His name was LaVoy Finicum.

[Dachsie]

Jeanette Finicum is a very articulate clear communicator.

One of the items I posted in this thread indicated the two shots were fired by FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita and at least one of the shots hit Finicum in the side and that is why it appeared that Finicum was reaching for a gun when he was reaching for his wounded side. That was interesting.

I absolutely cannot figure out the EXACT and FULL sequence of events in that shooting.
We still are a long way from having that.

It was also interesting how Jeanette said her husband would not have been carrying a gun in his pocket, yet she said the gun that was said to be the gun he took out of his pocket was definitely her husband's gun and was a gift to him from his relative. How did that gun get to the scene if Finicum was not carrying it on his person? Finicum probably would not have just had the gun sitting in his car where "law officers" at the scene could have moved it so that it looked like Finicum drew the gun.

The evidence removed I think were the two shells from the two shots Astarita fired.

EVERYTHING about this case STINKS. There does not appear to be any federal, state or local law enforcement entity hell bent on tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

i am glad that attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, formerly of Judicial Watch, has formally requested President Trump look in to this case. He did not do that in a biased way and was not seeking any particular outcome, but simply from a legal standpoint, there are so many anomalies and infraction regarding the procedures by the law in this case that it requires an objective look.

I do not think the American people realize how vitally important the basic issues of this case jeopardize our fundamental freedom and civil rights.

All we can do is expose this mountain of manure as much as we can, as that is what we are commanded to do. So after we continue to do our part, God can step in and do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine.

I am sorry I cannot contribute more to this thread in the way of intelligent exposure as I just am following so many issues now and we appear as a whole to be in total meltdown mode. I am speaking out and posting on several Texas state government and city and county government matters now as well as trying to follow the PizzaGate and PedoGate issue and really do not know this case in detail and probably will never be able to get up to speed. Thanks to Monty for taking care of that for us.

[monty]

Info Wars with Larry Klayman ~ How Comey corrupted the FBI AND covered up the murder of a Bundy peaceful supporter



https://youtu.be/RvKsOZk9uhA

[monty]

This video with Lary Klayman covers wiretapping of Americans, including the Trump campaign team, and updates on Bundy Ranch among other things. Klayman points out tha 97% of the United States attorneys donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Session is not in control of his department because of the Hillary supporters.




https://youtu.be/noLQ4qbkG3c

[monty]

Loren Edward Pearce - Evidence of multiple ilegal acts against Finicum and passengers



https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...up-678x381.jpg

Evidence Of Multiple Illegal Acts
Against Finicum And Passengers

by Loren Edward Pearce

After almost 18 months of investigation, the Grand Jury has indicted one FBI agent, W. Joseph Astarita, for wrongful action related to the January 26, 2016 shooting of LaVoy Finicum. In contrast to this agonizingly long investigation, which is still pending as to the other FBI agents, the Grand Jury speedily indicted the Bundy et al defendants for the Bunkerville protest and the Malheur Refuge occupation. The rapid indictment of the Bundy et al defendants related to the Bunkerville protest, was based on the questionable testimony of Dan Love, among others.

With the indictment of the FBI agent, it is time to revisit the circumstances surrounding the stopping of the Finicum vehicle and the various evidences of illegal and unethical behavior on the part of government actors, both state and federal.

Deadman Road Blocks

Many people have visited the site of the shooting of LaVoy Finicum. Many have analyzed and attempted to recreate the conditions surrounding the location and logistics of the road block placed a couple of miles past the first stop. The results of these analysis’ reveal that the road block was illegal and not normal procedure used by other law enforcement entities across the USA.

Given the configuration of the road block that was used to stop LaVoy Finicum and his passengers, the road block has been designated an illegal “deadman road block”.

Here are the reasons for why the road block and the procedures used by the Oregon State Police, the FBI and other government actors, were illegal, unethical, immoral and indefensible.

Roadblocks Banned In Many Jurisdictions

“Violator may be boxed in only if officer reasonably believes there is substantial risk that violator will cause death or serious physical injury to others if apprehension is delayed. Ramming will be used only as last resort after all other reasonable means of stopping violator have failed, and where officer believes violator has committed, has attempted to commit, or is attempting to commit felony which involves use, or threatened use, of deadly force, and there is substantial risk that pursued law violator will cause death or serious physical injury to others if apprehension is delayed. Ramming a vehicle should be considered deadly force. Roadblocks shall not be used to stop violator.”St. Petersburg, FL

Roadblocks are broadly discouraged in most jurisdictions because they have been found to be more dangerous than helpful and because courts have usually found them to be a form of deadly force and a violation of the 4^th Amendment unreasonable seizure provision.

Use Of Unmarked Vehicles, Ambush And Surprise

The purpose of a road block, if justified, is not to ambush, surprise, trick, deceive, con, or otherwise inflict bodily harm or property damage. Just the opposite, it is to provide every possible means for detaining individuals with the least amount of risk to the suspects, their passengers and the people who are detaining them.

Law enforcement officials (LEO’s) are required to use every possible method at their disposal to warn the approaching suspects of the road block ahead through the use of bright head lights and flashing lights, flares and warning signs to give the approaching suspects adequate warning to stop.

A review of the overhead aerial video supplied by the LEO will show unmarked cars with no flashing lights, other than a rear vehicle with flashing yellow lights on its camper shell. The front vehicles that are parked in a “V” shape fashion, have no flashing lights nor are the one truck’s headlights easily seen.

Additionally, the road block, located on a curve in the highway, was not easily visible until the vehicle was within seconds of crashing into the road block. The LEO had other options to locate the road block on a long, straight piece of the highway. Finicum was blocked from leaving the highway by deep snow banks so the element of surprise was unnecessary.

The LEO had obviously planned this event well in advance, with ample time to set it up, cut down tree limbs, stage vehicles and make other preparations including the placement of warning signs along the road well in advance of the site of the road block, if they had so chosen. However, no warning signs were placed anywhere in front of the road block. Nor was any mention of the road block made to Finicum by the LEO at the first stop in order to contribute to the warnings being given to him and to aid his decision making process.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u.../roadblock.jpg
Road Blocks May Slow But Should Not Prevent The Escape Of The Suspects
Ahard stop road block, such as used by LEO against Finicum, is known as a “deadman road block” because there are no means of escape, the only alternative being to crash into it and because it was setup to give as little warning as possible.

Given the height of the snow bank, many drivers may rule that out as an option and crash into the blocking vehicles instead. Furthermore, many drivers don’t have the skill or presence of mind to make the snow bank choice.

LEO’s claim that Finicum had the option to stop before hitting the roadblock. But as noted previously, replications of the conditions shows that he did not have time to stop nor did he have adequate warning.

Jurisdictions like Nassau County, New York recognize that “fixed” road blocks are rarely justified, Nassau County New York: “Fixed roadblocks, which block road to extent that little or no outlet remains are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.”

Experts reason that it is better to allow the suspect to escape and later apprehend them through other means such as tire puncture strips. No tire puncture strips were placed in Finicum’s path that could have been the means for slowing him down and preventing the possible crash with the deadman road block.

“YOU Want My Blood On Your Hands?”

Was the Finicum “deadman” roadblock one of those rare cases where it was justified? Can the LEO make a case for justifying it with Finicum?

Finicum had no previous record of violence or of criminal activity. He never had a speeding ticket. There was no probable cause to believe he was a dangerous criminal on the loose and that a deadman roadblock was the only remedy. At the first stop he gave them two options: 1. Follow him to John Day and sort it out there with the local sheriff or 2. Shoot him. Not once did he say, explicitly nor implicitly, that he would shoot back but declared, “You want my blood on your hands?”. He did not threaten to shed their blood, but for them to shed his blood.
Finicum did not fit, even remotely, the rare justification where a deadman (no outlet) roadblock should be used.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...y-1024x643.jpg1:20 mark.“WHO Are You?”

In the Shawna Cox video, Ryan Bundy, disadvantaged by the unmarked vehicles and the plain clothed LEO, rightfully asked, “Who are you?”. LEO use marked vehicles and uniforms as a protection for civilians from impersonators and from vigilantes. Civilians are not required to pull over for an unmarked vehicle even with flashing lights until they are in a well lighted, and public area. People have been assaulted and raped by people with flashing light impersonating LEO.

They had every right to proceed to John Day as proposed by Finicum, to assure their safety and to be in the presence of uniformed LEO.

Even the roadblock ahead had unmarked vehicles and plain clothes personnel, hardly a protection from impersonators.

Road Blocks Are A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment

Abundant case law indicates that road blocks are often found by the court to be a violation of a person’s 4^th amendment right to freedom from unreasonable seizure.
A list of cases showing the 4^th amendment violations by roadblocks as they constitute unreasonable seizure are found in this link.

The Passengers, The Passengers, The Passengers

As tragic as the murder of Finicum was, it does not eclipse the horrific display by LEO of reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of the passengers. Roadblocks are a tool of last resort, especially when there are passengers.

As the Finicum truck rounded the curve, towards the road block, shots were fired at them. The Shawna Cox video shows that they acknowledged the shots being fired at them but no mention was made of the road block ahead. Finicum barely had time to say, “hang on” before plowing into the snow bank next to the road block.

The fact that the Finicum occupants never mentioned the road block indicates that their attention was distracted by the shots. Experts, who strongly discourage shooting at approaching vehicles, even calling it nonsense, claim that the shots distract the attention of the driver as he may duck below the dashboard, or as a dead or injured driver, cause an even worse crash.

Nassau County flatly prohibits use of firearms in a pursuit. A brief paragraph states both the rule and its rationale:
“Firearms should not be used in an attempt to stop a pursued vehicle. This applies to officers at roadblocks. as well as to pursuing officers. Fortunately, such action is rarely taken, because most officers realize it is extremely dangerous and ineffective. A car traveling at high speed with a wounded or dead person at the controls, would be far more dangerous than the pursuit, and a danger that none of us can justify.”

Under circumstances involving split seconds and with little time to assess a situation, how do officers make sound decisions about firing their guns at vehicles? The solution, says Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, is to never reach that point. Let suspects escape in their cars without confrontation, and “get a warrant.”

Divine Intervention?

In the Finicum case, at least three lethal shots were fired at the truck with passengers inside, including two females, Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp. Shawna Cox later told me that she and Victoria were supposed to ride with other people but, at the last minute, caught a ride with Finicum. She feels that, had they not been in the vehicle, Ryan Bundy and Ryan Payne would have also been assassinated.

Even with the females on board, it did not serve as a deterrent to LEO firing lethal rounds at the vehicle. Additionally, the so-called less than lethal rounds from gas rounds or rubber bullets can be lethal or cause serious injury.

Courts have found that innocent passengers who are caught in the crossfire or who are affected by a roadblock, can file a claim under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure provision. Vaughan, 343 F.3d at 1329. 137. See also Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205, 1209–11 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding a passenger was seized when vehicle collided with police roadblock).

Armed And Dangerous?

LEO has claimed that the passengers were known to be armed and dangerous, justifying the extreme actions they took. Where is the evidence to support that claim? Even after being shot at multiple times, there was no attempt by passengers to reach for, brandish, or touch a weapon in self-defense.

Ryan Bundy had a bullet in his shoulder, but never showed any hint of retaliating. The usual talk among dangerous criminals involves numerous “F bombs”, cursing and cussing, violent threats and ultimatums. But the Shawna Cox video shows none of that except for her reference to them as “A..holes”.

Where Are The Body And Dash Camera Videos?

Conspicuous is the absence of ground level video coverage of the Finicum incident, from the first stop until the body and truck are removed the scene.

The University of Oregon Police Department Operations Manual, which is consistent with and modeled after other Oregon police jurisdictions, contains many pages of instructions devoted to the subject of video and audio recordings.

Where dash cameras are not available, the personal body cameras should be used.

Over and over again, the operations manual stresses the importance of having a video record of the incident, the more serious the incident, the more compelling the need to have it recorded as evidence.

Given that video of police encounters are standard operating practice (SOP) in most jurisdictions, why are there no video recordings made by the dozens of officers and agents at the scene?

Here are some excerpts from the UOPD manual:
446.4.1 REQUIRED ACTIVATION OF MOBILE AUDIO VIDEO (MAV)

The MAV system should be activated in any of the following situations:
(a) All field contacts involving actual or potential criminal conduct within video or audio range:
1. Traffic stops (to include, but not limited to, traffic violations, stranded motorist assistance and all crime interdiction stops)
2. Priority responses
3. Vehicle pursuits
4. Suspicious vehicles
5. Arrests
6. Vehicle searches
7. Physical or verbal confrontations or use of force
8. Pedestrian checks
9. DWI/DUI investigations including field sobriety tests
10. Consensual encounters
11. Crimes in progress
12. Responding to an in-progress call

450.5 ACTIVATION OF THE AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDER Officers should activate the recorder during all enforcement stops and field interview situations when MAV is not used and any other time the member reasonably believes that a recording of an on-duty contact may be useful. Once started, recordings should continue without interruption until the contact ends, if feasible.

814.5.1 COLLECTION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE Once evidence is recorded it shall not be erased, deleted or altered in any way prior to submission. All photographs taken will be preserved regardless of quality, composition or relevance. Video and audio files will not be altered in any way.

Conclusion

The only explanation for lack of video and audio evidence, contrary to SOP by LEO at the scene, would seem to be intentional and for the purpose of controlling the narrative and escape consequences for their actions.

In the 240 years since a paranoid group of the nation’s founders, highly suspicious and mistrustful of government, gave us the constitution and the Bill of Rights, we have seen a steady erosion of the very principles that they wanted to give us. Government, instead of being a servant, has become a fearful master.

Government has given themselves special treatment, special status, special immunities from prosecution and special exemptions.

They committed all the violations enumerated above…because they can.

Particularly worrisome are the many conflict of interest elements in any kind of federal trial with charges against the government who planned and executed the Finicum incident. Conflict of interest where a federal judge works in unison with federal co-workers: prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement agents, bureaucrats and officials, all representing the same team and the same interests.

For non-government citizens to get back their rights and even the playing field, non-traditional candidates need to run for office, who are honest and full of integrity, just like our founders were.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 660
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  660
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

[midnight rambler]

Yeah, Happy Freedom Day, huh?

Loren Edward Pearce - Evidence of multiple ilegal acts against Finicum and passengers



https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...up-678x381.jpg

Evidence Of Multiple Illegal Acts
Against Finicum And Passengers

by Loren Edward Pearce

After almost 18 months of investigation, the Grand Jury has indicted one FBI agent, W. Joseph Astarita, for wrongful action related to the January 26, 2016 shooting of LaVoy Finicum. In contrast to this agonizingly long investigation, which is still pending as to the other FBI agents, the Grand Jury speedily indicted the Bundy et al defendants for the Bunkerville protest and the Malheur Refuge occupation. The rapid indictment of the Bundy et al defendants related to the Bunkerville protest, was based on the questionable testimony of Dan Love, among others.

With the indictment of the FBI agent, it is time to revisit the circumstances surrounding the stopping of the Finicum vehicle and the various evidences of illegal and unethical behavior on the part of government actors, both state and federal.

Deadman Road Blocks

Many people have visited the site of the shooting of LaVoy Finicum. Many have analyzed and attempted to recreate the conditions surrounding the location and logistics of the road block placed a couple of miles past the first stop. The results of these analysis’ reveal that the road block was illegal and not normal procedure used by other law enforcement entities across the USA.

Given the configuration of the road block that was used to stop LaVoy Finicum and his passengers, the road block has been designated an illegal “deadman road block”.

Here are the reasons for why the road block and the procedures used by the Oregon State Police, the FBI and other government actors, were illegal, unethical, immoral and indefensible.

Roadblocks Banned In Many Jurisdictions

“Violator may be boxed in only if officer reasonably believes there is substantial risk that violator will cause death or serious physical injury to others if apprehension is delayed. Ramming will be used only as last resort after all other reasonable means of stopping violator have failed, and where officer believes violator has committed, has attempted to commit, or is attempting to commit felony which involves use, or threatened use, of deadly force, and there is substantial risk that pursued law violator will cause death or serious physical injury to others if apprehension is delayed. Ramming a vehicle should be considered deadly force. Roadblocks shall not be used to stop violator.”St. Petersburg, FL

Roadblocks are broadly discouraged in most jurisdictions because they have been found to be more dangerous than helpful and because courts have usually found them to be a form of deadly force and a violation of the 4^th Amendment unreasonable seizure provision.

Use Of Unmarked Vehicles, Ambush And Surprise

The purpose of a road block, if justified, is not to ambush, surprise, trick, deceive, con, or otherwise inflict bodily harm or property damage. Just the opposite, it is to provide every possible means for detaining individuals with the least amount of risk to the suspects, their passengers and the people who are detaining them.

Law enforcement officials (LEO’s) are required to use every possible method at their disposal to warn the approaching suspects of the road block ahead through the use of bright head lights and flashing lights, flares and warning signs to give the approaching suspects adequate warning to stop.

A review of the overhead aerial video supplied by the LEO will show unmarked cars with no flashing lights, other than a rear vehicle with flashing yellow lights on its camper shell. The front vehicles that are parked in a “V” shape fashion, have no flashing lights nor are the one truck’s headlights easily seen.

Additionally, the road block, located on a curve in the highway, was not easily visible until the vehicle was within seconds of crashing into the road block. The LEO had other options to locate the road block on a long, straight piece of the highway. Finicum was blocked from leaving the highway by deep snow banks so the element of surprise was unnecessary.

The LEO had obviously planned this event well in advance, with ample time to set it up, cut down tree limbs, stage vehicles and make other preparations including the placement of warning signs along the road well in advance of the site of the road block, if they had so chosen. However, no warning signs were placed anywhere in front of the road block. Nor was any mention of the road block made to Finicum by the LEO at the first stop in order to contribute to the warnings being given to him and to aid his decision making process.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u.../roadblock.jpg
Road Blocks May Slow But Should Not Prevent The Escape Of The Suspects
Ahard stop road block, such as used by LEO against Finicum, is known as a “deadman road block” because there are no means of escape, the only alternative being to crash into it and because it was setup to give as little warning as possible.

Given the height of the snow bank, many drivers may rule that out as an option and crash into the blocking vehicles instead. Furthermore, many drivers don’t have the skill or presence of mind to make the snow bank choice.

LEO’s claim that Finicum had the option to stop before hitting the roadblock. But as noted previously, replications of the conditions shows that he did not have time to stop nor did he have adequate warning.

Jurisdictions like Nassau County, New York recognize that “fixed” road blocks are rarely justified, Nassau County New York: “Fixed roadblocks, which block road to extent that little or no outlet remains are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.”

Experts reason that it is better to allow the suspect to escape and later apprehend them through other means such as tire puncture strips. No tire puncture strips were placed in Finicum’s path that could have been the means for slowing him down and preventing the possible crash with the deadman road block.

“YOU Want My Blood On Your Hands?”

Was the Finicum “deadman” roadblock one of those rare cases where it was justified? Can the LEO make a case for justifying it with Finicum?

Finicum had no previous record of violence or of criminal activity. He never had a speeding ticket. There was no probable cause to believe he was a dangerous criminal on the loose and that a deadman roadblock was the only remedy. At the first stop he gave them two options: 1. Follow him to John Day and sort it out there with the local sheriff or 2. Shoot him. Not once did he say, explicitly nor implicitly, that he would shoot back but declared, “You want my blood on your hands?”. He did not threaten to shed their blood, but for them to shed his blood.
Finicum did not fit, even remotely, the rare justification where a deadman (no outlet) roadblock should be used.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...y-1024x643.jpg1:20 mark.“WHO Are You?”

In the Shawna Cox video, Ryan Bundy, disadvantaged by the unmarked vehicles and the plain clothed LEO, rightfully asked, “Who are you?”. LEO use marked vehicles and uniforms as a protection for civilians from impersonators and from vigilantes. Civilians are not required to pull over for an unmarked vehicle even with flashing lights until they are in a well lighted, and public area. People have been assaulted and raped by people with flashing light impersonating LEO.

They had every right to proceed to John Day as proposed by Finicum, to assure their safety and to be in the presence of uniformed LEO.

Even the roadblock ahead had unmarked vehicles and plain clothes personnel, hardly a protection from impersonators.

Road Blocks Are A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment

Abundant case law indicates that road blocks are often found by the court to be a violation of a person’s 4^th amendment right to freedom from unreasonable seizure.
A list of cases showing the 4^th amendment violations by roadblocks as they constitute unreasonable seizure are found in this link.

The Passengers, The Passengers, The Passengers

As tragic as the murder of Finicum was, it does not eclipse the horrific display by LEO of reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of the passengers. Roadblocks are a tool of last resort, especially when there are passengers.

As the Finicum truck rounded the curve, towards the road block, shots were fired at them. The Shawna Cox video shows that they acknowledged the shots being fired at them but no mention was made of the road block ahead. Finicum barely had time to say, “hang on” before plowing into the snow bank next to the road block.

The fact that the Finicum occupants never mentioned the road block indicates that their attention was distracted by the shots. Experts, who strongly discourage shooting at approaching vehicles, even calling it nonsense, claim that the shots distract the attention of the driver as he may duck below the dashboard, or as a dead or injured driver, cause an even worse crash.

Nassau County flatly prohibits use of firearms in a pursuit. A brief paragraph states both the rule and its rationale:
“Firearms should not be used in an attempt to stop a pursued vehicle. This applies to officers at roadblocks. as well as to pursuing officers. Fortunately, such action is rarely taken, because most officers realize it is extremely dangerous and ineffective. A car traveling at high speed with a wounded or dead person at the controls, would be far more dangerous than the pursuit, and a danger that none of us can justify.”

Under circumstances involving split seconds and with little time to assess a situation, how do officers make sound decisions about firing their guns at vehicles? The solution, says Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, is to never reach that point. Let suspects escape in their cars without confrontation, and “get a warrant.”

Divine Intervention?

In the Finicum case, at least three lethal shots were fired at the truck with passengers inside, including two females, Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp. Shawna Cox later told me that she and Victoria were supposed to ride with other people but, at the last minute, caught a ride with Finicum. She feels that, had they not been in the vehicle, Ryan Bundy and Ryan Payne would have also been assassinated.

Even with the females on board, it did not serve as a deterrent to LEO firing lethal rounds at the vehicle. Additionally, the so-called less than lethal rounds from gas rounds or rubber bullets can be lethal or cause serious injury.

Courts have found that innocent passengers who are caught in the crossfire or who are affected by a roadblock, can file a claim under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure provision. Vaughan, 343 F.3d at 1329. 137. See also Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205, 1209–11 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding a passenger was seized when vehicle collided with police roadblock).

Armed And Dangerous?

LEO has claimed that the passengers were known to be armed and dangerous, justifying the extreme actions they took. Where is the evidence to support that claim? Even after being shot at multiple times, there was no attempt by passengers to reach for, brandish, or touch a weapon in self-defense.

Ryan Bundy had a bullet in his shoulder, but never showed any hint of retaliating. The usual talk among dangerous criminals involves numerous “F bombs”, cursing and cussing, violent threats and ultimatums. But the Shawna Cox video shows none of that except for her reference to them as “A..holes”.

Where Are The Body And Dash Camera Videos?

Conspicuous is the absence of ground level video coverage of the Finicum incident, from the first stop until the body and truck are removed the scene.

The University of Oregon Police Department Operations Manual, which is consistent with and modeled after other Oregon police jurisdictions, contains many pages of instructions devoted to the subject of video and audio recordings.

Where dash cameras are not available, the personal body cameras should be used.

Over and over again, the operations manual stresses the importance of having a video record of the incident, the more serious the incident, the more compelling the need to have it recorded as evidence.

Given that video of police encounters are standard operating practice (SOP) in most jurisdictions, why are there no video recordings made by the dozens of officers and agents at the scene?

Here are some excerpts from the UOPD manual:
446.4.1 REQUIRED ACTIVATION OF MOBILE AUDIO VIDEO (MAV)

The MAV system should be activated in any of the following situations:
(a) All field contacts involving actual or potential criminal conduct within video or audio range:
1. Traffic stops (to include, but not limited to, traffic violations, stranded motorist assistance and all crime interdiction stops)
2. Priority responses
3. Vehicle pursuits
4. Suspicious vehicles
5. Arrests
6. Vehicle searches
7. Physical or verbal confrontations or use of force
8. Pedestrian checks
9. DWI/DUI investigations including field sobriety tests
10. Consensual encounters
11. Crimes in progress
12. Responding to an in-progress call

450.5 ACTIVATION OF THE AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDER Officers should activate the recorder during all enforcement stops and field interview situations when MAV is not used and any other time the member reasonably believes that a recording of an on-duty contact may be useful. Once started, recordings should continue without interruption until the contact ends, if feasible.

814.5.1 COLLECTION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE Once evidence is recorded it shall not be erased, deleted or altered in any way prior to submission. All photographs taken will be preserved regardless of quality, composition or relevance. Video and audio files will not be altered in any way.

Conclusion

The only explanation for lack of video and audio evidence, contrary to SOP by LEO at the scene, would seem to be intentional and for the purpose of controlling the narrative and escape consequences for their actions.

In the 240 years since a paranoid group of the nation’s founders, highly suspicious and mistrustful of government, gave us the constitution and the Bill of Rights, we have seen a steady erosion of the very principles that they wanted to give us. Government, instead of being a servant, has become a fearful master.

Government has given themselves special treatment, special status, special immunities from prosecution and special exemptions.

They committed all the violations enumerated above…because they can.

Particularly worrisome are the many conflict of interest elements in any kind of federal trial with charges against the government who planned and executed the Finicum incident. Conflict of interest where a federal judge works in unison with federal co-workers: prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement agents, bureaucrats and officials, all representing the same team and the same interests.

For non-government citizens to get back their rights and even the playing field, non-traditional candidates need to run for office, who are honest and full of integrity, just like our founders were.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 660
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  660
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

[monty]

Talented young lady wrote this song in honor of LaVoy Finicum and the Bundy Family last September. I can't embed the facebook video


https://m.facebook.com/groups/237360...79679055490753


https://s19.postimg.org/4479pvjj7/IMG_2049.png

[monty]

The FBI agent indicted for lying about shooting at LaVoy Finicum has hired a high profile Washington D.C. lawyer paid for by your tax dollars. See article in Oregon Public Broadcasting.

http://www.opb.org/news/article/indi...ended-senator/

Reason dot com "SHOOTING AT ROBERT LAVOY FINICUM AND LYING ABOUT IT IS BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR THE FEDS"


Shooting at Robert Lavoy Finicum and Lying About It is Business as Usual for the Feds

His colleagues having escaped consequences again and again, Special Agent W. Joseph Astarita might be asking why he’s been singled out.

J.D. Tuccille
Jul. 4, 2017 12:01 am

Last week saw the indictment of FBI Special Agent W. Joseph Astarita for lying about shots he'd fired during the January 26, 2016 killing of Robert Lavoy Finicum. The Oregonian noted that the prosecution of FBI agents for their official conduct is almost unheard of. The unusual charges were "devastating" to the FBI, commented Danny Coulson, a former head of the bureau's Oregon office.

Well, maybe the indictment is so devastating because federal agents are rarely punished for brutal and dishonest behavior.

Interestingly, Coulson created and led the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team—the elite force to which Astarita belongs—during the bloody 1992 Ruby Ridge fiasco. He escaped prosecution for his conduct during that mess—for which the federal government paid out over $3 million in damages to survivors—though he spent two years on paid leave (read: vacation). Several other agents were disciplined, though the only official criminally punished for Ruby Ridge was E. Michael Kahoe, who destroyed an internal FBI report critical of the agents' conduct during the high-profile standoff. Anybody further up the food chain, Coulson included, was protected by a review process intended "to create scapegoats and false impressions," according to Eugene F. Glenn, the FBI commander at the scene, who publicly broke rank with his colleagues when he believed he was being set up to take a fall. So Coulson knows well that the rarity of prosecutions of federal agents can't be taken as an endorsement of their behavior—arguably, it could be interpreted as quite the opposite.

Prosecutions might be rarer still—which is to say, Astarita might be walking free and unconcerned today—if one Oregon sheriff hadn't become thoroughly bent out of shape over federal conduct during last year's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff and then in its aftermath.

Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson took on the investigation of the lethal confrontation resulting from what was, to all appearances, an ambush of armed Malheur protesters traveling to a public meeting to discuss their opposition to the treatment of local ranchers in particular, and to federal control of western lands in general. Specifically, Nelson tried to account for the eight shots fired in the incident—six by Oregon state troopers (including those that killed Finicum), none by the protesters, and two by… huh. Because the FBI agents on the scene all denied firing two shots at Finicum (and missing) as he exited his truck.

Nelson and his investigators quickly concluded that Astarita had fired the shots, and that he and his colleagues lied about it for reasons of their own.

"The actions of the FBI HRT in this case damage the integrity of the entire law enforcement profession, which makes me both disappointed and angry," Sheriff Nelson said after the indictment was announced.
Nelson became even angrier when he presented his findings to FBI officials and they did…nothing.

"I was disappointed when I recently heard FBI HRT agents, associated with this case, were not placed on administrative leave after the briefing by our investigators to FBI Administration. Today's indictment will ensure that the Defendant and, hopefully other culpable FBI HRT members, will be held accountable through the justice process."

Nelson isn't exactly an antigovernment radical. He signed off on the killing of Finicum, saying, "Of the eight shots fired, the six fired by the Oregon State Police were justified and, in fact, necessary."

But the sheriff isn't on board with federal agents taking random shots that may well have inflamed the situation. That's a theory quickly embraced by the Malheur protesters and their allies. Finicum's widow, Jeanette, "said Astarita's early shots may have contributed to the firing of the fatal gunshots moments later by two state police troopers who killed her husband," reports The Oregonian. Unsurprisingly, she plans to sue.

Sheriff Nelson voices serious discontent with the FBI's conduct during and after the shooting of Finicum, but knowledge of the bureau's handling of the Ruby Ridge incident might have prepared him for disappointment. So might some familiarity with the federal government's handling of other incidents, such as the 1993 disaster at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, during which more than 80 people died.

FBI agents escaped official discipline for their conduct at Waco, but not criticism. Rather than shred an inconvenient internal report, the bureau and its allies produced an exculpatory public "review" that the New York Timespromptly labeled a "whitewash." The newspaper's editorial board went on to note, "The report describes a litany of errors and blunders. Why, then, does it assign no blame?"

By contrast, the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms fired two agentswho led the initial raid and siege to which the FBI joined its efforts when matters went lethally wrong. Chuck Sarabyn and Phillip Chojinacki lost their jobs over accusations of "poor judgment and lying to investigators" (a pattern with federal law enforcement agents, it would seem). Then again, we're talking about a federal agency; one year later, Sarabyn and Chojinacki were rehired with full back pay and benefits.

Years later, the Times again called out the FBI, asking "why the F.B.I. failed for six years to tell anyone, including Congress and the Attorney General herself, that it had used incendiary tear-gas canisters near the end of the siege—an important point, given the lethal fire in which the standoff ended. Soon, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston, the prosecutor who belatedly revealed the use of those canisters, faced charges of concealing evidence. Texas Monthlyreported that he was being hung out to dry so the consequences would reach no further through the ranks of federal officials because he was "the only guy who doesn't have friends in Washington."

If you're asking yourself why Astarita and company would have concealed the shots he fired during an incident that resulted in state police killing Finicum anyway, perhaps the answer is that lying and concealing information seems to be the bureau's go-to response.

The FBI almost screwed up what should have been the slam-dunk prosecution of Timothy McVeigh for the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City (a crime largely motivated, it's worth remembering, by McVeigh's outrage over federal misconduct at Ruby Ridge and Waco). Despite minimal doubt about his guilt (McVeigh wanted to plead "necessity") the FBI couldn't help putting its thumb on the scale. The bureau's crime lab was caught reaching "scientifically unsound" conclusions that were "biased in favor of the prosecution" according to the Justice Department's Inspector General. Then McVeigh's execution was delayed when it was discovered that federal officials concealed hundreds of documents from his defense attorneys.

Frederic Whitehurst, the whistleblower who revealed the FBI crime lab's shenanigans in not just that high-profile case, but many others, was targeted by his superiors for retaliation for his troubles. He ultimately walked away with a $1.16 million settlement.

But back to the present.
Astarita "falsely stated he had not fired his weapon during the attempted arrest of Robert La Voy Finicum, when he knew then and there that he had fired his weapon," the federal indictment reads. Astonished by such bold-faced dishonesty from a federal agent, and by federal higher-ups' seeming lack of concern, Sheriff Nelson became "disappointed and angry" and pushed the issue—resulting in that court appearance and the trial to come.

Good for Sheriff Nelson. Finding out that people and agencies you respect are thugs and liars is a rough wake-up call for anybody. Persisting in the face of that unpleasant revelation deserves praise.

But if this indictment is to be other than just another footnote to the history of checkered conduct by the FBI and other agencies, more of us need such wake-up calls. Then, maybe, we'll curb the behavior that leads, on such rare occasion, to "devastating" consequences for federal officials.

[Dachsie]

I think they ought to teach this Lavoy Finicum legal case in law school classes. Every illegal thing that can be done in a case has been done and a few we are yet to witness. First you have crooked judges. Then you have crooked cops. It all goes down from there. Things are not at all working according to the Constitution. It seems that facts and evidence are not what matters at all, and if you establish much evidence, it will not be admissible.

Is there any wonder that we are all getting so cynical about law and government?

[monty]

This Rocky Hall from Susanville, California is appaently an investigator for the Oathkeepers. She spent 18 days in Burns after Lavoy's murder.

This video she made driving home after the 18 days was uploaded on Feb. 27, 2016. I had not seen it before I found it quite informative



https://youtu.be/8svnUaNcCbU

[monty]

FBI HRT Scapegoat? Retired US Army Lieutenant Coronel Roy Potter "It is possible officials in BLM Bundy and Malheur incedents may face RICO charges. Possible indictments against Hillary and Harry Reid . . . .



https://youtu.be/415EtWCO-nQ


HRT FBI SCAPEGOAT?


roypotterqa 1,029 views

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-6PnbRIzy_Y8/A...ffff/photo.jpg
SUBSCRIBE

12K

99

0
Published on Jun 29, 2017

It is not verified, but it is possible that officials in the BLM in the Bundy and Malheur incidents will face RICCO charges. Trump might be looking at curtailing the BLM, pulling its pretense of LE authority, and maybe even dismantling it.

The DOJ and FBI, because of their own interests, did not release exculpatory evidence, nor did they seek the truth, but suppressed it, which would have led to investigations and likely indictments against Hillary and Reid!

Finicum Shot At By FBI Hostage Rescue Team Despite Denialshttps://www.hagmannreport.com/from-th...

McCabe Under Investigationhttp://circa.com/politics/fbi-chief-a...

ADDENDUM 6/29/17 1730 hrs
Here is a link to a KOIN news conference today basically confirming my analysis in this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4MER...

• Category
  
  • News & Politics
  
  
• License
  
  • Standard YouTube License

https://youtu.be/h1Bgh-SzxCM