150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[monty]

Did the prosecution lie to Judge Brown?

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/11/did-t...book-evidence/

September 11, 2016- Oregon Standoff- Tagged: evidence, Facebook, Oregon Standoff, Range, RANGEfire- no comments

Did the Government Lie About the Facebook Evidence?

According to OPB, Defense attorneys told U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown on Friday that the government hadn’t been honest with her or the defense about how it handled Facebook evidence for those accused of conspiring to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

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

“I’m just confounded that they can just come in [the courtroom] and — I don’t want to use the word ‘lie’ — but somebody did,” said attorney Per Olson, who is representing defendant David Fry.
Olson said on July 18, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel told the court the Facebook search was complete and all the material was deleted, destroyed or sealed at the FBI.

But Olson said — and court documents show — that wasn’t the case until more than a month later.
Information At Issue

On Aug. 3, Olson discovered a problem. Private information, outside the scope of the government’s Facebook search warrant, made its way into evidence.

Facebook provided the FBI with the defendants’ entire account information. From there, the FBI was to search for relevant information, separate it for prosecutors and seal the rest. But that didn’t happen in every case.

Eleven of the defendants’ entire Facebook accounts, none of whom are going to trial this month, were submitted into discovery and shared with all defendants. Prosecutors going to trial said they did not see the private information.
Since the discovery, Olson has tried to prove the government violated the search warrant, therefore the evidence should be kept out the trial.

Prosecution Explains Its Actions

Two previous times the government tried to explain how it handled the evidence, each only drew more questions from Brown.

Friday in court, the government offered its final version of events, one that showed evidence from Facebook was not sealed as they stated in court. The government maintains its actions were covered by the search warrant, and despite mistakes, it should be allowed to use private Facebook messages and other information as evidence at trial.

In a written declaration, FBI agent Travis Welter, said the evidence from Facebook was not fully sealed or destroyed until Aug. 23.

In his declaration filed with the court, Welter said on Aug. 4 he met with Gabriel, Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoff Barrow and Rena Rallis, a litigation support specialist who’s helping prosecutors with their case.
“During this meeting, the aforementioned AUSA’s asked me to seal and return the following Facebook response data to the Portland FBI Office,” Welter wrote. “AUSA’s Gabriel and Barrow also requested that I destroy all remaining copies of Facebook search warrant response data that were not sealed and stored in evidence.”

Welter said he was told to label all Facebook search warrant data that was in evidence: “Do not open without a court order.”

“On or about August 4th and/or 5th, I collected any remaining working copies of Facebook search warrant response data from the search team and shredded them,” Welter wrote.

Did The Government Lie?

“There is no evidence here that the government — either at the FBI or the U.S. Attorney’s Office — gave any level of respect to this process,” Olson said. “There is this element of hiding the ball.”
Olson also pointed out he didn’t think Gabriel lied knowingly, but that someone had provided him with bad information.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Bradford argued the search warrant grants them 180 days to complete the search, which was originally authorized in April.

RELATED COVERAGE — Government Outlines Malheur Trial Facebook Evidence Fumble In Memo To Judge

http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_f.../f3_mikh59.jpg

“At the end of the 180 days is when the sealing would take place,” he said.

Brown asked Bradford why he was relying on the 180-day timeline.
“There isn’t a right to leave the non-responsive information unsealed,” she said.
Bradford repeated his argument.

“I don’t think that we’re communicating Mr. Bradford,” Brown replied.
“The court may find that the government failed to seal it at the appropriate time,” Bradford said. But he stressed again that the trial prosecutors didn’t see the private information and that no one intentionally misled the judge or the defense.

Bradford said Brown should allow the government to use the Facebook evidence at trial.
Previously Brown ruled the Facebook evidence could be used as evidence. But following the discovery, an annoyed Brown reversed that decision and reopened the question.

She’s promised to rule before Tuesday’s opening arguments.

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

[monty]

Tumbleweed, it was in Ammon Bundy's report about the guards in the jail beating Ryan the day they were going to try to force surgery on him that Ammon says Ryan believes LaVoy was shot while still in the truck.

This poster, Roy Plumb has transcribed Ammon's video message and posted it in Facebook.

About halfway down this post Ammon tells about Ryan telling about the FBI shooting through the roof of the cab and goes on to say Ryan believes LaVoy was shot in the truck . . . . . .

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...9303683615840/

[monty]

The prosecution submitted into evidence a deed where the United States purchased the land buildings at Malheur in 1935. However this is an ordinary purchase, not a cedeing of the property by the Oregon legislature. Jurisdiction would remain with Oregon unless the Oregon legislature has ceded it to the feds. This, in my mind, may be detrimental to the fed's case because it shows the land was actually private property prior to the USA purchase and that Oregon had jurisdiction prior to the sale. Jurisdiction remained with Oregon unless the legislature specifically ceded it to the USA.

There was a study done in the mid-1950's about the complexities of federal-state jurisdiction and a descion was made in some areas such as the Malheur reserve there was to be concurrent jurisdiction. Is it constitutional? I don't think it is, but this is an issue that has not been heard by the Supreme Court. And The question of territorial jurisdiction by an Article IV court still remains.

1392 page interdepartmental study of 1957 http://www.defendruralamerica.com/fi...Report1957.pdf



What does this prove as far as conspiracy to impede? There were no "no trespassing" charges . . .

Also it may have opened the land ownership argument the judge was not allowing the defense to use.

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...02&oe=5842842C

http://gold-silver.us/forum/webkit-f...8e5c/imagejpeg



https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...d0&oe=5846D147


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...2d23711f8f52c5


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...c3e48009e9af27


Edit: Is this purchase Constitutional? Ammon Bundy argues no. It is not for forts, ports, magazines or other "needful" buildings.

[monty]

Here is another legal piece on public land and original intent. It may not be relevant to the Malheur case since the Malheur buildings are on private land purchsed by the USA. It could be relevant to the Nevada case because that is private water and forage rights on public lands.

http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/v...lty_lawreviews

[monty]

The prosecution submitted into evidence a deed where the United States purchased the land buildings at Malheur in 1935. However this is an ordinary purchase, not a cedeing of the property by the Oregon legislature. Jurisdiction would remain with Oregon unless the Oregon legislature has ceded it to the feds. This, in my mind, may be detrimental to the fed's case because it shows the land was actually private property prior to the USA purchase and that Oregon had jurisdiction prior to the sale. Jurisdiction remained with Oregon unless the legislature specifically ceded it to the USA.

There was a study done in the mid-1950's about the complexities of federal-state jurisdiction and a descion was made in some areas such as the Malheur reserve there was to be concurrent jurisdiction. Is it constitutional? I don't think it is, but this is an issue that has not been heard by the Supreme Court. And The question of territorial jurisdiction by an Article IV court still remains.

1392 page interdepartmental study of 1957 http://www.defendruralamerica.com/fi...Report1957.pdf



What does this prove as far as conspiracy to impede? There were no tresspassing charges . . .

Also it may have opened the land ownership argument the judge was not allowing the defense to use.

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...02&oe=5842842C

http://gold-silver.us/forum/webkit-f...8e5c/imagejpeg



https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...d0&oe=5846D147


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...2d23711f8f52c5


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...c3e48009e9af27


Edit: Is this purchase Constitutional? Ammon Bundy argues no. It is not for forts, ports, magazines or other "needful" buildings.

I am thinking the defense can argue the feds lack subject matter jurisdiction in this case because the USA by purchasing this private ranch has abandoned their position of sovereignty and stepped into the commercial plane and are just another property owner, one of the neighbors.

[monty]

Todd Macfarlane on jurys, jurisdiction, etc.,

Jurisdiction, Discovery, Labels, Discrimination & Choosing a Jury – Welcome to Federal Court

Oregon Standoff “Discovery” Full of Interesting Revelationshttp://www.boilingfrogspost.com/wp-c...216_TMPost.png

The time of surprises in criminal trials is now supposed to be a thing of the past. Unlike legal drama movies and TV series from Matlock and Perry Mason to Drop Dead Diva, in modern criminal cases, based on applicable rules of criminal procedure, there aren’t supposed to be any surprises from the prosecution. The prosecution is required to disclose all of its evidence and all witnesses to the defendants well in advance so they can prepare for trial. This process is known as “discovery.”

As the Oregon Standoff case approaches trial, discovery has provided some interesting revelations. One of those interesting revelations is how the government has apparently labeled and refers to many witnesses in the case as “Unindicted Co-conspirators.” Apparently this label includes virtually anyone who visited the Malheur Wildlife Refuge during the occupation. There is a definite guilt-by-association insinuation. The insinuation is that if anyone went to the refuge, for any reason, they are considered by the government and the prosecutors to be co-conspirators. What does this mean? How does that reasoning apply to the media, for example? Or to mediators? Among other things, on one hand it may mean that the government simply did not seek a grand jury indictment regarding some of these people, or the grand jury declined to indict any other alleged co-conspirators. On the other hand, the more likely explanation is that the government is simply attempting to use this label and terminology as part of a threatening, fear-based tactic of harassment and intimidation, to send a message that benevolent big brother is always watching, and there may be more to come.

Discovery has also revealed some very interesting information relevant to the question of why USFWS employees were not even planning to return to work at the Refuge after the Christmas holidays. According to information disclosed in the case, and seemingly corroborated months ago by an article in the Washington Post, days in advance of the Malheur Occupation, federal employees in Harney County had been instructed by their government supervisors not to return to work after the holidays. Why? One explanation is that, based on the electronic surveillance and domestic spying that was already going on, and had been going on for weeks, the federal government was taking preliminary precautions. Another explanation might be that the federal government was actually trying to set-up the conspiracy/impeding claim in advance. This raises some very interesting questions about who was doing the impeding, and even about who was conspiring to impede. So if you’ve got federal supervisors speculating about what is going to happen, and colluding and conspiring in advance not to go to work based on such speculations, is it a conflict between two alleged conspiracies?

From the outset I have been talking about judicial transparency issues in the context of the Bundy cases, and how U.S. Courts could improve transparency by allowing live video feed of court proceedings. I am not the only one raising transparency issues in these cases. Other media lawyers are arguing that the federal courts are trampling first amendment freedom of speech and press rights in these cases. But apparently someone has been listening in some form or fashion to the transparency/livestream arguments, because now the Oregon Court has reportedly approved at least a live audio feed of the Oregon Standoff trial to the BLM office in Burns. That’s a start. But my question is: why the BLM office, and why only in Burns? In authorizing the live feed to the BLM office in Burns, the court reasoned that this will allow federal employees who were alleged “victims” of the occupation, and who were allegedly impeded from going to work during the occupation, to be able to “follow the trial,” without having to go to Portland to do it. In other words, after essentially having a paid vacation in January, federal employees in Harney County are now going to get paid to watch the trial at the BLM office for the next several months. If the Government’s arguments hold any water at all, this was supposed to have been a crime against the country and all of its citizens, who actually foot the bill for everything that happened in Harney County last winter. Under that theory, are we not all “victims,” who should be entitled to equal treatment, including equal opportunity to follow the trial? The court’s other reported reasoning was to free-up more seating in the court room during the trial. All the more reason to have a live feed. What is being proposed is certainly a possible step in the right direction, but judicial transparency would benefit immeasurably from making virtual access to the proceedings available on a much broader basis. If they are already going to the effort of recording the trial for purposes of a limited live feed, whether audio or video, why not just post it to a website, like a podcast, where anyone could go to watch or listen in? Does that just make too much sense?

Shifting gears to jury selection. Although I recently read a confidence-instilling story about juries, seating an unbiased jury in the Oregon Standoff case will be no easy task. Just to help clarify, however, even though the case and trial are in the Portland division of the Oregon federal district court, the case is supposed to be drawing from a state-wide jury pool. I say “supposed to be,” because there are lingering questions about the grand juries that handed down the indictments in these cases. Clearly, based on population demographics, more potential jurors will come from the more populous areas of the state. To assist in the jury selection process (and substantially reduce in-court time, with large numbers of potential jurors) the court sent out a questionnaire to 1500 potential jurors on the jury pool list. Apparently, a relatively small percentage of the questionnaires were returned. Based on answers to questions posed, both the government and the defense have already had an opportunity to object to, and eliminate some of the potential jurors based on obvious bias, and other reasons. The jury will ultimately consist of 12 jurors who will deliberate and decide the case. Because the case is projected to potentially last for several months, however, in addition to the 12 jurors seated, there will also be eight “alternates,” who will sit through the entire trial, and be prepared to participate in jury deliberations if, for some reason, any of the other jurors are not able to complete the process. Judge Brown has said once the trial starts she anticipates that jury selection will take approximately three days, with more “voir dire” questioning from the judge. Once the tentative jury panel is selected, each side will have the opportunity to strike three jurors per side, without any reason, after any and all potential jurors have been removed for good cause, to come up with a total of 20, with 12 jurors and eight alternates. It will certainly be interesting to see who ends up on the jury.

But before the trial even starts, Judge Brown must rule on a major new substantive motion filed by Ammon Bundy’s attorneys, challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and seeking dismissal of the case. She has already signaled that she intends to reject the motion out of hand, without any serious consideration, but such an approach might have serious long-term ramifications.

Something to bear in mind is the fact that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, whereas state courts have general jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a big, recurring issue in federal courts. Ammon Bundy’s new motion re-asserts the Adverse Possession claim in a new way, and uses that theory to challenge the court’s criminal subject matter jurisdiction in the case. The motion cites a number of cases, including United States v. Otley, 127 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. 1942), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed competing claims to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and discussed relevant issues. This elevates the Adverse Possession claim to a whole new level that may have some people squirming.

In the motion, Bundy’s attorneys argue:
“While Congress long ago criminalized unlawful conspiracies designed to employ “force, intimidation, or threat” for the purpose of impeding “any officer of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 372, in a more specific and modern statute, Congress has expressly protected and condoned “[a]ny individual, group or corporation authorized to hold title to land in the State and who believes he has a valid claim under color of title” and who has employed the ubiquitous “force” and “ouster” requirements of adverse possession. . . It would be an extreme contravention of legal principles to allow, on the one hand, the United States to construe a controversy involving “use of force” under adverse possession as a criminal act, or, on the other hand, to permit the United States to pursue such a claim where these principles have divested the court of jurisdiction – as sanctioned by Congressional actions.”

In a nutshell, based on applicable law, the Oregon Standoff case may not be quite as clear-cut, black and white, open and shut as some people have wanted to believe. As I mentioned in a previous column, the Adverse Possession theory involves highly appealable legal issues, which will be reviewed for legal correctness, without any deference to the trial court’s previous ruling(s). At this point it does appear highly likely that the legal issues at stake in the case will only be fully addressed and resolved on appeal.

In the meantime the federal government is reportedly prepared to spend at least one hundred million dollars on the trials, while the defendants continue to sit in jail, not as punishment for anything they have done -- because supposedly they are entitled to a constitutional presumption of innocence -- but based instead on the theory that if they are released, they may not come back to court to argue the merits of their case. At least that is what the Government has argued.

Whether any of these arguments prevail or not, they will inevitably have some people squirming – which is probably a good thing. According to one purported expert, there is a crisis of over-confidence in the legal profession. And squirming is a healthy antidote to over-confidence.

# # # # #Todd Macfarlane, Newsbud Legal Analyst, is an attorney, rancher, writer, political activist, conservationist and commentator. Although he is comfortable wearing several different hats, beyond faith, family and grass-fed livestock ranching, his primary interests include natural law, property rights, western land-use, political policy, and what he often refers to as the “so-called justice system.”

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/09/02/jurisdiction-discovery-labels-discrimination-choosing-a-jury-welcome-to-federal-court/

Something to bear in mind is the fact that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, whereas state courts have general jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a big, recurring issue in federal courts. Ammon Bundy’s new motion re-asserts the Adverse Possession claim in a new way, and uses that theory to challenge the court’s criminal subject matter jurisdiction in the case. The motion cites a number of cases, including

United States v. Otley, 127 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. 1942), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed competing claims to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and discussed relevant issues. This elevates the Adverse Possession claim to a whole new level that may have some people squirming.

This statement is only true of the Article III United States Courts. In the footnotes of the USC Title 28 where the United States District Courts were created by an act of Congress in the 1940's it is noted that the only Article III courts remaining in the United States were in Hawaii and I believe Puerto Rico. These administrative courts are courts of general jurisdiction, but do they have jurisdiction in the states?

This has been the argument in Dr. Trowbridge's yet unresolved Texas case.

[monty]

Ammon Bundy files emergency motion to dismiss after prosecution enters Malheur land and building Deed into evidence!

Judge Brown did not do her homework when she held the position President Theodore Roosevelt withdrew the entire 187,000 aacres from the public lands. There were 2 Supreme Court cases in 1935 Oregon v United States over the ownership,of the 81,000 acres owned by Uncle Sam. The additional acerage has been purchased from ranchers etc..

See page 2 of the memorandum supporting the emergency motion to dismiss.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...bbb502b1f79119

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...d0&oe=5882C6E3



https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...75&oe=5883F325

http://gold-silver.us/forum/webkit-f...511d/imagejpeghttps://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...13&oe=5843802B

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...22d0118efb2674

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f5&oe=5842B579

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...7084bbc80ac049

The additional can be seen: https://www.facebook.com/WithChastit...type=3&theater

[monty]

This emergency motion and supporting memorandum can be seen on scribd
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/docume...ergency-Motion


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...f1ca1aa12b8691

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...4b&oe=587F505C

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...393bac45d55fa8


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...adddff6c9976bc
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...8659e5fa7dfc8a




https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...d7&oe=58444FD2




https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...4c73fa44a130ed

[monty]

Gary Hunt on jurisdiction
Is Judge Brown going to dismiss the case? It is obvious to even us commoners that Oregon has jurisdiction. If she doesn't dismiss I have a feeling the liberal 9th circuit will based on rulings they have made over the past 75 years. Today should be an intersting day

Burns Chronicles No 27 – Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...pe-300x200.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

September 13, 2016


Thomas Jefferson had proposed an ordinance to deal with the lands won along with independence from Britain in 1784, and not belonging to any State, any lands that might be relinquished when considered to have been granted by Royal Charter. The Continental Congress ratified the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 on July 13, 1787. The First Congress under the newly ratified Constitution, which met from March 4, 1789, to March 4, 1791, then reaffirmed that same ordinance. This slightly revised version reaffirmed on July 13, 1789, and is known as the Northwest Ordinance of 1789.


The Fourth Article, unchanged in the two versions, reads, in part:
Article the Fourth. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America… The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; and, in no case, shall nonresident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.
Note that “primary disposal” seems to be the objective of holding the land. That disposal would serve two very significant purposes in the creation of a nation that would grow from those first thirteen states. First, it would raise revenue for the payment of the debt incurred because of the War of Independence, and it continued to provide revenue for the fledgling nation.


Second, it would provide land for people to populate the barren regions, first, across the Allegheny Mountains, then on to the Mississippi River, next to the Rocky Mountains, and finally to the Pacific Ocean. With each of these principal movements, as those people moved westward, the resources of the most resource rich country in the world would develop into the greatest nation in the world.
.
With the ratification of the Constitution, we have two provisions that deal with land owned by the United States. First is Article I, § 8, clause 17, which we have heard much of recently. It read:
The Congress shall have the Power… [t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.


Now, a question arises as to the “needful Buildings” portion, which will be addressed later.


Next, we have Article IV, § 3, clause 2, which reads:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Clearly, as we can see from the historical record, Congress can own land, which has been referred to as “public lands”, from records predating the Constitution, reaffirmed by the first Congress, and embodied in the Constitution, itself.


The next question is whether Congress had any prior ownership of the lands in question. Here, we have three possibilities. First, the lands acquired by the Treaty of Paris (1783) in which Britain gave up her claims to the lands east of the Ohio River (the Northwest Territories), and other lands ceded by Virginia (believing that she owned land to the Pacific Ocean), and other adjustments to final boundaries of the colonies. These lands by treaty would also include lands acquired by a subsequent treaty with Britain, dealing primarily with Oregon and Washington. Next, we have lands acquired by conquest and subsequent treaty. This would include the Hidalgo Treaty, after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), and subsequent treaties relinquishing Mexico’s claims to lands otherwise not in conflict and establishing our southern border. Third, we have the lands acquired by purchase. Primarily, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. So, by conquest, by treaty, and by purchase, the government owned vast amounts of land.


In all of these instances, the land acquired could not go to a State recognized by the Congress, as the Northwest Ordinance defined the procedure by which a territory could become a State. Therefore, the only viable conclusion is that these lands would fall under the Article IV. § 3, clause 2 provision of “all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”. This would apply until the land was “disposed of”, which provision is included in the Northwest Ordinance (Fourth Article).


Finally, we come to the Admission of Oregon, as a State of the Union. Congress approved the Oregon Admission Acts on February 14, 1859. There were some propositions in the Acts, and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon approved those propositions on June 3, 1859. The significant article in the Acts is the fourth. It deals with land, and reads, in part:
First, That sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said State, and where either of said sections, or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise been disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said State for the use of schools.
Second, That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a State university, to be selected by the governor of said State, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said State may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other purpose.
Third, That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of government, under the direction of the legislature thereof.
Fourth, That all salt springs within said State, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoining, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for its use, the same to be selected by the governor thereof within one year after the admission of said State, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions, and regulations as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That no salt spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may be hereafter confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be granted to said State.
Fifth, That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said State which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State, for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the condition that the people of Oregon shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.
Sixth, And that the said State shall never tax the lands or the property of the United States in said State: Provided, however, That in case any of the lands herein granted to the State of Oregon have heretofore been confirmed to the Territory of Oregon for the purposes specified in this act, the amount so confirmed shall be deducted from the quantity specified in this act.


So, once again, we see the phrase “primary disposal”. This “disposal”, from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the admission of Oregon in 1859, makes clear that the “public lands” were to be disposed of. It makes no mention of acquisition of lands, except indirectly in Article I, § 8, clause 17, and it appears that there were only certain purposes for which the land could be acquired, and each is to sustain constructions serving to provide for the required obligations of the government; “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. Though the ambiguity of what needful may have been intended to refer to, the noun, “Buildings”, is without question. All of the itemized objects require construction, and, consequently, the provision is to allow government facilities to be established to serve the needs of the government, not of birds, tortoises, or other critters that the Bible says are put on this Earth for our use.


We also see that a portion of the “proceeds” of the sale of the public would go to the State to provide “for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvement.” Those improvements would provide both roads and canals for water, both to help with the development of the State. This would satisfy the intended purpose of creating growth of the State and the Nation.
Understand that each state, within its constitution, may have reserved that state certain rights with regards to land, as explained in the Oregon Admission Acts, but the federal government has no such constitutional authority.


In 1825, just 46 years after the formation of the current government, Congress, in order to have the lawful authority to charge people with the destruction of government property, enacted the “Act of 1825”. The Act sets the requirement for extending jurisdiction created under Article I, § 8, clause 17:
An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes. (March 3, 1825)


“That if any person or persons, within any fort, dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, armory, or magazine, the site whereof is ceded to, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or on a site of any lighthouse, or other needful building belonging to the United States, the sight whereof is ceded to them [United States], and under their jurisdiction, as aforesaid, shall, willfully…”


Now, this Act brings to light what was intended, with regard to federal jurisdiction, outside of Washington, D.C. If that land has been disposed of, it has left the realm of “needful Rules and Regulations”, and entered into the jurisdiction of the State in which the land lies. It is, forever, outside of federal jurisdiction — UNLESS it is brought back into federal jurisdiction in accordance with the intent of Article I, § 8, clause 17. Now, the application of that intent is clearly laid out in the Act of 1825. That “under their jurisdiction” refers to the State ceding to the federal government either limited or complete jurisdiction. Simply because the government bought the land does not create “jurisdiction”, or the provision would be without meaning.


A “Chain of Title” was secured for the property upon which the buildings sit at the Refuge. Based upon that document, an analysis of the documentationprovided resulted in determining that, in fact, certain land that had left government ownership, and were subsequently deeded back to the United States of America, though no proof of ceding was shown in the Chain of Title.


http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...-composite.jpghttp://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...A-1024x722.jpg
The government ownership is contained within the red lined area on the left map. The Refuge Buildings can be seen above the words “Sodhouse Lane” on the right map

This coincided with the government production of Proof of Ownership in their “Motion for Judicial Notice“. The results, as far as ownership by the United States of America are identical. And, as in the Chain of Title, there is no indication that there was any ceding of land or jurisdiction, back to the United States, in either record. This being the land where the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters are situated, and the location of the alleged crimes by the defendants.


However, that ownership carries no jurisdictional authority. That remains with the State, unless the government has had that jurisdiction ceded to them, and away from the State, either fully or partially. And lawfully, the federal government has no more authority than you would, if you owned the land. If there was an alleged criminal act, you would have to file a complaint with Harney County, and it would be dealt with under state law.


Then, yesterday, September 12, Shawna Cox filed her response, in which she also sought judicial notice that Oregon never ceded the land or the jurisdiction back to the federal government. Now, this creates a bit of a dilemma in that if the Court takes judicial notice of the ownership, absent proof to the contrary, it must also take notice of the absence of federal jurisdiction. This will significantly change the playing field.

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1652

[monty]

From the Oregonian by Maxine Bernstein


By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on September 13, 2016 at 12:53 PM, updated September 13, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Oregon standoff trial

• Two contrasting portraits of refuge occupation emerge during opening statements
• You can now show your support for the Bundys with this 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator' T-shirt
• Line forms early outside federal courthouse on day of Bundy trial's opening statements
• Oregon standoff defendant Jeff Banta had to remind judge he also faces firearms charge
• Oregon standoff: Judge to admonish feds, but deny motion to suppress Facebook evidence

All Stories

Sixteen federal employees of the peaceful Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were preparing late last year how to deal with invasive fish threatening redband trout and other natural fish in Malheur Lake and migratory birds that flock to the sprawling 187,000-acre habitat.

What they never expected, Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Barrow told jurors Tuesday, was "an invasion far more serious than the common carp.''

Barrow, during opening statements in the long-anticipated Oregon standoff trial, used Ammon Bundy's own words caught on video Jan. 2 to argue that Bundy and his co-defendants aren't being prosecuted for holding a political protest, but for leading an armed occupation of the refuge.

He played a video of Bundy standing atop a snowbank in the Safeway parking lot in Burns in his blue plaid flannel jacket and cowboy hat, declaring, "Those who understand what has happened here ... I'm asking you to follow me to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. We're going to make a hard stand. ... We're going to insist the Constitution be protected here in this country.''

A retired Burns electrician Butch Eaton caught a ride with Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy and others to the refuge that day and will testify how he saw the defendants, dressed in camouflage and armed, rack the slides of their firearms before clearing buildings at gunpoint.

The occupiers, Barrow said, established armed guards at the refuge's entry gates and watchtower, transformed the stone buildings into their personal residences, used office space and government computers as their own, dug through office records and replaced the signs, declaring the refuge the "Harney County Resource Center.'' They also put two "Closed Permanently'' signs outside the U.S. Bureau of Land Management office in Burns, he said.

The group removed fencing, dug defensive trenches, trained in hand-to-hand combat and conducted firearms training at the boat launch, he said. Occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Fincium "rifled through Native American artifacts and criticized how they were stored,'' Barrow added. FBI agents recovered more than 1,000 shell casings and dozens of firearms from the site.

"We are not prosecuting the defendants because they don't like the government,'' Barrow said. "In Ammon Bundy's words, 'This was much more than a protest.' They were taking a 'hard stand.' ''
Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford did not deny that his client led the occupation, yet he argued that Ammon Bundy's intent wasn't to "interfere with some kind of nature study,'' but to return the land to the people -- "all because the federal government refuses to respect the limits of its powers.'

"He demands the federal government obey the law. The nerve!'' Mumford told jurors in his opening statements.

Ammon Bundy and his co-defendants, frustrated by the federal government's grazing and water rights restrictions on public land, believed in the need to restore more local control in the West. Discouraged that federal officials hadn't responded to their longstanding concerns, they needed to do something to draw attention to the plight of rural ranchers, loggers and miners, defense lawyers argued.

Most of the defendants first came to Burns to protest the return to prison of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, both convicted of arson on federal land, their lawyers said.

"We came to help them,'' defendant Ryan Bundy told jurors. Ryan Bundy is representing himself.

Barrow had described Ammon Bundy's earlier November meetings with Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward as threatening -- telling Ward that if he didn't stand up to the federal government and protect the Hammonds, they'd bring thousands of people to Harney County to do his job for them.

Bundy's lawyer countered that the meeting was cordial and accused the sheriff of misrepresenting Bundy's posture, adding, "He lies.''

After the Hammonds' protest, several defendants had no idea about any plan to take over the refuge, and just followed Ammon Bundy and a caravan of cars leading to the property, their lawyers said. There, they said they never saw a federal land management employee, and thought the refuge was closed for the winter.

Prosecutors and defense lawyer presented the conflicting portraits of the occupation to jurors at the opening to a trial that's expected to last more than two months. The government plans to call the Harney County sheriff as its first witness Wednesday morning.

Ammon Bundy, 41, and six co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to impede federal employees from doing their work at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge using intimdation, threats or force. Five of the seven also have pleaded not guilty to possession of a firearm in a federal facility. Ryan Bundy, Ammon's older brother, and co-defendant Kenneth Medenbach have pleaded not guilty to theft of government property.

At the refuge, Ammon Bundy was asserting his rights under the adverse possession principle, which he understood to be a legal way to occupy the refuge "in order to take it back,'' Mumford said.

Oregon resident Kenneth Medenbach joined with Bundy. "When Ammon Bundy said 'Let's make our voices heard, Ken Medenbach stood next to him to make his voice heard, knowing that two is stronger than one,'' his standby lawyer Matthew Schindler said. "His intent was to create awareness, awareness about the death of rural America.''

Co-defendant Neil Wampler, a 68-year-old hippie from California and Vietnam veteran, "found his people,'' when he first met the Bundy brothers during the standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada in 2014, his lawyer said. He traveled to Burns to protest the return to prison of the Hammonds, and followed cars to the refuge, but "he had no idea where he was going,'' attorney Lisa Maxfield said. Once there, he set up shop in the kitchen as a cook.

While some who came to the refuge brought firearms, there was "no one there to be aggressive towards,'' Maxfield told jurors.

The occupiers took a more defensive stance because they feared, "they were soon going to be Waco'd or Ruby Ridge'd,'' Maxfield said, referring to two previous encounters with FBI agents that turned deadly.

Speaking of Wampler, Maxfield added, "As far as he was concerned, the Malheur Refuge was just one big soapbox.''

Defendants Ryan Bundy and Shawna Cox, who are representing themselves, addressed jurors directly.

With a photo displayed to jurors of him standing beside his wife and seven of his eight children , Ryan Bundy described himself as a son of a rancher, member of the Mormon church and a family man who now "raises cattle, melon and children.''

Holding up a copy of a pocket Constitution, Ryan Bundy told jurors that he believes that governments are instituted by God for the benefit of man, and that "human law'' should punish guilt, "but never suppress the freedom of the soul.'' He said he came to Harney County to help the Hammonds.

"I believe we were there not to break the law, but to enforce the law, to uphold the law...the Constitution of the United States.''

He said he was thankful to be in court. "It's a marvelous thing to see a jury and let you decide,'' Ryan Bundy said
.
Barrow objected five times during Cox's opening statement, and the judge had to steer her back on course. U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown told Cox she could provide background on herself, "not a bio.'' Then, as Cox described in detail her religious beliefs, the judge interjected, "Ms. Cox you made the point, you're a woman of faith.'' Cox said she traveled to Burns to "save the Hammonds from the dangers of the federal government.''

Before then, she said she had "never heard of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and never planned to go there.'' She followed a caravan of cars to the refuge, and assumed it was closed for the winter. "There was no one there,'' she said. Though prosecutors have said a witness saw Cox in the kitchen with a gun, she refuted that, saying she left her two guns home.

"We were in the kitchen making soup for the cold and hungry...I felt the spirit,'' she said. "The evidence will show we all believed and knew that what we were doing was perfectly legal.''

Defendant David Fry, who arrived at the refuge in his 1988 Lincoln Town Car on Jan. 8, was "barely noticed'' by law enforcement before the police shooting of Finicum on a rural road on Jan. 26, his attorney said. With the arrests of the Bundys, Cox and others that day, Ammon Bundy told those remaining at the refuge to go home, Fry's lawyer Per C. Olson said. At that moment, the occupation had ended - "It's over. It's done,'' Olson contends. What followed was "completely different, '' he said.

Fry and Jeff Banta were among four that stayed at an encampment on the western edge of the refuge for two more weeks. They certainly were not impeding employees from the Bureau of Land Management or Fish and Wildlife Service, Olson said. "Instead, it basically was about a beef with the FBI,'' marked by substantial fear and confusion, he told jurors. Word had spread "like wildlife''that Finicum had been killed while his hands were in the air and his knees were on the ground, Olson said.

Police said they fatally shot Finicum while he was reaching inside his jacket for a gun. A loaded 9mm gun was found inside his left jacket pocket.

Finicum had taken Fry under his wing at the refuge. Fry, who Olson said has been diagnosed with paranoid schizotypal personality disorder, had deep-seated fears and suspicion of the FBI. Fry did not bring a gun to the refuge, and only picked up a shotgun after Finicum's killing, Olson said. By remaining at the refuge, Fry thought he could protect others by documenting what occurred on his Youtube video channel.

As the trial began, the courtroom was packed with defendants' relatives, supporters and media. Others watched on a live video feed in an overflow courtroom. Oregon's U.S. Attorney Billy Williams sat through the entire day of opening statements. Oregon's FBI Special Agent In Chare Greg Bretzing joined him in the morning. They sat in front of the wives of the Bundy brothers, Lisa Bundy and Angie Bundy.


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

Tweets by @maxoregonian

Ammon Bundy, 41, and six co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to impede federal employees from doing their work at the wildlife refuge using intimidation, threats or force. Five of the defendants also have pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility. Ryan Bundy, Ammon's older brother, and co-defendant Kenneth Medenbach, have pleaded not guilty to theft of government property.

Eleven other co-defendants have pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge. Seven others are set to go to trial on Feb. 14.

This trial is expected to last at least nine weeks. A 12-member jury of eight women and four men was selected after two-and-a-half days of questioning. One juror has been excused since Friday and an alternate was chosen by lot to replace him.

The government intends to lay out its case in four chapters: the buildup of the occupation; the takeover, the arrests and the aftermath.

Prosecutors will call Sheriff Ward to describe his early meetings with Ammon Bundy and co-defendants last November.

Ammon Bundy referenced the "great victory in Bunkerville'' -- the 2014 armed standoff with federal officers outside his father's ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada -- when meeting with Ward on Nov. 5 and argued that the Hammonds, the Harney County father-and-son ranchers facing a return to federal prison for setting fire to federal land, had been wrongly prosecuted and the sheriff needed to intervene.

Co-defendant Jason Blomgren, who has pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge in a cooperation agreement with the government, will testify that he came to the refuge from North Carolina on Jan. 10. He'll describe the hierarchy of occupiers, and how military-style armed patrols were divided into five squads: Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta and Echo.

FBI evidence teams recovered dozens of firearms, more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 1,000 spent shell casings from the refuge after the four final holdouts had surrendered on Feb. 11, according to prosecutors.

Mumford countered that the only violence occurred at the hands of police.

"Only one side of this ... shot somebody,'' Mumford told jurors. "And it wasn't Mr. Bundy or anyone else at the refuge.''

When FBI agents and state police moved in to arrest the leaders of the takeover on a rural road on Jan. 26, occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy'' Finicium was shot and killed by state troopers after he drove away from the stop and later emerged from his truck and reached into his jacket at least two times, police have said. Investigators found a loaded 9mm handgun inside his left jacket pocket.

"Mr. Bundy complied with the law. The government has not. That's why Mr. Bundy took the actions he did,'' Mumford said.

"How much longer does a people have to be acted upon before they get to act?'' he asked.

Oregon U.S. Attorney Billy Williams and FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing sat in the courtroom behind prosecutors, directly in front of the public gallery where the wives of Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy were seated.

Ammon Bundy blew a kiss to his wife, just before court adjourned for a lunch break.

Ryan Bundy, who will give opening statements at 1 p.m., asked the judge if he could distribute pocket Constitutions to jurors. She said he may not, and that she is the one who instructs jurors on the law.

The judge also had to interrupt Mumford two times during his opening statements to remind jurors that the case will not litigate the principle of adverse possession, that the idea is only being presented as it relates to defendants' state of mind.


-- Maxine Bernstein

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

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