150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[Bigjon]

This lady Stacy has compiled volumes on federal overreach and land grabs her youtune channel is MrsB Stacy.
This is an hour long video, Sheriff Gilbertson and Sheriff Glenn Palmer both Oregon sheriffs on federal lack jurisdiction and abuses on public land Source: http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Public_Lands.html



https://youtu.be/nnUiadMjaFk


Edit: This video makes it very obvious the western states addmitted after the California Gold Rush were not granted title to the unapproptiated public land. Powerful interests in the northeast (Jewish Bankers) . . . You get the idea.

The video is from 2011, is MacKenzie still active?

[monty]

The video is from 2011, is MacKenzie still active?

I knew it was an old video. I don't know if he is still active. I haven't cheked his website recently.

[monty]

The video is from 2011, is MacKenzie still active?

I don't think he has been active since 2013.

[monty]

Second Malheur Protest trial update RangeFire

http://rangefire.us/2017/01/22/orego...-trial-update/

Oregon Standoff Trial Update

January 22, 2017 - Oregon Standoff - Tagged: Bundy, Oregon, Range, RANGEfire, Standoff, trial - no comments

The Second Phase Oregon Standoff Trial is now right around the corner, scheduled to begin on February 14, 2017.

For those interested, there have been significant new developments in the case.
On Friday, January 20th, the seven defendants scheduled for trial in February were charged with a number of new charges, primarily misdemeanors, including trespassing and criminal mischief, which the Federal

Government hopes that it can have an easier http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...na-Brown-1.jpg

time of securing convictions for that it did the last round when all of the first round defendants, including Ammon & Ryan Bundy were acquitted of all federal conspiracy and firearms charges.

The most significant development, however, was Judge Brown’s ruling that she is denying the defendants the opportunity to have a jury trial on the new charges, and she will be trying those charges herself — in an obvious attempt to ensure convictions, without the possibility of having a jury mess things up. This is a very troubling development.In related developments,

The Bundy trial(s) in Nevada have now been split into three trials too, with the first trial scheduled to begin on February 7th. The Bundys themselves, however, will not be tried until the second trial later in the Spring. And as compared to the Oregon defendants, most of whom were eventually released from custody pending trial, every single one of the 17 Nevada defendants is still being held in custody pending trial. Many consider these defendants to be political prisoners, whose continued pre-trial incarceration is nothing more than a political statement by the federal government, without any legitimate basis, based on the defendants being flight risks or posing any genuine threat to public safety.

[monty]

Gary Hunt expose another informant Outpost of Freedom


« Burns Chronicles No 54 – To Jury, or, Not To Jury


Burns Chronicles No 55 – Marshall Spring & Ben

January 23, 2017, 1:47 pm

Burns Chronicles N^o 55
Marshall Spring & Ben
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ng-and-Ben.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 23, 2017

Marshall Sawyer Spring served as a Marine in Iraq with one of the defendants. He received a Purple Heart, but his honor stopped there. His and Ben’s betrayal, of patriots and fellow Marines, as informants includes not only informing, but goes well beyond, as you will see.

Spring and his partner, known only as “Ben”, live in Loveland, Colorado. Spring is a “Marshal” appointed such by Bruce Doucette, self-appointed “United States Superior Court Judge”. This would, according to the “appointment”, make Spring’s title “Marshal Marshall Spring”. Doucette arranged to meet Spring and “Ben” in Burns, to set up a Common Law Grand Jury. Spring and Ben’s visit to Burns coincides with the two FBI form 1023 (CHS Reporting Document) reports, and it is quite apparent that the reports are tracking Doucette as much as they are the events in Burns.

Doucette, on January 14, 2017, confronted Spring with the information I had. Of course, Spring denied that he was an informant, however, even though a subsequent meeting was scheduled, it seems that Spring has given up his phone, as it is no longer in service.

Efforts to contact “Ben” have been futile, and even his last name is unknown. He had red hair and was around the Refuge by January 12 until, at least, January 15, 2016. He was about 5′ 7″ or 5′ 8″ and weighed about 175 pounds. He sported a Fu Manchu goatee and moustache.

Whether Spring or Ben filed the respective reports is unknown. However, by some of the information contained within the reports, it appears that Spring is CHS #12.

January 12, 2016[heavily redacted]
Later in the day, Doucette met other individuals involved with the standoff including Pete Santillli and Joseph O’Shaughnessy aka “Captain O”. O’Shaughnessy claims to be part of a militia group from Arizona and part of the Pacific Patriot Network. O’Shaughnessy is attempting to get a helicopter to come to the area to conduct counter surveillance. O’Shaughnessy does not like how the holding of the refuge compound is being handled. He believes that a very limited number of Federal Agents could take back the refuge.

Doucette also met with individuals that claim to be part of the press covering the standoff named Mike LNU of the TVOI News Network, Vicki Davis, Chuck Greenwood, telephone: [omitted] and Tim Davis. Mike LNU says they have a “brother” in the Sheriff’s Department and if this comes to a fire fight it will be between the cops.

Doucette's plan in Burns is to convene two common law grand juries in the area. A common law grand jury consists of 25 jurors and 1 Grand Jury administrator. It takes 25 jurors to indict and 12 to decide on a presented case. The starting point of forming a grand jury will be to discuss the idea with the Safety Committee [Harney County Committee of Safety] on Friday at a party that is planned to take place in town. Roger with the Grand Jury in Florida is assisting remotely with writing all of Bruce Doucette’s decisions and indictments.

Doucette believes that if Bundy gets what he wants (return of the land to the ranchers) that in 6 months it will be taken back by the Federal Government. Accordingly, Doucette stated that, “we can’t leave here until a new Sheriff has been appointed and a new government is installed.” Doucette believes that a sheriff can be appointed because the current sheriff, his department and local government are all corrupt..

January 13, 2016
On the afternoon of 1/13/2016, Bruce Doucette met with Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne and Jon LNU. Jon LNU is a former marine that drives a silver F-150 with a “rogue infidel” bumper sticker. The purpose of the meeting was for Doucette and the other three individuals to see if they were all on the same page regarding the refuge stand off. At the conclusion of the meeting, Doucette and his bodyguards were invited to move onto the refuge. Doucette’s group returned to their hotel and started packing their gear.

While he is in town, Doucette attempts to engage local residents and persuade them that what the individuals occupying the refuge are doing is just. Doucette had some success in this regard.

The individuals occupying the refuge appear to have plenty of provisions and are in good spirits. The group has no intention of leaving the refuge until the Hammonds are released and ownership of the refuge is turned over from the Federal Government.

The occupation leadership’s plan moving forward is to try and duplicate the occupation at another federal facility in another county. The Payne is in contact with a local Sheriff in another county that is friendly to their cause. This county would be the likely location of the next facility. Payne will be meeting with the friendly Sheriff again in the near future.

Doucette is going to provide Payne with copies of some of the legal process he created in the past. Payne will review these documents and determine if Doucette methodology meets with his approval. (Please note: Doucette’s legal process is all fictitious).

Yes, even though Spring appears to be a follower of Doucette, that comment was included in the report. This is suggestive of the fact that Doucette is Spring’s assigned target, and that the Refuge incident is simply a target of opportunity.

January 15, 2016
Reporting from [redacted] on 1/14/2016 at 1:30 PCT
The meeting being held by the Pacific Patriot Network on Friday, 1/15/16 will be attended by Bruce Doucette, and Joe O’Shaughnessy.

Bruce Doucette’s invitation to Grant County was allegedly made by the town’s people.

The occupants of the refuge are considering targets in Grant County and Mahler County for their next occupations. The number of people at the refuge is approximately 10 Women and 30 men 24 hours a day Bruce Doucette occupies a small house called the Coyote Hollow Volunteer Building on the south side centrally located, to the west of the chow hall.

Reporting from [redacted] on 1/14/2016 at 8:15 PCT
Some of the occupants of the refuge attended a meeting in town tonight at a private residence with members of the public. The general consensus of the public at the conclusion of the meeting was favorable of the militia groups. The refuge occupants left the meeting in a hurry because there was a report of three white SUV’s approaching the refuge.

Occupants of the refuge are reinforcing the town with four foot land fence posts. They are also reinforcing the gate with fire trucks, fire hose and calops.

So, we can see the detail of the goings on at the Refuge as well as some tactical information. One word, if spelled correctly in the report, is “calops”. If anybody has an idea what “calops” means, that information would be appreciated.

Red-haired “Ben” has evaded identification, though, hopefully, someone can help to fill in these gaps. Apparently, Ben and Spring have tried to start a business that utilizes waste from medical marijuana processing to develop a going business.

These are probably Ben’s CHS #8 reportsJanuary 14, 2016 – Ben
The CHS advised that Ryan Payne was out well into the morning of 1/14/2016 attempting to locate pole cameras on the roads near the refuge. Payne still planned to destroy the cameras, but the prior sense of urgency is not present. It was unclear of who would actually destroy the equipment, and further speculated that Payne would likely ask someone else to conduct the act to avoid any illegal activity on his part.

Payne and Ammon Bundy (Ammon) seemed to have bonded on a spiritual level. They both claim to be had visions from a higher power to support their actions in this matter and feel their current actions are based on direction from God. The fact that Ammon is Mormon and Payne is a Jewish Kabalist seems to have no ill effect on their relationship. Payne and Ammon appear to be interchangeable in the role of leaders of the others involved in the standoff. Payne and Ammon seem to complement each other in their dealings with those involved under them. Payne espoused a religious type view of the current event and their participation as being just the thoughts in the mind of a higher power. Given the fact that Payne and Ammon feel they are acting in the will of God, they seem to not be concerned if they live or die in this matter. The CHS speculated that if Payne and Ammon were removed, the group would fold due to a lack of leadership. Jon Rizheimer is not the type of leadership material to be able to control the group in the event Payne and Ammon were removed.

The current standoff has been planned by Amon and Payne since late November of 2015. They were not aware of the Hammond conflict but planned for the takeover and standoff for the next event that satisfied their agenda. Ammon stated that the ideal number of personnel within the refuge was 75. The group expects the number within the facility to expand to 75 over the weekend of 1/16/2016. There is general talk of taking over a second location north of Burns, Oregon near Grant County or northern Malheur County. No specific plan for a location has been announced, nor has any time frame been provided. Speculation within the refuge was that if they were to take over a second facility that would happen over the weekend.

Ammon further told the group that he planned to hold the standoff until the Spring comes so he can have the group provide security for his transfer of the family cattle into the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) range. Ammon is afraid the BLM will take the cattle if militia security is not present.

There does not appear to be any intention of or attempts to provide disinformation to the members within the compound or the outside world on the part of Payne or Ammon. All of the information appears to be somewhat compartmentalized for dissemination to the members within the refuge.The members of the group had a strong negative reaction to having been denied access to the fairground for an event that had been scheduled for 1/15/2016.The CHS was not aware of any overt cache of weapons, but had not seen all areas of the facility to date. The food pantry is located near the back gate in the fire bunkhouse. That location is also where the majority of the members are sleeping. Payne, Ritzheimer and others are bunking in the building furthest away from the hill. Ammon sleeps in the office.

Meals are served military style at 7:00 am, noon and 7:00 pm. They are cooked by 5-6 women and are typical meals rather than dehydrated or field type rations. There is no shortage of food. Requests for food are routinely dropped off. Donations are being provided by those coming into the facility and from unidentified individuals from the outside. It is unclear how much actual cash is on hand but Ammon seems to control it and have no shortage.

January 15, 2016
The CHS was aware of meeting that took place on the evening of 1/14/2016 at a residence near the refuge. The home was located nearest to the intersection of highways 78 and 205. The meeting was attended by several local ranchers, Bruce Doucette and Jon Ritzheimer. Ryan Payne and Ammon Bundy were not present for the meeting. The local ranchers, Doucette and Ritzheimer spoke to the group. The ranchers expressed anger that the fairground had been denied for their use from their standpoint of being members of Harney County. They felt the issue at hand was being filtered by the media and the government and wanted to get the sides out to the public straight from the sources. The ranchers were encouraged by the militia to cut the locks and access the facility. The second alternative for today’s meeting was to invite all of Harney County onto the refuge for the meeting. The firehouse was being cleaned out for the meeting place on the refuge.

Payne has expressed that he feels the local ranchers are in support of the occupation and the militia because they may have access to a “land grab” if the federal government concedes and gives the land back to the state. He (Payne) believes the ranchers are supportive of the occupation for purely personal gain.

Ammon has requested transport back to his residence near Boise, Idaho. The plan is to depart the Burns area at approximately 12:30 pm local. There are reported to be three vehicles carrying Ammon and others, including 3% members for Ammon’s security. Ammon planned to handle family matters and potentially return to Burns on Sunday or Monday. The travel for Ammon was delayed until approximately 3:30 pm.

At approximately 1:55 pm, the CHS advised that a group was gearing up to go and destroy what they thought was a pole camera outside of the refuge.

That concludes what are probably Ben’s reports, since they both left the Refuge on either Friday, January 15, or Saturday, January 16, 2016. However, they were to return shortly after LaVoy Finicum was murdered on the side of Highway 395.

Bruce Doucette, being concerned for the safety of the “grand jurors”, contacted Marshal Spring and arranged for him to go back to Oregon to provide protection for the “grand jurors”. He gave Spring $5,000.00 cash to cover the expense of that task.

Spring decided to include Darryl Thorn among those he would “protect”. He arranged for Thorn to stay in room 203, at the Super Eight Motel in Redmond, Oregon. Spring paid the motel bill, gave Thorn gift meal cards for a restaurant, and some cash. This kept Thorn away from his home, and in a place much safer for the FBI to make an arrest.

February 10, FBI confirmed with desk clerk that Thorn was, in fact, still staying at the Motel. On February 12, a number of officers entered the hallway on both sides of room 203, knocked on the door, and arrested Darryl Thorn based upon the Superseding Indictment.

That day, February 12, 2016, was a clean sweep for the FBI. Jeff Banta, David Fry, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson, Geoffery Stanek, and Darryl Thorn were all arrested and then transported to Portland.

In an interview with Darryl Thorn, only Spring and Ben knew exactly where Thorn was staying. Well, and the FBI.

In an effort to contact Spring, I found that his phone had been “changed, disconnected, or no longer in service”. This is indicative of the expected reaction after Doucette confronted Spring.

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  100
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

Like this:



Tags: Bundy, Burns Oregon, cops, courts, demonization, FBI, Harney County, Honor, informants, patriots
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback


2 Comments

• http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/4ef468f...=109&d=mm&r=pgL.E. says:
  January 23, 2017 at 5:08 pm
  Calops = collapsible ladder, referenced among fire fighters
  Reply to this comment
  
  • http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...2220-48x48.jpgghunt says:
    January 23, 2017 at 5:21 pm
    That is a possibility. Thanks
    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply


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


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

[monty]

Judge Gloria Navarro cements Magistate Peggy Leen's recommendations by denying two motions

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/nava...commendations/

Navarro Adopts Two Leen Denial Recommendations

Motions to dismiss from Santilli and Payne officially denied…

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...ed-300x150.jpgGloria Navarro Adopts Two Leen Denial Recommendations. Defendant Ryan Payne sought dismissal of four 924(c) charges that, as a result, would lessen maximum potential prison sentences. Santilli sought dismissal of the charges against himself on the grounds that his actions in Bunkerville were within the scope of rights under the First Amendment. Navarro adopted both of Leen’s recommendations therefore formally denying both.
Navarro Adopts Two Leen Denial Recommendations

These denials are little more than milestones on a predictable trajectory. The Government opposes every motion brought forth by defendants. Subsequently, the Court, with striking predictability, almost always rules in favor of the Government. The Court does so despite compelling legal arguments and similar decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere.
More denials to come?

ECF No. 710 remains outstanding. In this motion, Payne put forth a motion to dismiss 924(c) charges on the basis that the charges are void for vagueness. Leen’s ruling recommends that the court deny the motion. A minute order filed on the docket requests that the Government submit a brief regarding Count 2 (Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer 18 USC § 372). Likewise, defendants will have time to submit a response brief.
It is unclear what the Court expects the Government to address, other than “the elements of the crime”. Count 2, like three other counts, has a 924(c) enhancement. Unlike the other counts, the District of Oregon dismissed an identical count in the Malheur Occupation Trial. Asking the Government to file a brief related to the elements of the crime may (or may not) indicate that the Court could consider dropping the 924(c) enhancement for Count 2.
To what end?

Since Count 3 is just one of four 924(c) enhancements, the benefit is negligible in a conviction scenario. The Court will (probably) view each 924(c) as a second or subsequent conviction under § 924(c)(1)(C). This means that the first 924(c) would carry a ten year minimum under § 924(c)(1)(B)(i). Each subsequent conviction would rise to 25 years. Therefore, even if Count 3 is dismissed under categorical scrutiny, defendants would face a minimum of 60 years in prison (10 + 25 + 25). This is because a 924(c) sentence applies consecutively to any other sentence. In addition to 924(c) sentences, incarceration for predicate offenses would pile up as well. Hence, effective life sentence.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png

[monty]

Tomorrow will be the one year anniversary of the murder of LaVoy Finicum, a sad day for America.

One Quiet Man's Fight for Freedom

https://s19.postimg.org/o3tj3c3z7/IMG_1458.jpg


http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...ht-for-freedom

by JUSTIN O. SMITHJanuary 25, 2017

"Destroyers are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state ... " -- Nietzsche

Americans should pause and take some time to recall and celebrate the life of Robert LaVoy Finicum, an American patriot, who loved his family, God and country. He placed his life on the line in defense of all Americans' right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', joining the ranks of thousands of other ranchers who have been fighting the overreaches of the federal government and the tyranny of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the past forty years. Robert LaVoy Finicum died on January 26th, 2016, one day before his 55th birthday, defending the U.S. Constitution and this America he loved so well.

By all accounts, LaVoy Finicum was "a quiet man who worked his to-do list from sun-up to sundown" (The Oregonian) and had a "light reading" list that included many history books, the U.S. Constitution and Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America'. He also thoroughly enjoyed his big family -his wife and eleven children- and their evening discussions on the Scriptures, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' ideas on freedom.

Although Finicum had generally viewed his interaction with the BLM to be "very good" over the years, he became active in opposing them in 2014, after the BLM fined him $12,000 and claimed his cattle had grazed on federal lands past his allotted permit time. He was also heavily influenced by his own research into the BLM nd the high-handed tactics he witnessed the BLM employ against the Bundy family in 2014.

Finicum rode with Cliven and Ammon Bundy on their Nevada Ranch in April of 2014, along with hundreds of other supporters, in order to reinforce the fact that Bundy's grazing and water rights, documented in an 1878 title,
predated any BLM claims and had to be honored by the BLM. And when the BLM moved along Interstate 15 to confiscate Bundy's cattle on April 5th, Finicum, the Bundy family members and well-armed supporters stopped them cold where they stood; this would become a sore-point for the FBI that carried over to the Malheur Wildlife Reserve occupation in 2016 and the stand-off near Burns, Oregon.

After the Bundy Ranch Stand-Off, LaVoy Finicum said: "I had to do a lot of soul searching. I realized that Cliven Bundy was standing on a very strong constitutional principle, and yet, here I was continuing to pay a grazing fee to the BLM."

Finicum and the Bundy clan understood that the Enclave Clause [Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution] did not allow government bureaucrats to act like kings and ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments, and it did not authorize the BLM to arbitrarily seize the water rights, cattle and property of ranchers and arrogantly nullify 200 years of constitutional history. They understood, much like the U.S. Supreme Court (New York v. U.S.), that the Constitution is not a tool to protect the sovereignty of the State or for the benefit of government officials, but rather, the Constitution secures all Americans' liberties through the diffusion of sovereign power.

However, the BLM sees things differently. Many cases spanning the years can be found, that are similar to Raymond Yowell's experience. The BLM garnished the $200 Social Security check of this former chief of the Shoshone Indian Tribe and seized 132 head of his cattle in 2002, for grazing "unlawfully" on government lands. The BLM sold Yowell's cattle at auction and pocketed the money.

Between 2006 and 2012, the BLM had intimidated and finally charged Steven and Dwight Hammond with nine federal counts of arson for setting backfires on their own lands that supposedly spread to federal land. The Hammonds were subsequently imprisoned, released and then sent back to prison, even though the facts illuminated that some of those out-of-control backfires actually originated with BLM employees, in an attempt to stop several lightning strike fires such as the Granddad fire that burned 46,000 acres.

Politics played heavily in the cases regarding Steven and Dwight Hammond, because the BLM wanted the Hammond ranch. Gold mining companies like Calico Resource USA out of Vancouver, Canada and uranium mining concerns like Australian owned Oregon Energy LLC had their eyes on the area, and the BLM was hoping to profit and grow more powerful through the General Mining Law of 1872.

All the great ideas and principles that shaped America went with LaVoy Finicum, as he and many other American Patriots occupied Oregon's Malheur [French for "misfortune" or "tragedy"] National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles from Burns, Oregon, in order to force the return of 188,000 acres to local control and the release of the Hammond brothers from prison. They acted through peaceful, political protest, even though they were armed to ensure the security of their protest, and they advocated for property and states' rights, as they took a hard stand against federal ownership of 250 million acres in America and years of oppression by the BLM and several other government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Twenty-five days into the protest, Robert LaVoy Finicum, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne and Virginia Sharp headed to John Day, Oregon for a "singing" and a meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer to discuss their demands, explain their views to local people and seek a peaceful end to the stand-off. But they were ambushed along the way by the Oregon State Patrol and the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, which used combat-grade operation protocols rather than "civilian" deadly force standards, firing once without warning at the initial stop, according to many witnesses, and numerous times at the second roadblock using concussion and live rounds.

Does this remind anyone else of Ruby Ridge and the murders of Randy Weaver's wife and son by the FBI?
If the federal authorities had been serious about desiring a peaceful resolution to this conflict, they could have coordinated with Sheriff Palmer to arrest Finicum, if just cause existed for an arrest [they knew Finicum's destination]. Instead they chose to shoot him numerous times and refuse him medical attention from Virginia Sharp, a trained EMT and his friend, as he lay on the snowy ground dying. They murdered LaVoy on a lonely, desolate stretch of Highway 395.

If the FBI had negotiated LaVoy Finicum's peaceful surrender, as they certainly could have, he would simply have been taken into custody and released after his acquittal by a jury, just in the same manner that a jury acquitted his so-called "co-conspirators" in October 2016, including Ammon Bundy and a friend and activist, Shawna Cox. And, it should alarm everyone that the HRT agents initially concealed the fact they had fired their weapons during the stop.

Upon her release, Shawna Cox made a plea before a mass of TV cameras and supporters, imploring: "We have to be vigilant people. Wake up America, and help us restore the Constitution. Don't sleep with your head in the sand.

Isn't it odd that FBI agents , who are sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution -- lawyers all -- regularly side with government imposed tyranny against U.S. citizens?

Arianna Finicum Brown, LaVoy's 27 year old daughter, stated shortly after his death: "My Dad was such a good man, through and through. He would never want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved.

During LaVoy's funeral, his brother, Guy Finicum remarked on LaVoy's deep faith in God, adding: "He has absolute confidence that he will be with his family again. He believes that as much as he believes the sun will rise. And that's what gave him the ability to do what he did. He always looked at a higher goal."

When any government, including ours, puts forth its strength on the side of injustice and murders fine men like LaVoy Finicum, it reveals itself as a mere brute force, and it becomes apparent more than ever that tyranny rules. And other patriots are served warning to desist their opposition or meet the same fate.

And what are Americans to think of a government to which all the truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between it and those whom it oppresses?

Robert LaVoy Finicum did not recognize unjust human laws, and he persistently stood for the dignity of human nature, knowing himself for a man, the equal of any government. He regularly fought against established injustices and the hypocrites of bureaucracies who seemed to ask, "Why do you assault us". And LaVoy's death -- the death of an American hero -- was like the planting of a good seed, and it is giving rise to a new crop of American heroes.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...nsmithc150.jpg

Justin O. Smith has lived in Tennessee off and on most of his adult life. He graduated from Middle Tennessee State University in 1980, with a B.S. and a double major in International Relations and Cultural Geography - minors in Military Science and English, for what its worth. His real education started from that point on. Smith worked 8 years for the LaVergne Fire Dept - two years as their clean-up boy - and became a working fireman at age 16, working his way through college and subsequently joining the U.S. Army. Since then he primarily has contracted construction and traveled - spending quite a bit of time up and down the Columbia River Gorge, in the Puget Sound on Whidby Island and down around Ft. Lauderdale and South Beach. Justin currently writes a weekly column for The Rutherford Reader in Murfreesboro, TN, which he calls home, and he spends as much time as possible with his two beautiful and intelligent daughters and five grandchildren. He also Loves God, Family and Our Magestic and Wonderful America, and considers himself to be a Son of Liberty.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/img/icon09.gif




Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...#ixzz4Wp2Vr0QF
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[monty]

The Oregonian youtube video LaVoy Finicum's Role During the Oregon Standoff, Highlights published January 25, 2017



https://youtu.be/wX7K8_qR8Sw

[monty]

Will this change Judge Anna Brown's choice to allow the stacking of misdemeanor charges onto the previous indictment?

Based on what Dr. Trowbridge exposed about oath US District Court judges now take since 1991 she doesn't have to obey the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You are a 14th amendment US Citizen with civil rights in her court, subject to the laws of Congress and do not have a right to trial by jury on misdemeanor charges unless mandadted by federal statutes.

She will ignore this just like she ignored Ammon Bundy's motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Malheur Headquarters were previously private property and jurisdiction was never ceded to the federal government.

But forcing the arguments to preserve the appelate rights is a valid and important point.


https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...91&oe=59005C1D


Robin W. Tong shared a link.

10 hrs

Everyone Please Forward the following case information to the several defendants and defense attorneys so that they are aware of the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has a Double Jeopardy case before it, so that the Burns / Malhuer Wildlife Defendants may force these same arguments at trial and preserve their appellate rights to have any Bench Trial misdemeanor convictions overturned upon appeal. Judge Brown's and the U.S. Attorney's malicious error, malfeasance, and malicious prosecution attempting to secure a conviction by any means is a violation of defendant's rights to a TRIAL BY JURY and in violation of DOUBLE JEOPARDY:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Note: These are the legal arguments laid forth in WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the case of WALKER V. TEXAS presently pending before the Supreme Court asking the Court to strike down the "Sovereign Exception" to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution.

In presenting arguments for the exception to be stricken, Mr. Walker's legal counsel underwent great pains in reviewing the common law and constitutional law meaning of Double Jeopardy as the Founders of our Constitution understood and intended it. These same arguments offer a brilliant illustration as to why Judge Brown's mandating of a misdemeanor bench trial at the conclusion of a felony jury trial is nothing but a ruse and a violation of DOUBLE JEOPARDY intending to ensure the conviction of defendants by any means. Our Founders intent with the Double Jeopardy Clause was that the federal government had no authority whatsoever to twice try a defendant based on substantially the same act(s), transaction(s), or transgression(s).

Essentially, per the Double Jeopardy Clause, regardless of the outcome of the Jury Trial its Verdict should BAR AND PROHIBIT any further prosecution at Bench Trial facing misdemeanor charges for essentially the same act(s), transaction(s), or transgression(s). To do so would be the infliction of Double Jeopardy to secure a conviction or double conviction despite the outcome of the Jury's verdict, and to have done so to ensure the conviction gave legitimacy to the government's malicious prosecution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Excerpts of common law and case law, as argued in the WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the case of WALKER V. TEXAS presently pending before the Supreme Court asking it to strike down violations of Double Jeopardy:
The Double Jeopardy Clause “protect[s] an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.” Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187 (1957); see also Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 169 (1874). This rule against forcing a defendant to “‘run the gauntlet’ a second time,” Abney v. United 10 States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977), “represents a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit,” United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 (1971) (plurality opinion). “The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the AngloAmerican system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.”
Green, 355 U.S. at 187-88.
...
The Double Jeporday Clause was specifically designed to prohibit successive prosecutions “so far as the common law gave that protection.” Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) at 170; see also 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1781 (1833) (recognizing the Double Jeopardy Clause codifies the common law right); 1 Annals of Congress 781-82 (Aug. 17, 1789) (relating that, in the debates during the First Congress over the Bill of Rights, representatives appealed to the “universal practice in Great Britain” and sought to ensure that the Double Jeopardy Clause would be “declaratory of the law as it [then] stood”).
...
Authoritative common law treatises recognized “the universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once, for the same offence.” 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *335-36 (1768); see also 2 William Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown 515, 526 (John Curwood ed., 8th ed. 1824). And this protection against double jeopardy was triggered by a prior prosecution “in any court whatsoever.” 2 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 522 (emphasis added); accord 4 Blackstone, Commentaries *335.
...
In Blockburger, the Court explained that two provisions constitute the same “offence” for double jeopardy purposes when neither “requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Id. at 304. Put another way, the “violation of two distinct statutory provisions” can still constitute one “offence” under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Id. Blockburger’s element-by-element approach to defining “offence”—rarely pertinent when criminal codes were thinner than today, but a vital precept of double jeopardy law now—cannot be squared with Bartkus’s crabbed construction of the term as a mere “transgression of a law.” There would be no need to conduct Blockburger’s element-by-element analysis if each violation of a distinct statute were, by definition, a separate “offence.”
...
And more recently, this Court has insisted that where the Constitution codified a common law criminal procedure guarantee, the Court must preserve the level of protection “that existed when [the guarantee] was adopted.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001) (Fourth Amendment); see also, e.g., Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 375 (2008) (plurality opinion) (Sixth Amendment); Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521-42 (2000) (Ex Post Facto Clause).
...
Federal criminal laws now reach many matters traditionally addressed only by the states, touching everything from odometer tampering to carjacking to garden-variety drug crimes. See 49 U.S.C. § 32704; 18 U.S.C. § 2119; 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; see also Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1100-01 (2015) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (noting that all Justices agree there is a modern “pathology” towards overcriminalization and excessive punishment in the U.S. Code”).
...
A second prosecution forces the accused to endure double the anxiety; double the expense of defending himself; and double the disruption to his family and professional life. See Green, 355 U.S. at 187. And when the defendant is in fact innocent, the second prosecution enhances “the possibility that [he nonetheless] may be found guilty.” Id. at 188. The record from the first prosecution gives the government a window into the defense strategy and allows its own witnesses to be “better prepared for the rigors of cross-examination” during the second trial. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 52 (1978) (Powell, J., dissenting). Where an initial trial resulted in a conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clause is likewise thwarted when the defendant is forced to stand trial and endure punishment a second time.
...
... the mere threat of double prosecution forces multitudes who have already endured one prosecution to “live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.” Green, 355 U.S. at 187.
...
... the U.S. Department of Justice formulated an internal policy—later termed the Petite Policy—“to limit the exercise of the power to bring successive prosecutions for the same offense.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 28-29 (1977) (per curiam). The Policy establishes certain criteria that must be met before a U.S. Attorney may initiate a prosecution “following a prior state . . . prosecution based on substantially the same act(s),” and it requires that any such prosecution “be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, U.S. Attorneys’ Manual § 9-2.031 (2009).
...
More fundamentally, the Court has recently stressed that the guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights should not depend on the exercise of prosecutorial self-restraint. See, e.g., United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 480 (2010) (“We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly.”). This Court should not entrust the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause—any more than any other constitutional right— to “the mercy of noblesse oblige.” Id. “[T]he Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols.” Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2491 (2014).

Ref: http://www.scotusblog.com/…/2016/11/16-636-cert-petition.pdf

P.S. Here is the tracking sheet for all the Brief's filed with SCOTUS on this pending case regarding arguments over Double Jeopardy (and the issue of Sovereign Exception which has no application to the Burns / Malhuer cases.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/walker-v-texas/

Best Wishes

20 Likes5 Comments14 Shares

LikeCommentShare

[monty]

LaVoy Finicum 01/27/1961 - 01/26/2016



For a Year We have Missed this Man
Challice Lee Finicum Finch 67 views

https://yt3.ggpht.com/--Lv-2RuFJKk/A...ffff/photo.jpg

SUBSCRIBE
145

10

0
Published on Jan 26, 2017 You might know him as many thing, but we knew him as daddy.

Music rights and everything are Tim McGraw's. I do not own it.

• Category
  
  • Entertainment
  
  
• License
  
  • Standard YouTube License