might affect the “individual’s right to prepare his defense“, is absolutely necessary
However, most importantly, is that the people have the right to know what their government is doing. Not only by numbers of informants, which was approaching a majority of able-bodied people on some days, but also what the nature of their activity was. That can only out be found by knowing who the informants are, so that the attorneys can question them as to their role (effect) –by knowing what they have reported. This leaves the public with an understanding of not just that there are informants, but what affect their role might have played in what resulted in a mountain of charges against the defendants (intent).

The circumstances of this case demonstrate that John Doe’s possible testimony was highly relevant and might have been helpful to the defense. So far as petitioner knew, he and John Doe were alone and unobserved during the crucial occurrence for which he was indicted. Unless petitioner waived his constitutional right not to take the stand in his own defense, John Doe was his one material witness. Petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine Police Officer Bryson and Federal Narcotics Agent Durham was hardly a substitute for an opportunity to examine the man who had been nearest to him and took part in the transaction.

Repeating myself, Minoggio’s testimony has proven that absent such information, those who have been paying attention (observing as an informant) may be the best witnesses for the defense. And, again, the public does need to know whether the informants are there to serve the government, or o serve justice.

Continued . . .

. . . . Continued from http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2040

Now, let’s cover those other two points made in the Memorandum.
First:
No one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order
I have not challenged the legitimacy of the Order, though I have challenged the applicability (jurisdiction and authority) of the Order. Why do they keep avoiding that point?

Then:
permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger
Now this really gets me. I am, and have been so, for over two decades, a journalist. I suppose that there is nothing that I can do about how they choose to describe me, but that coin does have two sides. The US Shyster, and minions, can continue to refer to me as they please. I am free to do the same. Henceforth, USA (United States Attorney) and AUSA (assistant to same) will be referred to as USS and AUSS.

Let me add that my writings, since 1993, are still posted on my webpage. They have more facts in them than most Mainstream Media (MSM) stories. Nearly all of them have the five W’s of journalism (Who, What, Why, Where, When), more than most MSM, and especially television news.

However, since we are talking about Portland, Oregon, let me reference a case for the benefit of the USS and the AUSSes. I will not go into the detail, though I will, in the future, if I am not able to respectfully refer to them as attorneys. The case is Obsidian Finance Group LLC v Crystal Cox – Ninth Circuit.

Now, we get into a rather interesting subject (I thought they would never bring it up) known as prior restraint. They open the topic with:
This discovery material was not in the public domain in any form. This Court should be able to enforce its Protective Order and prohibit wide dissemination of discovery which includes confidential FBI reports. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (an order prohibiting dissemination of discovered information before trial is not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment scrutiny)
First, the “confidential FBI reports” (that sounds really good) were not. The top of every page has this notation, “UNCLASSIFIED// FOUO”. So, they are “unclassified”, though they are For Official Use Only. Why must the shysters try to make what is into what isn’t? Is that just another form of obfuscation?

Now getting to another point, it was after the Group 1 trial that I began exposing informants. The government set the stage for exposing them, not I. Are we not able to contravene a limitation if the government willfully does so? Are the attorneys (defense, not government) exempt when they expose an informant? The only difference is that to identify and expose the informants (the same as the attorneys did with Minoggio); I needed to deduce from the CHS reports just who might be able to identify an informant based upon the information contained within the reports. Once identified, I could just name names, but that would subject me to ridicule and denial, since it would seem so much like we see throughout various communities. I think that would best be described as gossip. Absent the substantiating proof, the text from the documents, what I wrote would have no merit, and it would destroy the reputation for truthfulness that I have been building for 24 years. In the same paragraph mentioned above, the government states, “We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case – or even the informants.” Why can’t they get there story straight?

Then, they cite
In United States v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (1990), the issue was the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN.

Interesting. All of a sudden, they are concerned with “the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN.”

Aren’t they saying that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right outweighs the right of the Press? If that is so, if any defendant comes forward and asks me to remove the forbidden material, I will do so, without hesitation. At least the shysters and I agree on that one — that the right of the defendants comes before any other rights of informants, the shysters, or the Court, itself. And, to assure those rights, it cannot be left to the Court or the shysters. Our Liberty is best kept secure in the hands, and minds, of the people.

Now, to the final Part:
V. Conclusion
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.

Now, let me state that it is the United States Shyster that should show cause why such an Order is issued. I think that it is quite apparent that they (AUSS) have not demonstrated any justification for such an Order to be granted. On the contrary, it appears that this Memorandum does more to hurt, than to help, their request.

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  84
• Google

Gary Hunt ~ Outpost of Freedom "Judicial Discretion" and Tyranny

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2051

February 20, 2017, 7:20 am

Freedom of the Press #7
“Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ev-244x300.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 20, 2017

Let’s review this whole situation from the beginning. After all, it has taken a month and a half to get to this point, so perhaps a refresher is in order.

On January 5, 2017, I was hand served a “Cease and Desist Letter” by an FBI agent. Since the service was disclosed on Facebook, I wrote a “Statement with regard to the Freedom of the Press“, on January 6. That was followed with a series entitled “Freedom of the Press“, beginning on January 7 entitled Freedom of the Press #1 – Meeting with the FBI. The following day, January 8, I explained the Cease and Desist Letter with Freedom of the Press #2 – Cease and Desist.

These events were preceded by a number of articles that I had written in the “Burns Chronicles” series. In those articles, I exposed FBI informants associated with the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Oregon. The information used to identify and expose the informants was derived from some Discovery documents I had obtained.The original Protective Order, dated March 24, 2016, lays out the restrictions placed upon certain described individuals. Those prohibited from “disseminating” information contained in the Discovery are described in that Protective Order:
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense counsel may provide copies of discovery only to the following individuals:
(1) The defendants in this case;
(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and
(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.

Upon my indicating to the FBI agent that hand-delivered the Cease and Desist Letter, that it was not applicable to me, the government filed a Motion to Enforce Protective Order (Expedited Consideration Requested), dated January 6, 2017. That Motion states:
Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby moves this Court for an order enforcing the Protective Order against a third party illegally in possession of protected sensitive discovery materials in this case.

Now, the wording of the Protective Order says nothing about a third party, nor does it say anything about the possession of the material is illegal. If it were illegal, it would be against the law. However, you can only be in violation of a Protective Order if you are among those to which the Order applies.

The government makes a rather interesting statement in that Motion, “This Court has jurisdiction to enjoin a non-party from disseminating confidential documents produced in reliance upon and subject to this Court’s Protective Order.” However, they cite a Second Circuit Court decision, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gottstein, 617 F.3d 186, which I addressed in a subsequent article. It does not corroborate their claim, to the contrary, it supports the limited jurisdiction that I had already stated exists.

The Motion is supported by an Affidavit, of the same date. That Affidavit refers to some of my articles. In so doing, they have entered those articles, which would include the entire series, into the Court’s record. Those specifically mentioned were from “Burns Chronicles”, to include #40, #41, and #49. Also quoted is my statement regarding the “prohibited material” taken from #40. That statement serves as prima facie evidence of my intent. But, the government is insistent upon twisting the truth, in order to create a wholly different characterization of my actions. This would allow them to charge culpability on my part.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter. To do so, I will be referring to FBI documents that I have obtained. They are marked, at the bottom left comer, “Dissemination Limited by Court Order”. So, let me make this perfectly clear- I have no intention of “disseminating” the documents, nor am I bound by any “Court Order”. I am writing about a Public Trial, which was held in September and October 2016

I had been working on a response to that Affidavit and its erroneous presumptions, though I never completed it (maybe I will, when time allows), when the government came back with a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order, dated January 10, 2017. That Motion has a rather interesting statement made when they refer to the Affidavit filed in support of the Motion. It states:
In a Facebook post regarding the FBI’s February 5, 2017, visit to Gary Hunt to serve the cease and desist letter, a person asks “who is Gary Hunt?” On defendant Duane Ehmer’s Facebook account a response is posted, “He is working with our lawyers.”

The Ronnie Walker Affidavit in Support of that Motion, also filed on January 10, 2017, states:
On January 6, 2017, another individual posted a question on that same page asking “Who is Gary Hunt?” That same day, the message “He is working with our lawyers” was posted in reply from defendant Duane EHMER’s Facebook account. Sarah Redd-Buck and Duane EHMER’s Facebook accounts are not private and can be viewed by anyone accessing Facebook.

So, the Motion states, “He is working with our Lawyers” is a response to the question, “Who is Gary Hunt?”

On the other hand, the Affidavit states “a question on that same page asking, “Who is Gary Hunt?”. Then states, “He is working with our lawyers” were posted in reply from defendant Duane EHMER’s Facebook account.”

Now, there is a subtle difference between the two, however, the Affidavit is more accurate than the statement made on the Motion. Perhaps we should go to the source and see what was really said (this image is taken from the Affidavit):http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...mer-answer.jpg

Well, son of a gun, the question was actually asked a full 17 minutes after it was answered. Who would believe that the FBI (Ronnie Walker) and the US Shyster (See Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux) would attempt to mislead the Judge? This sequence begs a question, just to whom is Ehmer referring to by “He”?.

Also, see “5.” In the event…”, below. The have yet to even suggest that Duane Ehmer is the “source”, the condition that the Judge imposed on the government, and a requisite necessary to extend the Protective Order to me.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that the government will continue to rely upon this Facebook post as truth and absolute proof that I “aided and abetted” someone. Keep this in mind, as we will soon return to the subject of aiding and abetting.

On January 9, the day before this Motion and Affidavit were filed, I put out Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You. I was hoping that Judge Brown had not taken leave of her senses, but I was wrong.

The day after the Motion and Affidavit were filed, we find the Court’s Order, in part, of January 11, 2017. In this Order, she does realize that the legal criterion for lawful authority has not been met.
1. The Court DIRECTS Hunt to remove all protected material and/or information derived from material covered by the Protective Order from his website(s) within 24 hours of the service of this Order;
2. The Court ENJOINS Hunt from further dissemination of material covered by the Protective Order or information derived therefrom to any person or entity.
3. The Court DIRECTS the government to serve Hunt personally with a copy of this Order together with a copy of the Protective Order (#342) and the Supplement (#1692) thereto as soon as possible and to file immediately in the record a certificate stating it has effectuated such personal service or otherwise ensured Hunt has personal knowledge of the contents thereof.
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
5. In the event that the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source from which Hunt obtained the protected materials, the Court trusts the government will seek appropriate relief from the Court without delay.

[Footnote to #4]
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 first three items are intended to be authoritative instructions to, or regarding, me. However, there is a caveat in both #4 and “5. Let’s deal with #5 first.

If “the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source“, then the government may “seek appropriate relief“. So, how does that work? She says that items 1 through 3 apply, yet that is exactly the relief they are seeking. If it is invalid, absent the proof of aiding and abetting, by providing reliable evidence, then there is no authority to proceed with any sanctions against me. The nexus to the source is the only element that will, perhaps, bring me under the authority of the Protective Order. However, that will also be addressed, again.

Next, we need to look at #4. It says, “the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. ¹” Don’t overlook the superscripted “1”, as this refers to the footnote. If the Judge says that it “does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings“, then how is it that she can assume to have legal authority to give the orders given in #1 and #2, and to send the government on a fool’s errand by serving me this Order?

The Order also explains the reason for the following Supplement. It states:
In order to make clear in the public record that the Protective Order prohibits even third parties from disseminating protected materials and information, the Court is filing a Supplement to the Protective Order together with this Order.

So, the Court is going to make clear that which was made clear in the initial Protective Order. In truth, the Court wants to change the original intent of the Protective order to encompass those that were not included in that Order. They were probably not included as there is no authority to go beyond the reach of that Order when it was written. That explains why aid and abet is a significant part of any Protective Order extending beyond the legitimate reach of the any other than parties to the action.

In the Court’s effort to extend the Protective Order of March 24, as just described, she does endeavor to ex post facto that Order with a Supplement to the Protective Order, dated January 11, 2017. In it, she extends her Protective Order, and, presumably, her jurisdiction, to the four corners of the Earth.

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order Granting in Part the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, the Court supplements the Protective Order issued March 23, 2016, as follows:
Any individual or entity that obtains materials protected by the Court’s Protective Order is prohibited from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.

Based upon the tens of thousands visits to my page, alone, the information has likely been shared to at least that many times. So, at the stroke of Brown’s pen, they have become subject to the Protective Order w/ Supplement. Darn, that is one powerful pen.

In Response to the Affidavit previously mention, filed on January 10, I wrote Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”. To refute the frivolous comment made by Duane Ehmer, I stated:
For the record, I have never spoken with any of the defense attorneys or investigators in this case. The closest I have come to that is speaking with some of the defendants. However, I have heard that the defense attorneys do like my work, and some even look forward to my next article. I also know that the government players read my work, though I have no doubt that they neither enjoy nor look forward to my next article. And, that is the way that it should be.

It seems that the government, once again asserts the veracity of Ehmer’s comment, and submitted hearsay from Facebook as evidence, while ignoring a direct statement from my article. However, we will touch on this, again.

In that same article, I addressed the shysters by citing Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). For whatever reason, they ignored what the Court determined in that decision. The defendants had a right to know the identity of the informant, even in the high risk situation of a drug case, if that informant’s testimony might be exculpatory, and might affect the verdict. So, where was Judge Anna Brown’s judicial discretion when she chose to allow the government to redact the identifying information?

In response to the January 11 Memorandum resulting in the issuance of the Order of January 12, I wrote Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order. In that article, I addressed the case law the government cited in the Motion and Memorandum. It seemed that they just threw cases against the wall, hoping some would stick. It appears that all of the case law cited supports my position, not theirs.

After the January 11 Order, there was silence. It would be 19 more days before the government could figure out their next move. That came on January 30, 2017, when they filed Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause, 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. Interestingly, in the Affidavit, they entered my Freedom of the Press #4 – The Order into the record. So, now, they have introduced both the “Burns Chronicles” and “Freedom of the Press” series. This, then, would make all of my articles in the series’ a part of the record. You cannot enter a page and not include the book. I’m sure that in hindsight, they realize that this was not a good move.

That Motion was chocked full of case law, though, as in their previous Motion and Memorandum, the case law tended to support my position.

Their case law, of course, was rebutted by my January 30, 2017, Freedom of the Press #5 – “Tilting at Windmills”. In this article, I, again, rebutted their case law, showing that what they cited supported my position, to their detriment.

Now, we move into the recent happenings. Instead of heeding her own edicts, particularly #4 and #5 from her Order of January 11, 2017, she Grants the government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause of January 30.
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
5. In the event that the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source from which Hunt obtained the protected materials, the Court trusts the government will seek appropriate relief from the Court without delay.[Footnote to #4]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.

Their argument regarding jurisdiction (#4) is without merit. Reading “Tilting at Windmills” will set that record straight. None of their citations were on point to the situation in Oregon, and some specifically addressed the limitation on contempt to be within the Judicial District that had jurisdiction over the case, though it did extend to other parties, even employees of those parties, to the case, who were in other Districts. It would also apply if one were found to have aided and abetted a party to the action (#5). However, as she stated on that Order, it required reliable evidence of the aiding and abetting.

However, they have simply repeated the Facebook hearsay, asserting Duane Ehmer’s out of sequence statement as fact. Now, just last week Ehmer was in Court, they could have sworn him in and proven, or disproven, the veracity of that Facebook claim. They could also determine, while Ehmer was under oath, whether he was the source from whom I received the Discovery documents. Their ability to prove, or disprove, was in their hands, and they chose not to go there. Is it difficult to understand just why that remedy was not pursued?

Then, on February 7, the government, in an effort to bring some big guns to bear, or, perhaps realizing just how weak their argument was, filed their Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause.

I addressed portions of this Supplement in Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux. However, I left a portion out, intending to address that portion in a subsequent article (which will follow this one).

Although rather lengthy, it does put the proper perspective on what has transpired. For example, two of the cases cited by the shysters came under anti-trust acts, and being within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, are not relevant. The cited Myers v. United States, 264 U.S. 95. In that case, defendants, “in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, [were] attempting, within the Southwestern Division of the same District, to prevent certain railroad employees from continuing at work. The order ran against men on strike, and the cause is treated as one within the purview of the Clayton Act.” There was no crossing of jurisdictional lines between Districts, only between Divisions. However, in her majesties judicial discretion, she ignored Division boundaries in both Grand and Petit Jury selections, yet now decides that District boundaries have no limitations
I would like to refer the reader to an article that appeared in the “Burns Chronicles” series. To understand what was written about some of the recent shenanigans in the Group 2 trial, currently underway, which parallel this current discussion. Read Burns Chronicles N^o 57 Collusion or Conspiracy?

On February 16, 2017, Judge Anna Brown Granted the “Government’s Motion for Order to Show Cause” and an “Order to Show Cause“, addressed to “Gary Hunt”, who is not a party to the proceedings.

In so doing, she has ignored the arguments that I have made in the Court of Public Opinion. Apparently, she doesn’t realize that my arguments have been made a part of the record, thanks to the actions of the government shysters. In her majesty’s judicial discretion, she has ignored case law since the beginning. She ignores case law, now. She simply asks the shysters to give her a piece of paper that appears to say what it does not say, and then uses that, in her judicial discretion, to rule from her throne.

In allowing the government shysters to add additional misdemeanor charges to the Group 2 trial, now commenced, the use of her judicial discretion is suggestive of her desire to obtain the Group 2 defendants, even if those guilty verdicts must come from her lips. The government having spent a fortune in the prosecution of the Group 1 trial, left the government empty-handed. It appears that the government wants something to show for their efforts. It appears that her judicial discretion is being used to aid the Executive Branch Department of Justice to save face. She is also using judicial discretion to endeavor to silence the press, in its rightful role of exposing misdeeds of government.

So now, let’s look very closely at judicial discretion.

From: “Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union” by John Bouvier, Philadelphia, 1856 (aka Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)DISCRETION, practice.

1. When it is said that something is left to the discretion of a judge, it signifies that he ought to decide according to the rules of equity, and the nature of circumstances. [citations omitted.]
2. The discretion of a judge is said to be the law of tyrants; it is always unknown; it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly, and passion, to which human nature is liable. Optima lex quae minimum relinquit arbitrio judicis: �optimus judex qui minimum sibi*. [citations omitted.]

Black’s Law Dictionary: 2nd EditionDefinition. Optima lex quae minimum relinquit arbitrio judicis: �optimus judex qui minimum sibi:
That law is the best which leaves least to the discretion of the judge; that judge is the best who leaves least to his own. [citations omitted.] That system of law is best which confides as little as possible to the discretion of the judge; that judge the best who relies as little as possible on his own opinion. [citations omitted.]Now, all that is left is for the reader to decide if Judge Anna Brown’s Judicial Discretion is in accordance with the first, or the second, definition.

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  49
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

Unfortunately the Government and Judiciary are creating a controversy to which his person has become attached. They will continue to move forward until they reach the appropriate juncture under which they can reach a position where bailment can be implemented.

Merely citing laws that the Judge and Government are not constrained by will not protect him.

So far they have not been warned off and as we know criminals will continue their exploits until warned off. He needs to either make motions to deny their motions which he would probably be unwise to do Or he needs to have someone else warn them off. He needs to start some action within his state or at a much higher level for relief from the actions of these people. Some injunctive relief that will stop them arresting and deporting him. Or some superior telling them to pull their heads in.

If he doesn't he will find himself kidnapped and taken to the other jurisdiction where they will walk all over him....... at the Judges discretionary pleasure. And that could be a very long time.

Trump needs to fix this!

Trump needs to put this old woman on senior status and appoint a new judge in her place. At the same time fire all the prosecutors.

Duane Ehmer ready for court ~ Feb. 21, 2017, not sure I like it, to each his own.

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...39&oe=592B29D2

Gary Hunt ~ Outpost of Freedom ~ "Qualified Press Privilege"

« Freedom of the Press #7 – “Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny

Freedom of the Press #8 – “Qualified Press Privilege”

February 21, 2017, 9:01 am
Freedom of the Press #8
“Qualified Press Privilege”

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...arbed-wire.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 21, 2017

In Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux, I address the jurisdictional issue that the government addressed in their Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause, of February 7, 2017. Due to the length of the Supplement, and the length of #6, I chose to address two remaining issues in a subsequent post. Those two issues, Prior Restraint and Qualified Press, will be addressed in that order.

From the Supplemental Memorandum:IV.
There Is No Prior Restraint Issue or Qualified Press Privilege
A. There Is No Prior Restraint Issue Presented Here
This Court has the authority to issue protective orders protecting criminal discovery and, specifically, confidential source information. The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). This substantial government interest is unrelated to any suppression of expression and outweighs Hunt’s First Amendment rights. No one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order, and to permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger threatens to undermine criminal discovery and the interests identified in Roviaro—i.e., if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.

We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case— or even the informants—we only want him to observe this Court’s Order, which means that he cannot publish the discovery material subject to the Court’s Order. This discovery material was not in the public domain in any form. This Court should be able to enforce its Protective Order and prohibit wide dissemination of discovery which includes confidential FBI reports. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (an order prohibiting dissemination of discovered information before trial is not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment scrutiny). Besides Seattle Times Co. there are no cases that discuss the prior restraint issue in the context of sealed and protected discovery information in the context of a criminal trial. In United States v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (1990), the issue was the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN. The Noriega Court held that CNN should not be able to violate a court order and litigate at the same time. Hunt has waived any First Amendment defense by defying the Court’s Orders.

Let’s address these underlined items, one at a time. First, we will look at Roviaro. Although I have addressed Roviaro, before, it is worth revisiting, since the government seems to rely heavily upon that decision. Here is what they said:
This Court has the authority to issue protective orders protecting criminal discovery and, specifically, confidential source information. The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957)

The government asserts that they have a right to protect the identity of informants with a protective order. They have made this assertion, before, though they appear to have not yet read the decision nor understand the ramifications..
Albert Roviaro was indicted on two counts of trafficking narcotics. When he was arrested, a John Doe was present and was closest in proximity to the transaction, which led to Roviaro’s arrest. In requesting a Bill of Particulars, including the identification of the informant, he was denied that information. He was subsequently convicted in a bench trail. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard the case. Justice Burton wrote the decision.

Though they recognized the informants privilege, they held that the right of the accused, if the informant would provide possible exculpatory testimony, exceeded that of the privilege. The following are from that decision:

Before trial, petitioner moved for a bill of particulars requesting, among other things, the name, address and occupation of “John Doe.” The Government objected on the ground that John Doe was an informer and that his identity was privileged. The motion was denied.

The protection of the informant was held by the District Court and upheld at appeal. However, in their decision, the Supreme Court stated:
The scope of the privilege is limited by its underlying purpose. Thus, where the disclosure of the contents of a communication will not tend to reveal the identity of an informer, the contents are not privileged. Likewise, once the identity of the informer has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication, the privilege is no longer applicable.

Once the informant is identified, the privilege is removed, as explained, “where the disclosure of the contents of a communication will not tend to reveal the identity of an informer, the contents are not privileged.” That was the circumstance with the Discovery information in question. However, once “the identity of the informant has been disclosed… the privilege is no longer applicable.” They don’t suggest by what means that disclosure might be achieved, however, the public should, by right, have any knowledge that can be obtained by such disclosure. So, while the government contends that such disclosure by Hunt is a violation of the Protective Order, once that disclosure is made, the informants privilege ceases to exist.

A further limitation on the applicability of the privilege arises from the fundamental requirements of fairness. Where the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way. In these situations the trial court may require disclosure and, if the Government withholds the information, dismiss the action.

So, was it judicial discretion, on the part of Judge Brown, that favored, at least selectively, the protection of the identity of the informants? There was no objection when the government exposed Mark McConnell. There was no objection when Terri Linnell exposed her role as an informant. There was no objection when the diligence of the defense exposed Fabio Minoggio. For, at that instant in time, as each was exposed, the informants privilege ceased to exist.

Once the privilege, intended to protect the identity of the informant, ceases to exist, so, too, does the need for protection under the Protective Order.

The government goes on to say that the “substantial government interest is unrelated to any suppression of expression and outweighs Hunt’s First Amendment rights.” Now, it seems that the government, in the use of the term “expression”, is speaking of my right to freedom of speech. I have never contended such, and I am sure that both Facebook hearsay and recorded statements made by me make clear that it is the right of the people to the Freedom of the Press, the right to know what their government is doing, is at stake here.

Then, they state that “[n]o one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order, and to permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger[sic] threatens to undermine criminal discovery.” I must admit that they are correct in that. I have not challenged the legitimacy of the Protective Order. I have no doubt that it applies to those so identified within the Protective Order of March 2016. I have clearly stated that I am not among those so identified.They go on to state that “if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.” I have no qualm with what they are asserting, however, as was decided in Roviaro, once the identity is known, then the informants privilege no longer exists. It does not matter whether the government, the informant, the defense, or any other party exposes the identity. That was not a consideration then, nor should it be now.

They then state:
if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.

Well, that is correct. However, that protection is not a right of the government, it is simply what they endeavor to do, and it does not preclude such exposure by the government, the informant, or any other party. The government should do their best. However, if they cannot achieve the desired result, they have no right to blame such failure on anybody else.

Next, we have:
This Court should be able to enforce its Protective Order and prohibit wide dissemination of discovery which includes confidential FBI reports. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
Before we get to Seattle Times Co., let’s look at what they said. They don’t want “wide dissemination of discovery“. The discovery was not widely disseminated. It is only when the informants privilege ceased to exist that those portions of discovery that no longer came under the privilege were excerpted and made public, via the press.

Now, on to Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart. This case was civil, not criminal. As such, many standards are different. Even the federal judiciary recognizes this, as they have Rules for both Criminal and Civil Procedures. However, Rhinehart was the spiritual leader of a religious group, the Aquarian Foundation. The discovery that the Seattle Times wanted to publish had to do with the names of the member’s and financial contributors to Foundation. If we compare the private names and contributions of a religious order to the actions of government, we need to make a distinction. The former is a private entity, as are its members and contributors. As such, they are afforded the protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The latter, however, is the servant of the people and are afforded only those powers and authorities provided for in the Constitution. Informants are nothing more than contract employees of government, paid under the table (no IRS form 1099 provided), and as such are subject to the scrutiny of the citizenry as much as any other government employee. In addition, by the way, the Seattle Times Co. discovery had nothing, at all, to do with “confidential FBI reports”. In fact, the Discovery in this (Ammon Bundy, et al) case are “Unclassified”.

Then, we have:
In United States v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (1990), the issue was the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN.

The Noriega case is so far off point that it is a surprise that the government would even bring it up. CNN obtained recordings made by the government of privileged attorney client communications while Noriega was in jail in Miami, Florida. To compare disclosure of attorney-client privileged information, most likely made available by a government employee of the jail, to the identification of informants is, well, beyond absurd.

Then the government asserts that, Hunt has waived any First Amendment defense by defying the Court’s Orders.

First, Hunt has not defied “the Court’s Order”, as Hunt was not among those to whom the Order was addressed. Second, it is not Hunt’s right that the Court is trying to suppress; it is the right of the press to inform the public of the doings and misdeeds of that government.

Now, that second issue:
B. No Qualified Press Privilege Is Implicated HereAlthough the Ninth Circuit has recognized a qualified press privilege in Shoen v Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the doctrine simply doesn’t apply to the Motion before this Court. The government is not seeking the testimony of third-party Gary Hunt to identify the source or sources of the protected discovery information. The government intends to investigate that on its own. The government is merely seeking the removal of protected discovery material that this Court has ordered protected. Nothing about Gary Hunt’s blogging activities is implicated by the Motion to Show Cause. Third-party Gary Hunt is continuing to disseminate protected discovery material in the face of three Court Orders. No privilege is implicated.

Finally, even if this case were subject to a balancing test, the government’s interests far outweigh any First Amendment interest Hunt may assert. First, we need to protect our confidential sources for all of the valid reasons identified in Roviaro. Second, the Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Order. Without enforcement, Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.

First, we have:
Although the Ninth Circuit has recognized a qualified press privilege in Shoen v Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the doctrine simply doesn’t apply to the Motion before this Court.

Regarding Shoen, I agree with the government. The government has not sought to have me divulge the source of my information. Maybe their investigation has gone far enough that they really do not want that source known. However, they did choose to include it in their Supplemental Memorandum, so now it has been addressed. It does not, however, reach the point of excluding any “qualified press privilege”, if that is what they are trying to get at.

Then, they say, “The government is merely seeking the removal of protected discovery material that this Court has ordered protected.” Darn, the informants privilege ceased to exist, once the identities were exposed.

“[T]he Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Order.” Well, that is quite understandable. So, enforce away. Find the person subject to the Protective Order and go after them. Far be it for me to discourage you from doing so. Moreover, your repetition of the same arguments will not make them any more irrelevant than they already are.

Then, they endeavor to make me “defiant”, when they state:
Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.

If the Protective Order included me within its reach, that might be true. I am not being defiant, I am simply asserting my rights as press and challenging their misguided presumptions of my culpability.

However, to suggest that the government would no longer be able “to exchange discovery in future criminal cases” suggests that they would ignore standing Rules and law regarding discovery. I am not quite sure that this is what they were suggesting, however, I think that they should consider just how they word things, in the future. This is almost an admission to future illegal activity on the part of the government.

Note that they only had one citation to suggest that I have no “Qualified Press Privilege”, as if with the sweep of their magic pen, they can simple say it, and make it so. They have, at least, in that stroke, dispelled their assertion of my right of expression (speech).Now, it is my turn. Let’s start with just who is violating clearly stated rules. The applicable Rule, from Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1215), is, Rule 49.1. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, a financial-account number, or the home address of an individual, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only;
(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual’s birth;
(3) the minor’s initials;
(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number; and
(5) the city and state of the home address.

However, on January 6, 2017, the government filed “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (Expedited Consideration Requested)”. That document contained my home address, twice. Not just “city and state”, but the street name and number, as well. I suppose that they simply assume that they are above the law.

Now, unlike the specific wording of the Protective Order, as to who is subject to the Order, in this instance, there is specific wording on what must be redacted. But, heck, since the government can do no wrong, and those on the other side of the bar can do no right, this double standard is not surprising. Let me guess that no sanctions or other action will be taken against FBI SA Ronnie Walker, who prepared the Affidavit for filing, or Pamala Holsinger, whose electronic signature is on the filing of the Motion to which the Affidavit is attached.

I would not want to suggest that the government would not enforce Rules and laws violated by the government. So, well, I won’t. However, they will twist the wording to suit their needs, even when one is acting within the Rules and law.As much as we pay these people, don’t you think that they might be able to do a better job?

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  28
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

Like this:



Tags: Ammon Bundy, Anna Brown, Burns Oregon, courts, demonization, FBI, government, Harney County, Honor, informants, Judge, law, press, Shyster, US Attorney
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback


One Comment

• http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/94a4066...=109&d=mm&r=pgCompany Clerk says:
  February 21, 2017 at 11:06 am
  There seems to be more of a ‘Legal’ battle, to which; the government wants you to believe that whatever they say is the truth regardless of facts OR legal precedent.
  Between the Fake News Media and the Corrupt Govt… The guy at the Barber Shop may have a better standing.
  Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply


Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website


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

John Lamb reporting on opening arguments for the Malheur Protest trial #2

http://youtu.be/A8H7l1q62IE

https://youtu.be/A8H7l1q62IE

I was listening to this video and it would be a good one for a Lavoy Finicum tribute. He found the cost of freedom when he spoke out and now he's buried in the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY2V6t1u3s4

Today (2/21/2017) they (prosecution) showed this video to the jury. . . . it may have backfired . .
https://m.facebook.com/groups/155324...tn__=%2As[
Citizens for Constitutional Freedom Support Rally

Lee Gayer Robbins shared a link to the group: .

LaVoy Finicum "I'm doing this for my kids and my Grand kids. Iv'e got 20 Grand kids and Daughters and Sons and I want them to be Free. I want our Constitution to be upheld in its original intent, and Freedom to be restored to our Country. So I'll Stand here with my friends."

Today during the Opening Statements for the Prosecution, they showed this video of the Malheur Patriots making a Plea for Americans to come take a Stand. It had quite an emotional effect on many of the jurors, and I think it may have backfired on the Prosecution to show this video. I thought a few of the jurors were about to cry, I know I was. #STAND #LOVEYOURNEIGHBOR#ITMATTERSHOWYOUSTAND #MOTHERSDAUGHTERS


http://youtu.be/LYMiOTR8B0w

https://youtu.be/LYMiOTR8B0w

Shari Dovale says prosecution hasn't learned ~ Redoubt News ~ Malheur trial #2

http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/21/ma...ning-mistakes/

Malheur II – (Not) Learning From Past Mistakes


I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN, ARE THEY JUST TOO CONFIDENT IN JUDGE ANNA'S BENCH TRIAL?

February 21, 2017 BLM, Constitution, FBI, Featured, Oregon 1

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C495

Malheur II – (Not) Learning From Past Mistakes

by Shari Dovale

The opening statements for the second Malheur Protest Trial were very interesting. Beginning with Judge Anna Brown reading the jury instructions, I heard more bias from her when I was sure that I heard the phrase “the evidence will show.” Since she is who will decide the defendants fate on half of the charges, this seems to tell me they are already decided.

The prosecution looked to have stepped up their game when Geoff Barrow delivered the opening statement. He certainly connected better with the jury this go around than Ethan Knight did during the last trial.

However, Barrow made a very interesting observation during his opening. He told the jury that there was no factual evidence to convict these defendants. The prosecution is admitting their case is grasping at straws? Or, could they not be worried because they know it is already in the bag with Judge Brown?

Barrow also explained some of their witnesses, including Butch Eaton, expected to testify tomorrow. During the last trial, Eaton threw the prosecution a curve ball and stated on the stand that he still supported the Bundy brothers and their cause. This stunned the prosecution to the point of turning on him and treating him as a hostile witness. I wonder how they will treat him this time, especially since they warned the jury that he still supports the defendants.

The defense attorneys for the four accused jumped a few more notches in my book today. They made outstanding opening statements. Each one was on their game and you can tell that at least a couple of them connected with the jury.

The big surprise today was the first prosecution witness, former FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing. Bretzing was in charge of the entire District of Oregon during the Malheur Protest. He authorized every move, and all aspects of the case. As he testified, he was in Burns during the entire 41 days, with minor exceptions. He signed off on each Informant, or Confidential Human Source (CHS). There was nothing he was not made aware of.

He explained that he was aware that Ammon Bundy had been in Oregon, but said there had been no surveillance, electronic or otherwise, placed on him. He became concerned about the Bundy brothers because he knew them from Bunkerville.

Contrary to the theory of the last trial, Bretzing did not name Ammon as “The Leader” of this protest. He told the court that there was a “group of 7 or 8” leaders, with Ammon among them.

Bretzing also explained that he used CHS informants because they volunteered and it kept his agents out of harms way.

Yet, when Andrew Kohlmets, Jason Patrick’s stand-by counsel, began his cross examination, all of a sudden, Mr. Bretzing developed a serious case of the “I don’t remember”s. He had trouble with nearly all details he was questioned on, including those of the CHS informants.

Bretzing was questioned on whether he knew that one of his CHS informants, Fabio Minoggio, also known as John Killman, may have “aided and abetted” the protesters. Kohlmets also wanted to know if Bretzing knew that Minoggio had engaged in unlawful conduct by providing training on guns and hand-to-hand combat. It seemed that Bretzing was having serious memory issues on all questions.

He could not remember who anyone was, or what they were doing at the refuge. He knew some guy named “Mark” had been an informant, but it took Kohlmets reminding him of the last name “McConnell” before it triggered a bit of a memory from Bretzing.

The judge would not allow the defense to pursue their entire line of questioning, as it was not discussed on direct examination. I certainly hope they call this man back to the stand when they present their case.

I have trouble believing that the prosecution would allow Bretzing to play these games on the stand. It not only makes him look incompetent, but it drags them down from the get go. It is almost as if they do not care if they win or lose. I have to ask again, are they just too confident in Judge Anna’s Bench Trial?

Mr. Bretzing will finish his testimony tomorrow, after which Butch Eaton is expected to testify.

Share this:

In the case of a bench trial before a bias judge can the persons pronounced guilty appeal?

Comment from Redoubt News:

• http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c45071b...identicon&r=pg Fred Marsico FEBRUARY 21, 2017 AT 9:43 PM
• If anyone is a legal expert, I would like to know how a judge can waive a defendants right to a jury trial. It seems as if the current trial by jury and the misdemeanor charges added is a violation of federal court procedures in and of itself. Been researching it and cannot find one instance in which a judge refused to allow a trial by jury and presided over a bench trial.
• 
  And if both cases are being tried at once, why wouldn’t the jurors be suspicious of fact that the judge is going to be the jury? And yes, the phrase “the evidence will show.” seems to indicate that she also has assumed the roles of prosecutor as well as judge and jury.
• 
  Isn’t this noticed by the majority of people?
• 
  Oh! One more thing: Adverse possession claim demands proof of ownership, not arrests and murder. All the government needed to do was show proof by title that they did in fact have jurisdiction on the land and the occupiers would have been forced to leaved without a fight. I think Ammon and the other ranchers knew the government could not provide the proof, and that is why it turned arrests and assassination.
  
  
  REPLY
  
  
  
  
  From Whitehouse website:
  https://s19.postimg.org/6u193m78j/IMG_1509.png

Maxime Bernstein's report on the first day od the Malhuer Protest Trial #2

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

John Lamb 40 minute video of Feb. 21 Malhuer Protest Trial, includes video I previously posted of morning session

http://youtu.be/ph4zaykwNrc

https://youtu.be/ph4zaykwNrc

Criminal trial by jury can only be waived by consent. There is no other avenue. The judge is running an administrative tribunal and trial by jury at the same time. They will need to take the matter to a higher court for Judicial review/appeal, Habeus Corpus... which I think they have already done?

They certainly should already be demanding a different venue with the opening statements. Every time the lawyer or defendant gets to speak they should be questioning the jurisdiction of this court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

Criminal trial by jury can only be waived by consent. There is no other avenue. The judge is running an administrative tribunal and trial by jury at the same time. They will need to take the matter to a higher court for Judicial review/appeal, Habeus Corpus... which I think they have already done?

They certainly should already be demanding a different venue with the opening statements. Every time the lawyer or defendant gets to speak they should be questioning the jurisdiction of this court.

---

Ammon Bundy did file a motion for lack of jurisdiction. I don't know if these defendants have.

State constitutions and state laws all reserve criminal jurisdiction to the state except when ceded to and accepted by the US, with concent of the state legislature. The Malhuer headquarters are neither public lands or an enclave. They are proprietary property with the same rights as any other property owner.

Congress has passed some acts that are probably unconstitutional regarding public lands, begining with the national grazing service and Taylor Grazing Act. In 1989 Ronald Reagan mad a proclamation which the Comgress has used to tie Title 18 (federal crimes) to Title 43 (public lands). I think this may be what Judge Brown is using to claim jurisdiction.

If you are able to follow what I have copy/pasted here:

Usurping criminal jurisdiction using presidential proclamation 5928


18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7 (this is under the "Notes Tab")
Territorial Sea Extending to Twelve Miles Included in Special Maritime and Territorial JurisdictionPub. L. 104–132, title IX, § 901(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1317, provided that:
“The Congress declares that all the territorial sea of the United States, as defined by Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988 [set out as a note under section 1331 of Title 43, Public Lands], for purposes of Federal criminal jurisdiction is part of the United States, subject to its sovereignty, and is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of title 18, United States Code.”





43 U.S. Code § 1331 - Definitions







(q)The term “minerals” includes oil, gas, sulphur, geopressured-geothermal and associated resources, and all other minerals which are authorized by an Act of Congress to be produced from “public lands” as defined in section 1702 of this title.





43 U.S. Code § 1702 - Definitions


(n)The term “Bureau [2] means the Bureau of Land Management.

(o)The term “eleven contiguous Western States” means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

(p)The term “grazing permit and lease” means any document authorizing use of public lands or lands in National Forests in the eleven contiguous western States for the purpose of grazing domestic livestock.





The text of the proclamation:

Proclamation 5928 -- Territorial Sea of the United States

December 27, 1988

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

International law recognizes that coastal nations may exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over their territorial seas.

The territorial sea of the United States is a maritime zone extending beyond the land territory and internal waters of the United States over which the United States exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction, a sovereignty and jurisdiction that extend to the airspace over the territorial sea, as well as to its bed and subsoil.

Extension of the territorial sea by the United States to the limits permitted by international law will advance the national security and other significant interests of the United States.

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United States of America, and in accordance with international law, do hereby proclaim the extension of the territorial sea of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty.

The territorial sea of the United States henceforth extends to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.

In accordance with international law, as reflected in the applicable provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, within the territorial sea of the United States, the ships of all countries enjoy the right of innocent passage and the ships and aircraft of all countries enjoy the right of transit passage through international straits.

Nothing in this Proclamation:

(a) extends or otherwise alters existing Federal or State law or any jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations derived therefrom; or

(b) impairs the determination, in accordance with international law, of any maritime boundary of the United States with a foreign jurisdiction.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of December, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirteenth.

Ronald Reagan

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:32 a.m., January 6, 1989]

Note: The proclamation was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on December 28.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

In the case of a bench trial before a bias judge can the persons pronounced guilty appeal?

---

Only if the Ninth Circus agrees there is an "error in application of law."

It is a rebuttable presumption that a judge is not biased. But we know how shysters stick together over all else (witness Gorsuch and the Seattle judge recently).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Comment from Redoubt News

---

The disinformation site from rabid Zionist and "former" US intelligence agent James Wesley Rawles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

If anyone is a legal expert, I would like to know how a judge can waive a defendants right to a jury trial.

---

There remains this nonsensical concept that the "justice" system is "fair."

How does a black-robed whore do this? He simply directs the clerk to record it as a bench trial. That's all. The "rules of court" allow him to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Been researching it and cannot find one instance in which a judge refused to allow a trial by jury and presided over a bench trial.

---

The author is clearly ignorant about how things really work in the jew-dicial system. A demand for a jury trial is routinely ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

All the government needed to do was show proof by title that they did in fact have jurisdiction on the land and the occupiers would have been forced to leaved without a fight.

---

LOL

Written Law is not relevant to the regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

I think Ammon and the other ranchers knew the government could not provide the proof, and that is why it turned arrests and assassination.

---

The current regime uses violence as its modus operandi. Comply...or die. Political power proceeds out of the barrel of a gun.

With all due respect to the resistance, it was woefully naive to think their endeavor would not end in violence.

I reiterate that Rawles' operation is a disinformation operation. It incessantly repeats the lie that one can "deal" with the regime "peacefully."


http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quot...y-54-46-03.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

Criminal trial by jury can only be waived by consent. There is no other avenue.

---

The jew-dicial system has "reinterpreted" the rights of the Bill of Rights for its own ends. The "right" to a jury trial has simply been dispensed with in most cases. Try to demand a jury trial for an "infraction." LOL. Try to demand a jury trial if the judge has said you "failed to comply with rules of court" in requesting one.

Please...I love you guys, and respect what you aim to do, but you have got to understand one does not "work within the system" according to what you think should happen. We are dealing with tyranny that does not care about human beings, the Law, justice, or anything else but its own monopoly on power.

Quote:

---

The disinformation site from rabid Zionist and "former" US intelligence agent James Wesley Rawles?

---

Yes, but if you don't like Shari Dovale's point of view there is always the jewess Maxine Bernstein at the Oregonian or the equally slanted writers OPB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Yes, but if you don't like Shari Dovale's point of view there is always the jewess Maxine Bernstein at the Oregonian or the equally slanted writers OSB

---

I prefer to avoid all "news" sites with an illicit agenda, when possible. The Whoregonian is often worse than the Washington ComPost. But the "Redoubt" is based on a Zionist lie.

John Lamb's end of day report for Malheur Protest trial #2 Feb. 22

http://youtu.be/ZdhYZo7aoMc

https://youtu.be/ZdhYZo7aoMc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quot...y-54-46-03.jpg

---

That quote is damn sure the truth.

Prosecution witness Butch Eaton knocks it out of the park for the defense


Malheur II – Eaton Scores for the Defense

https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C360Malheur II – Eaton Scores for the Defense

by Shari Dovale

Today’s courtroom drama began with former Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing continuing his avoidance of answering the defense questions. Michelle Kohler, attorney for Duane Ehmer, repeatedly asked him “In the fall of 2015, when did you first move agents to Burns,” in response to the Hammond situation? Bretzing danced around this question several times until the judge got annoyed and shut down Ms. Kohler.

Additionally, Bretzing did not know when and where the license plate readers had been installed, just that there were some there.

https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=161%2C149

Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing (photo: Reuters)He did, finally, admit that he was tracking Ammon Bundy via his cell phone, “But only when it was on.”

Bretzing did admit on the stand that he was not happy at the outcome of the last trial, for Ammon Bundy, et al. He does want someone to be held accountable, however, when asked directly, “It is your desire to hold someone accountable?” he said that he “cannot answer that.” That is no surprise because that would open him up to explaining why he was testifying at all when he did not testify at the last trial. I don’t know, can we call this revenge?

Judge Brown was not happy with the defense team and chastised them during a break away from the jury. Claiming they are asking the same questions repeatedly, she directed them to confer and stop wasting the jury’s time.

I noticed that prosecutor Ethan Knight was referring to the court officers by their first names, in the same tone as calling the FBI “folks” as if he were just a down-home kind of guy. Apparently, Judge Brown noticed it as well and directed him to show more respect to them and stop being so informal.

Andy Dunbar testified after the break but did not have new any surprises. Dunbar is the rancher with property next to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. His son had given permission during the protest for the fence to be cut, yet Andy came along and denied that permission was given. It turned out that Dunbar, and his son, each received $2,000 from the FBI for information and allowing them to stay on his property, staging out of there and spying on the protesters. It is no wonder he hit the ceiling when he found out about the fences.

Dunbar did attempt to deny that he was an “Informant” however he and his son provided information to, and was paid by, the FBI. My dictionary lists that definition under PAID INFORMANT.

https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=180%2C202

Chad Karges, the manager of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, April 29, 2016 (KOIN)Chad Karges, The Refuge Manager, testified this afternoon. Again, he admitted that it was his decision to order all refuge employees to not go to the refuge under any circumstances until he directed them to do so. He made this decision a full 2 days before the rally in Burns. Claiming that he heard rumors and got uncomfortable, that was a big step for someone that just heard a few rumors.

No employees missed working, as they worked out of another field office for the duration of the protest. No employees missed getting paid, and Karges actually left town for over a month. I think it was a vacation….

Michelle Kohler earned points again when she made the point that Karges had no access to the safe the defendants are accused of destroying, therefore Karges had no way of confirming that the destruction took place during the protest. It could have happened months before or even after. Additionally, Karges had no personal knowledge of any money that may have been in the safe, therefore, no knowledge of what may have been missing.

Butch Eaton was the highlight testimony for the defense, even though he testified for the prosecution. This was a repeat performance from the last trial. He admitted that he was taken to the refuge without realizing where they were going. When he figured out what he believed to be happening, he walked out and called his wife to come get him.

Eaton has COPD and was recently diagnosed with MS. He was afraid of prosecution and told this to the FBI. However, he made it very clear that he wished he could have stood with the Patriots. He admires them and feels they “are better men than I!”
Eaton also stated on the witness stand that “They are doing what I should have been doing!”
Eaton recounted his fear of the FBI and told of an agent refusing to give him a business card because of the danger that Eaton could be facing. When Eaton asked him if he should be in fear for his life, the agent responded, “Not in fear, but concerned.” This shows the extent that the FBI was willing to go to intimidate people against the Protest.

https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=148%2C140

Jason PatrickAndrew Kohlmets scored several points on behalf of Jason Patrick. It was testified several ways that Jason did not dress like militia, in camouflage, nor was he seen carrying a gun. He was seen, repeatedly, to be heavily armed with a CAMERA. That was his weapon of choice, and it must have been very scary to the government.

There were a couple more prosecution witnesses, including FBI Agent Ronnie Walker, who is special enough to be allowed to sit in the courtroom and listen to all of the testimony before he testifies himself. That special privilege was bestowed on him during the previous trial by Judge Brown, and it continues for this trial.

The defense is doing a very good job in breaking up the prosecution case. However, as I said before, Judge Brown still appears to be working for the prosecution. I do not believe the Bench Trial outcome will be difficult to predict.

Malheur II - (Not) Learning From Past MistakesFebruary 21, 2017In "BLM"

Govt Blames Protesters For Finicum DeathJanuary 27, 2016In "BLM"

Statement by Greg Bretzing, SAC - Includes VideoJanuary 28, 2016In "FBI"


http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/22/ma...cores-defense/

After $2M in damage, Malheur refuge set to reopen

Compare this twisted report to the article Shari "Redoubt News" Dovale wrote

PORTLAND, Ore. – It’s been more than a year since a group of armed occupiers took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, causing millions of dollars in damage to buildings and land. Now, the federal facility is gearing up to reopen its doors and return to life as a small center for wildlife viewing on the edge of an avian-filled floodplain in rural eastern Oregon.

The refuge headquarters and visitors center is set to reopen this spring, although an exact date has not yet been set, according to Jason Holm, spokesman for the Pacific Region Fish and Wildlife service. Roads to the refuge have already reopened and since last summer, employees have been working out of portable offices.

Due to a trial for seven of the occupiers that began on Feb. 14, refuge employees were unable to discuss the occupation or efforts to reopen. Many of them are testifying in federal court about the events that took place between Jan. 1 and Feb. 11, 2016.

At a separate trial in October 2016, seven other occupiers, including leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy, were acquitted by a jury. Ammon and Ryan Bundy remain in federal custody as they also face charges related to a standoff in Nevada.

“They don’t want to negatively impact the trial,” Holm said.

Background: Armed occupation in Eastern Oregon

Holm described extensive damage to land and buildings that has been difficult to repair.

The cleanup effort has included “everything from deep cleaning, holes in walls, painting,” Holm said. “There was some sewage flooding; several trenches that were dug; a well that needed to be gone through and filled in. The entire refuge is essentially an archeological site. There were precautions that had to be made.”

http://resize.tegna-media.com/remote...reset=wx-large



The refuge was built in 1908 on top of a Burns Paiute Tribe archeological site and burial grounds, before it was illegal to do so. Since then, the refuge has committed to preserving artifacts including tools, cookware, and arrowheads.

Occupiers opened boxes of artifacts in the headquarters building and trenches were dug near other artifacts. At least one trench had human feces in it.

Restoring the building and land cost $2 million, according to Holm. The national wildlife refuge didn’t lose visitor fees as it’s a “no-fee” refuge.

Even more costly was the effort to relocate refuge employees during the occupation and, as a precaution, staff other remote federal refuges in the western U.S. with law enforcement. According to Holm, that combined effort cost another $4 million.

Despite threats to charge occupiers for some of those costs, Holm said the $6 million bill will be paid by siphoning off other Fish and Wildlife programs, such as restoration efforts, maintenance projects and hiring seasonal workers.

The cost to buildings, land and employees is not the only damage the occupation caused at the refuge. A critical effort to curb an invasive Asian carp infestation at the Malheur Lake was put on hold during the occupation, setting the project back years.

Workers have been rounding up carp to halt the aggressive fish, first introduced in the 1920s, from eating food for migratory birds and dirtying the water. Video from the initial catch in 2014 shows hundreds of muscular fish writhing in nets and being carted off in industrial equipment.

http://youtu.be/cKNjifjnJhg
Video: Carp removal from Malheur lake. Removal begins at the 5:30 mark.

“We have a very ambitious carp removal. One female can lay one to two million eggs at a time. The season when you get the carp out of there tends to be in cold weather,” Holm said.

Because the occupation took place during the planned carp removal time, it will probably be a few years before the refuge has the level of carp they would have had in the winter of 2016. (bullshit ~! The biologist was forced to admit, under cross examination, the carp removal wasn't scheduled until April)

Five of the 16 employees who worked at the refuge at the time of the occupation have chosen to leave for other work. Holm didn’t say it was because of the occupation necessarily, but he admitted the ordeal has been difficult for them.

“They are introverted biologists for the most part,” Holm said. “I know the folks that are back are relieved to be back. They’re members of the community and tied in very closely to the community.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

I prefer to avoid all "news" sites with an illicit agenda, when possible. The Whoregonian is often worse than the Washington ComPost. But the "Redoubt" is based on a Zionist lie.

---

Inspite of the fact the "Redoubt" is based on a Zionist lie, Shari Dovale writes fairly accurate articles unlike Maxine Bernstein and the writers at Oregon Public Broadcasting. Yea, they may be biased by her personal beliefs, but she does stick to the facts.

Brand Thornton's rant, recounts yesterdays court, Retired FBI Bretzing "doesn't recall"

http://youtu.be/huuMoX7YwVo

https://youtu.be/huuMoX7YwVo