150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[monty]

I am not familiar with this blogger. His article is titled. "Draining the Oregon End of the Swamp, Getting to the Bottom of What Happened in Burns".

It focuses on Hammonds, Malheur takeover, Kate Brown and Finicum's murder, Hillary, Loretta Lynch Uranium One and Oregon connection and how Hillary losing the election ruined their plans.

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=...&id=4d0dfa023f

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/678e02...es/johncol.jpg Mar 15th A MESSAGE FROM JOHN D. TRUDEL, THRILLER AUTHOR AND BLOGGER http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2...es/divider.jpg

Draining the Oregon End of the Swamp Getting to the Bottom of what Happened in Burns, Oregon “What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.” The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now.” President Donald J. Trump The Current Status (January 2017) The Burns “Standoff” and other intense Federal Efforts in the Western United States to seize private land leaves carnage in its wake. Ranchers, reporters, and women with cameras WHO NEVER HARMED ANYONE have been tried in the media and treated as terrorists. Some were abused. Some were killed. LaVoy Finicum was chased into a kill zone, shot down in a deliberate, planned ambush on January 26, 2016, allegedly by Oregon State Police under the orders of Governor Kate Brown. The focus of this note and action plan is on circumstances IN OREGON surrounding this event. Officials at high levels are involved, from the infamous Hillary Clinton “Uranium One” deal that drove the desire (need) for Federal Seizure of the Hammond Ranch and the “Adverse Possession” of what is now called the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, to the direct involvement of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Governor Kate Brown, and strong supportive statements justifying the Finicum killing from both of Oregon’s Senators. An elite FBI team claimed they were not involved except to observe and never fired a shot. They were found to have lied, to have lied about lying, and to have tampered with a crime scene – which is a crime. Besides Finicum, largely unnoticed, four other people connected with this event – three nurses and the son-in-law of one of the defendants - died suddenly. Two of the deaths were ruled “suicide” and two were ruled “mysterious circumstances.” Over 50 people from all over the country have been arrested and held without Habeas Corpus, held incommunicado without bail. This has not happened in America since the Civil War. There is much disinformation and conflicting opinion, much of it because of what we now call the “Fake News Media.” Many believe the Hammonds were guilty of arson. They think this because the Hammonds were harassed into making a guilty plea and voiding their rights to appeal in exchange for promises that were not kept. This unjust treatment of the Hammonds brought outraged citizens to Burns. Some were armed and all were arrested. A Federal Trial acquitted the first batch of defendants on ALL CHARGES. Despite this, some are still being held. An attorney who objected to this was tasered and thrown to the ground IN THE COURTROOM. Most think that the charges involved guns and violent acts on the part of the (now acquitted) defendants. This is simply not true. The Federal Authorities could have so charged them if they wished, but they did not. In court, that was never alleged. Defendants were instead tried as TERRORISTS, not for acts they committed but for what they may have been thinking, for "conspiracy to interfere with Federal Officers." This is Orwellian. Incarcerating people who have not been convicted of anything and holding them incommunicado is unconstitutional, but these ranchers, reporters, and women with cameras were so held for months. Some are still in prison, and this at a time when Obama was releasing jihadists and violent felons. “The 2014 Bundy Ranch protest has been mischaracterized by the media and the government as an armed standoff or a militia standoff. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. It was actually a peaceful protest. Here’s video evidence of the peaceful nature of the protest. There’s no need to debate whether the government narrative is correct. The protest is on tape. You can watch it for yourself. And when you do, you will see Ammon Bundy being peaceful and talking calmly with law enforcement. You’ll hear him tell law enforcement, “You have authority here.” Arnold Law Firm The events in Burns, Oregon in January 2016 were essentially a repeat of the BLM assault on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada in 2014, but this time the government used lethal force against peaceful protestors. Oregon has strong laws for transparency and public disclosure, including that ALL OREGON STATE POLICE RECORDS SURROUNDING LETHAL FORCE INCIDENTS WILL PROMPTLY BE MADE PUBLIC. A year after the Finicum killing, these records are still sealed. Here are some independent links to facts about Burns: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Burns-Standdown-Standoff-Attorney-ebook/dp/B01MU1JYV5 http://www.thepetesantillishow.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_0...ature=youtu.be http://blog.johntrudel.com/bloodshed-in-burns-oregon-who-to-bless-who-to-blame/ http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?page_id=1702 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLHiU8gYWY https://bundyranchstandoff.info/summary-evidence-shows-lawfully-armed-protesters/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNPNRmEHBb0&t=41s Here are some media interviews I have done about Burns: Link1 Link2 Link3 Link4 One year later: The meeting that never happened. Link. Oh Whoops! People plan and God laughs. It was assumed by virtually everyone – all the polls, all the media, all the pundits, and most of the world – that Hillary Clinton was certain to be elected President of the United States. Instead, she went down to a massive defeat. This upset many plans. What was supposed to happen was this: Hillary would be elected President. Kate Brown would be elected Governor of Oregon, and Brad Avakian (the wedding cake guy) would be elected Secretary of State. Before the Burns records were made public, Kate would take a position in the Hillary Administration. With Kate gone, Avakian would take over the Governor’s position the same way she did, by appointment. With Hillary as President and Kate long gone from Oregon, the Burns records would never see that light of day, the Russians would get America’s Uranium, the ranchers would be crushed, and Oregon would remain as one of the four far left socialist states in America for the foreseeable future. The problem now faced for those behind Burns is that neither Hillary nor Avakian were elected. Worse yet, despite the full force of the Obama DOJ, the trial of the first batch of defendants from Burns resulted in total acquittals. Worst of all, if you are a socialist, is that the dog did not bark. Hillary did not get a pardon from President Clinton before he left office. Neither did Loretta Lynch. (He obviously meant Obama) What’s Next? Oregon has been turned into the "Peoples Republic of Oregon." Law and order have suffered. If there is a full, objective investigation of the Finicum shooting, we get to see what happens when the irresistible force (the rule of law) hits the immovable object (Special Interests and Ruling Elites). https://gallery.mailchimp.com/678e02...7402eb265d.jpg It is possible that much good can result from truth coming out, statewide, and perhaps even nationally. Oregon’s (now-elected) Governor Kate will be in office for two more years. If she resigns or is removed from office, Oregon automatically gets a RepublicanGovernor, the first one in 30 years. Will the records surrounding the Finicum killing see the light of day? It could go either way. This will not be easy. It can only happen if there is statewide and national public and legal pressure to compel the Federal Government and the Oregon Legislature to take an active role in releasing public records. If Oregonians wake up and take action, the Trump administration and the rest of America will support us -- just as LaVoy Finicum and other citizens came to the tiny town of Burns to support the local ranchers. We can be sure that any move to fully disclose the events surrounding Uranium One and the Burns Standoff will be fiercely resisted. There have been massive efforts to keep the records sealed. Opening the records is required by law, and it is the best chance that the ranchers and others being held prisoner have of being pardoned, freed, and made whole. NOTE: As odd as it may seem, it is possible that Oregon may have NO USEFUL MECHANISM for recalling a Governor. If so, to charge and arrest her and/or force her to resign is the only way to deal with #KorruptKate. The ONLY STATE WHERE A GOVERNOR CANNOT BE IMPEACHED!!! Link. I think our little state may be in for a wild ride. The purpose of this note is to describe current reality and keep hope alive. Good luck to us all. About My Novels Thank you for reading and feel free to pass this along. My novels are doing well. They are up on Amazon and will remain there, available though all of Amazon's channels. Amazon is the the largest seller of E-Books, but it is no longer the only bookseller for my novels. I have added two new publishers and over 60 new distribution channels My intent is to get ALL my books available in ALL channels and ALL formats. Here is a link that discusses the many positive editorial reviews and awards that my novels have won. The first chapters of all my books are posted for FREE on www.johntrudel.com.Please share these links with your friends. Good luck to us all, and may God Bless America. Best, John D. Trudel P.S. I give media interviews and have an Author’s Website, Amazon Author’s pages in key Western Countries, and a blog. I have a presence for my novels on social media, from Facebook, to Twitter, Linked In, an RSS feed, etc. http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2.../black_dot.jpg http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2.../black_dot.jpg

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0d61bb2...es/divider.jpg Copyright © 2017 John D. Trudel D/B/A The Trudel Group All rights reserved.

[monty]

From March 14, Laughing in Court Not Allowed

https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...s-after-court/

No laughter allowed in court, but ‘Bundy Court Sketches’ provided plenty of laughs after court

Posted on March 16, 2017 by Doug Knowles

• https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C540&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C540&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C750&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C547&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C555&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C628&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C405&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C606&ssl=1
  
  
• https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C513&ssl=1
  
  
• 
  
• 
  

By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive Updated March 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown often warned defendants, defense lawyers and spectators that she wouldn't tolerate outbursts or laughter in the courtroom during the conspiracy trials against the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. One man, often hunched over a small pad of paper and scribbling with a pencil in the back row, paid close attention to fill the void.

Scott Klatt would take notes on the witnesses or exchanges in court, quickly draw a brief scene, add a caption and some dialogue. Then he'd post his "Bundy Court Sketches'' on Twitter and Facebook, providing plenty of laughs long after court recessed.

Klatt soon became a household name to those who closely followed the two federal court trials in Portland. After the first trial last fall, he compiled his sketches in a book and received orders from defense lawyers and frequent spectators. He even got requests for his autograph.

During the second trial that just ended Friday, he sometimes won praise from defendants, who often bore the brunt of his humor.

Take Jason Patrick, who chose to represent himself with a standby attorney.

Patrick, described by prosecutors as an organizer of the refuge occupation, often butted heads with the judge. He refused to stand when Brown entered the court and had a spat with her over his tardiness.

When his mother, Vickie Patrick, took the stand in early March as a defense witness, the judge commented: "So, you are Patrick's mom."

Klatt went from there with a sketch he called "Jason Patrick's Mum on the stand." He drew the son's tousled hair and beard, his hands outstretched, shouting: "Look Ma! I'm a lawyer!'' The standby lawyer, Andrew Kohlmetz, is shown eyeing his client nervously.

The next day, Patrick posted Klatt's sketch on his Facebook page, writing: "This cartoonist cracks me up.''

He didn't start out to sketch
Klatt, 46, had first traveled to Burns during the occupation of the refuge in January, thinking he'd make a documentary. A stand-up comic who grew up in Washington County, he'd dabbled in film-making.

The material for his stand-up routines came from "self-reflection,'' he said, about his struggles with dyslexia or bits on "people who had real jobs.'' In between, he'd find other work to help pay his bills.

He visited Burns two times, returning the second time on the night of Jan, 26, 2016, the day the FBI arrested the occupation's leaders and state police fatally shot takeover spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum.

His focus shifted to the courtroom where Bundy and others made their initial appearances. He continued to film outside the court, but federal court rules ban cameras inside courtrooms. So, he ended up dropping the camera and sitting in court, taking notes with his pad and pencil.

How it began
As defendants prepared for the first trial, Bundy one day stood up in court between his lawyers to try to address the judge himself and the judge quickly told him to take his seat.

That gave Klatt an idea: "I would just do a silly bad court sketch of the event."

He had a "cheap No. 2 pencil'' and computer paper as he made his first drawing. "I had no idea what I was doing," he said.

He took a photo of the drawing and shared it on his Twitter account. He gained more than 30 followers.

"I knew within 10 minutes I had something," Klatt said. 'So I started to draw what I saw in court and use it as a vehicle to write jokes and document the goings-on within the walls of the strangest court case anyone has ever seen."

He said he tried to follow the rules he learned in improv: Don't worry about it. Don't make it perfect. Throw it up fast.

And he kept going, posting sketches throughout the five-week trial that ended with the acquittals of Bundy and six co-defendants.

Klatt described it as his "mid-life crisis art project," considering he never before had any interest in free-hand drawing and had recently gone through a divorce.

He was struck by all the characters in the courtroom. "Everyone from (Ken) Medenbach to (Marcus) Mumford, the diversity of the personalities was just fascinating to me,'' he said.

Book takes off
He'd take notes on the interesting exchanges between the defendants, their lawyers, the judge and witnesses that might have potential for a joke.

He sometimes drew quick caricatures of the people while he sat in court, pointing out whether they had a round head or big ears or spiky hair. He fleshed out the jokes in his mind on his drive home to Tigard and would finish the sketches there.

He soon received requests from followers to compile his sketches into a book and did just that. He also included drawings of the occupation and called the self-published book, "The Migration - Snack or Die." He sold each online for $25 and also sold some of his original artwork, earning nearly $6,000 with the sale of about 200 to 300 copies, he said.

The wife of Ammon Bundy's lawyer, Marcus Mumford, ordered one around Christmas time, Klatt said.

Defense lawyer Robert Salisbury, who represented Jeff Banta in the first trial, recently stopped by court for a signed copy.
"He captured the zany spirit of the courtroom with very few words," Salisbury said.

Second trial
During the trial that just wrapped up, Klatt included a noticeable addition to the courtroom in many of his sketches: the colorful flowers that graced the judge's bench since the first day of jury selection. Those weren't there during the initial trial.

In one scene, he depicted the dull reading aloud to jurors of a transcript of witness Brand Thornton's testimony from the first trial. A defense lawyer and his investigator read the transcript, and Klatt jotted in his notebook, "Worst Play Ever!'' The judge in Klatt's sketch looks over to one of her flowers, finding it wilted, and bemoans, "You killed my flower."

In another sketch, Klatt captured the judge's admonition of an FBI agent who, as he held up one rifle after another for jurors, seemed to point one or two in the judge's direction. "Sir, watch where you're pointing that!" Brown told the agent.

In Klatt's drawing called "FBI Agent Miss the Mark," the agent is looking to his right and pointing to where the refuge is located on a courtroom exhibit while pointing a pistol in his left hand directly at the judge. The agent in the sketch tells the judge, "Here hold this gun."

Klatt said he's planning to compile another book - a "narrative of one of the craziest court cases I think anyone has seen" -- while he looks for a side job to pay his rent and travel to Nevada in order to sketch some of the Bundy trial there. Ammon Bundy, several of his brothers and his father all face charges there in the 2014 standoff over grazing rights near Bunkerville.

He expects to call his next book, "bundy, et al,'' drawing from the official name of the Oregon court case against Bundy and 25 defendants.

"I look for the funny things around the edges - that ephemeral stuff," he said. "I hope to give people a glimpse of what it was like to sit through a court case that can only be described as hysterically funny chaos."

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

source

[monty]

This video was made a year ago shortly after the so called investigation of LaVoy Finicum's murder. It features Utah Rancher/Lawyer/Journalist Todd MacFarlane and Sibel Edmonds. I don't remember if it is posted here or not.
Multi-Layered Cover-Up in "Finicum Shooting" and Subsequent Investigation


1hr 12 minutes

https://youtu.be/adfdFHDojBA

[monty]

I ran across this article from March 11. It covers all the facts that the jury was not allowed to hear and several other questionable actions of Judge Brown

Defendants Found Guilty In Oregon Case, Judge Now Under Attack For Alleged Unethical Actions

https://conservativedailypost.com/de...hical-actions/

Defendants Found Guilty In Oregon Case, Judge Now Under Attack For Alleged Unethical Actions


Donna Kay Mar 11, 2017

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...03/Defense.jpg
An Attorney Speaks To The Media Following The Trial, In Which Two Defendants Were Found Guilty, But The Judge Had Some Questionable Actions

Unlike the first trial, in which jurors found Oregon wildlife refuge occupiers not guilty, today jurors in the second trial rendered a different fate for four different defendants of the peaceful protest. A fate decided by a trial riddled with questionable and appealable actions of an unethical judge who is actively been pursued for removal from the bench for months prior to the trial.

Actions including allegations the judge actively worked with federal prosecutors on strategy and denying the defense the right to call many of its witnesses. Actions of shutting down and admonishing witness testimonies that clearly contradicted charges made by federal prosecutors.

And a ruling making herself sole judge and jury in deciding lesser charges that were added just weeks before the trial and denying defendants the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. A ruling made on Feb. 2, leaving defense attorneys little time to prepare an adequate defense since the judge has stated she will decide those charges shortly after a verdict. Which begs the questions of not if an appeal will be filed, but rather when and will any action be taken against Federal Judge Anna J. Brown?

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...ge-brown-1.jpg
Efforts on building to have federal judge Anna J. Brown removed from the bench over allegations of unethical actions she took in the Oregon trials.

Unlike the first trial, which lasted nearly five weeks, the second Oregon standoff trial was wrapped up in two weeks. With closing arguments conducted earlier this week, the jury took three days to arrive at split verdicts against Jason Patrick, Darryl Thorn, Jake Ryan and Duane Ehmer.

Shortly before 4pm the jury delivered the verdicts. Thorn and Patrick were found guilty “conspiring to impede federal workers from doing their jobs through force, intimidation or force,” while Thorn was also found guilty of possessing a firearm in a federal building. Ryan and Ehmer were found guilty of lesser charges of destruction of government property.

The defense conceded the two had dug small trenches to crawl in out of fear of rumored FBI violence against the occupiers, one validated by the shooting death of AZ rancher LaVoy Finacum by law enforcement agents, even though Finacum stood in compliance with both hands over his head.

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...7/03/cross.jpg
A cross was erected at the location of LaVoy Finacum’s death at the hands of government agents even though Finacum stood in submission with hands in the air. The FBI is under investigation for the senseless fatal attack.

Theatrically speaking, the second trial was not as intense as the first. However, there were moments of explosive testimony revealing corrupt tactics implemented by the FBI during the ranchers’ peaceful takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge more than a year ago. There were eyewitness accounts that directly contradicted the claims and charges brought against the defendants.

Which makes one wonder why the jury reached the verdicts delivered?

The protest garnered national attention as thousands of western ranching families watched in disbelief at the MSM frenzy fueled by government officials who escalated and sensationalized the event by misrepresenting the facts to the public; recklessly mislabeling these average American ranchers as “anti-government militants” and “homegrown terrorists.”

A protest that involved top FBI and Dept. Of Justice brass as well as US Congressmen and former President Obama. A peaceful protest that ended in a henchman style hit job on Finacum; a voice of reason that was resonating with thousands of Americans, not just western ranchers. A man who repeatedly talked of respect for government and a patriot’s love of the Constitution who was referred to as “the virus,” by a US Congressman.

Yet, accounts and reports coming out of the MSM and government spokespeople were not ALL factual as many close to the protest know. Witnesses took the stand over the past two weeks, disputing much of assistant US Attorney Geoffrey Barrow’s claims and accusations in opening statements that were previously reported here.

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...7/03/ammon.jpg
Seen during the Oregon standoff, Ammon Bundy and other ranchers spent much time assisting local ranchers and making repairs at the refuge site. Repairs needed after years of neglect by federal employees. Does this look like a dangerous “terrorist’ conspiring against the government?

Two witnesses in particular shook the prosecutor’s case to the very core, including the testimony of one government witness, FBI special agent, Ronnie Walker.

As reported here on Feb. 28, Walker admitted under oath paid FBI informants who infiltrated the protest were ordered and authorized to conduct illegal activities while at the refuge. The riveting testimony brought into question the credibility of now “retired” FBI Special Agent Supervisor, Greg Bretzing, who was in charge of the Oregon standoff.

Not only did Walker’s testimony directly conflict with Bretzing’s earlier testimony, but it also raises questions about the FBI’s handling of the protest. Who ordered drone surveillance and the roadblocks that illegally trapped Finacum and others at a blind curve in a remote area where no cell phone coverage was available? Who authorized paid “informants” to break the law? How far up the chain of command does the corrupt and unethical actions of the FBI go? And who authorized the misrepresentations and flat out lies being fed to the press during the media frenzy at the time of the occupation?

Walker’s testimony was only the beginning of the prosecution’s case falling apart in open court. According to a OregonLive online report, another witness, a FBI paid “informant,” shattered all charges that protesters had “conspired” and continued to “conspire” after taking over the refuge. Testimony that also disputed prosecutor charges the protesters were violent and worked together to impede government officials from performing their duties at the refuge.

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...momma-bear.jpg
Seen outside Portland Federal courthouse last year, FBI Informant Terri “Momma Bear” Linnell shattered prosecution claims with her testimony; confirming other eyewitnesses’ accounts revealing the lies and corrupt tactics used by the FBI.

Terri Linnell who resides in San Diego, CA and previously worked for the FBI, testified she was paid $3,000 plus traveling and other expenses to infiltrate the protest and report back to agents what she heard. She said she went to the refuge and volunteered to cook, all the while never knowing or being informed she was in violation of the law, according to charges against the defendants. Likewise, agents knew of her activities at the refuge including having a firearm in her possession, another charge brought against protesters.
Linnell confirmed other witness accounts that at no time did the protesters threaten, intimidate or impede any federal employee from entering and working on the site. To the contrary they were invited along with anyone else who wanted to come to the refuge.

“No, everybody was allowed there – even had anti-protesters,” she responded to defense attorney Marc Friedman’s inquiry if she knew or heard of any plans to impede federal workers.
Having shared a room with defendant Thorn and others, Linnell had inside access to information and plans. She continually testified never were there any discussion or plans to threaten anyone or commit acts of violence. To the contrary she described an open, friendly and welcoming environment in which many people stopped by just to visit and meet with “a bunch of good people” as she described the protesters.

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...7/03/women.jpg
There were entire families at the refuge including children. According to witnesses who visited the occupiers, everyone was welcomed and offered a hot meal including members of the press, law enforcement and federal workers. One witness said it was like being at a big “family reunion.”

However, Linnell infuriated prosecutors and brought the ire of Judge Brown when she delved into talking about the inaccurate reports coming out of FBI mouthpieces and carried by the Mainstream media. Oregonian reporter Maxine Bernstein who has covered the trial since the beginning wrote:
“As she talked about how some people thought from media accounts that the refuge occupiers ‘were going to start a war,’ prosecutors stood to object that her answers were beyond the scope of defense questions. ‘Stop! Stop!,” yelled U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown. The judge admonished her to simply answer the questions.”

As a first hand witness working for the FBI does it not stand to reason Linnell should be allowed to testify to the facts of what actually happened including testimony of irresponsible and un-factual accounts being reported by the media and fueled by government officials?

Is it not relevant government officials may have intentionally misled the press and lied to the American people to the facts on the ground inside of the refuge? Facts the FBI was receiving from their own 15 informants, like Linnell, who were on the “inside” of the protest and reporting to agents nearly every day; a truth covered up by the FBI. Does the jury not have a right to know these facts which directly conflict with accounts presented by Barrow in opening arguments and FBI statements?

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...ll-welcome.jpg
Contrary to inaccurate reports by the MSM and government mouthpieces all were welcome to come and go at the refuge during the protest including law enforcement. Witnesses testified to this fact during the trial.

Barrow continued to press Linnell during cross examination, attempting to get something out of the witness that would help his case, but to no avail. When asked by Barrow if Linnell had told FBI agents there were discussions about taking over more federal property, she was quick to deny those reports.

“I did not say that,” she answered. “That’s why I had a serious problem with these reports. These were wrong reports.”

Linnell attempted to explain she told FBI agents there were other people who visited the refuge and asked the ranchers to come to their county to educate people on land rights. Again the judge immediately cut Linnell off. Why?

Judges are suppose to be impartial, but by her own actions, Judge Brown showed little impartiality during the course of the trial, repeatedly impeding the defense and eyewitness accounts that prove the prosecution’s case has no legal merits and should have never been pursued.

There is also proof Judge Brown met privately with jurors after the first trial to find out why they did not convict the defendants; an unprecedented move seen by the defense as a way to assist the prosecution in future standoff trials. Is this not at the very least unethical if not right out illegal? Was there a joining of minds between Brown and prosecutors after her “private” meeting with jurors? Did, as many believe, Brown assist federal prosecutors with a strategy laid out in clandestine meetings to ensure some type of a conviction in the second trial regardless if the current jury came back with a not guilty verdict as well?

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...7/03/ehmer.jpgDefendant Ehmer is challenging the judge’s questionable actions through legal filings.

Brown ruled that she, and only she, will make a decision in the misdemeanor charges filed only weeks before the trial was set to begin. According to a Feb. 2 Associated Press report, Brown made the decision to separate those with lesser charges and then refused defendants their right to a jury trial. Since when does a defendant not have the right to have a jury of peers decide a case?

She stated there is no conflict in her overseeing and ruling on the charges even though she is the same judge over both standoff trials. The defense attorney for Ehmer objected to Brown’s rulings in court filings; requesting another judge to decide the minor charges, while noting Brown’s meeting with previous jurors.
Attorney Michele Kohler cites in Elmer’s court filings, “(Brown) not only answered questions the jurors had, but also discussed the merits of the case with specific reference to potential misdemeanor offenses that could have been used by the government.”

The same lesser charges like “trespassing” and “destruction of government property” Brown discussed with jurors, while noting jurors’ feedback, which were later added against the second trial defendants after the “private” meeting.

With little advance notice, Brown at one point forced defense attorneys to cut their witnesses from 18 to eight who were lined up to testify last Thursday. The defense was left scrambling at the last minute in an effort to determine which witnesses to put on the stand. Does the defense not have a right to call whatever witnesses it deems necessary to defend their clients? Does this not call into question Brown’s legal judgment, one more unethical action which reveals a deep bias against the defendants?

“The judge won’t let the truth get to the jury,” Ehmer posted on his Facebook page. “Won’t let us have but a small fraction of the testimony.”

What about Linnell’s testimony concerning the facts of her own inside observations is inadmissible to the point the judge stops her from talking and issues an admonishment? Is it because her testimony directly contradicted prosecutor allegations and FBI statements or something else?

Perhaps the fact two carloads of protestors were headed to a meeting in a neighboring county at the request of the county sheriff to speak to more than 300 people when they ran into FBI roadblocks. Cell phone video taken from inside Finacum’s vehicle reveals Finacum repeatedly told agents who aimed gun lasers at his head, he and the others were on their way to meet up with the sheriff and invited the agents to follow them.

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...7/03/black.jpg
Do these look like local police at the standoff or government hired black ops thugs?

Instead of taking the peaceful resolution to join Finacum at the sheriff’s office, agents, unprovoked, instead fired at the vehicle forcing Finacum to flee to protect not only himself, but other passengers, including a young 18-year-old girl. Not far down the road, hidden behind a blind curve, another roadblock was already in place with snipers lurking in the woods waiting to take their shot. And take their shot they did as Finacum stood in submission with his hands in the air. They achieved their goal: “silence the virus.”

Are these the facts the Judge feared Linnell would testify to when bringing up the fateful meeting in the other county? Facts the jury never heard in this trial. Facts that should have been allowed since it calls into question the actions and credibility of the FBI and more specifically the now “retired” chief Bretzing. And the MSM stays “silent” about the fact the FBI is now under investigation for the death of Finacum.

Another defense witness was called in to discredit Blaine Cooper’s testimony for the prosecution. Cooper was charged in the protest, but cut a deal to “co-operate” in exchange for getting himself a lighter sentence. However, his testimony was quickly repudiated by Cooper’s own father who called his son a known “liar” during defense questioning.

Unlike the first trial none of the defendants opted to take the stand instead relying on Ammon Bundy to testify on their behalf. Bundy who remains jailed for over a year now while facing charges from the Nevada standoff, was flown in from Henderson, NV. Bundy also was charged in the Oregon standoff, but was one of the defendants in the first trial found not guilty on all accounts.

The facts in this case were clear as was the case and the same facts in the first trial. There was never any “conspiracy”, or any threats, intimidation or impediment of federal workers. Witness after witness testified to this even referring the occupation as being like a “family reunion” in which all were invited and offered a hot meal including law enforcement officers and federal employees. A person cannot be convicted of “trespassing” on public land but it is most certainly assured Brown in her vindictive bias will pile on more punishment.

The only illegal activities were those of paid “informants” ordered by the FBI, and the only violence committed was at the hands of government officials. And yet federal prosecutors and agents have wasted the taxpayers money and destroyed the lives of good people based on a political disagreement; one in which the federal government seeks to use to silence all Americans permanently.

Where is the redress for that? When will THEY be held accountable for unethical illegal behavior and corruption?

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...pelement-1.jpg
Now retired FBI special agent in charge Bretzing is responsible for the illegal roadblocks that led to the death of Finacum. Bretzing is one of any who need to be investigated at the federal level.

And where is the “fourth” branch of government; the one given First Amendment protection to keep in check those holding the power in the other three branches? Where is the Mainstream Media now the truth was being revealed daily for two weeks? Silent. But the MSM will come out of hiding know with their peacock feathers fully found to announce the guilty verdict.

The Oregon protest was just that, a legally executed stand by average everyday Americans exercising their rights under the Constitution to assemble peaceably to force an overreaching and corrupt federal government to listen to their grievances.

Grievances that have been voiced for years through usual legal channels starting with local government officials and even taken as high as congressional offices but with no redress, only silence coming from death ears.

A group of frustrated cowboys who many for generations have battled harsh climates to toil the western lands; going about their daily business of providing the food on every American table and raising their families. Generations of peaceful, patriotic country folk with a great love for the land, until an out of control corrupt bullying government agency decided it and only it was the rule of law, the BLM.

The jury in the first trial got it right when they found the seven defendants not guilty. So we all have to ask ourselves how did this jury get it so wrong? And how much more will their verdict embolden an already out of control and corrupt federal authority who will use this opportunity to squash even more rights affecting every American citizen not only the good people who are the western ranching families. God Bless them and ball they have endured and are about to endure.

As a footnote:
This writer would like to correct two errors that were published in a Feb. 28 editorial about the current Oregon standoff trial. A defendant, Montana native Jake Ryan, was unintentionally identified as Jake Payne. Another defendant charged in the Oregon protest is Ryan Payne who is not on trial but settled his case with a plea agreement, one he is now seeking to void.

The editorial also stated five defendants were acquitted in the first trial when in actuality there were seven who were acquitted. This writer apologizes for any confusion created as result of the errors.

Trending Now In Local Area

[monty]

Kelli Stewart reports on the misdemeanor sentencing Malheur 2 trial



https://youtu.be/g2xJSj3zg4Y

[monty]

From the Oregonion Jason Patrick's lawyer reacts to sentencing



https://youtu.be/kA0xpUwJzJg

[monty]

Free Range Report, reprint from Maxine Berstein @ The Oregonian



https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=601%2C143Feds convict 4 Oregon Standoff protesters on minor charges, sentencing in May

March 22, 2017 editor Leave a comment

Prosecutors conceded in their legal brief that the vehicles and equipment had no government markings, but argued strong circumstantial evidence showed the defendants knew they belonged to the refuge. But even so, Barrow argued, the government didn’t need to show the defendants knew the vehicles belonged to the Fish & Wildlife Service because ownership isn’t an element of the tampering charge.

Maxine Bernstein
OregonLive

A federal judge on Tuesday found four men guilty of trespassing and other misdemeanor charges for their roles in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last winter.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown issued her rulings in court against Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer, Darryl Thorn and Jake Ryan — the final four defendants in the Malheur case to go on trial.

Shortly afterward, Patrick was taken into custody by deputy U.S. marshals after the judge ordered that he be placed on electronic monitoring as he awaited sentencing.

Patrick, described by prosecutors as an organizer of last winter’s occupation, chose to go to jail instead. He stood, removed his blue blazer, took off his belt, emptied his pockets, placed his pack of cigarettes on the defense table and was handcuffed. He turned to his mother in the courtroom gallery and said, “I love you,” before he was led out.

A jury returned verdicts against the four on separate felony charges on March 10, finding each guilty of at least one felony.

The judge decided the misdemeanor charges based on testimony presented during the trial, additional evidence presented in court while the jury was deliberating and arguments made in court briefs from prosecutors and defense attorneys.

In a 40-page written ruling, Brown found it “highly improbable” that the occupiers would have allowed refuge employees or an “unsympathetic federal official” to go onto the property during the takeover. She also said no formal notice of trespass or official demand to leave was needed to find the defendants guilty of trespass.

Brown concluded that all participants in the occupation knew the refuge was federal government property and knew they didn’t have any authority over the wildlife sanctuary.
“This fact was not only obvious to any reasonable observer, it was fundamental to the purposes of those who took over and continued to control the MNWR,” Brown wrote. “Indeed, knowing that their actions were not authorized was inherent in the occupiers’ efforts to attempt to assert ‘adverse possession’ over the MNWR and to protest what they described as federal government overreach.”

Occupation leader Ammon Bundy had testified repeatedly that he intended to stake claim to the property through the principle of adverse possession and turn it over to the people of Harney County.

Document: Judge’s written ruling

Besides convicting each of the four of trespass, the judge also found:
— Patrick, 44, of Bonaire, Georgia, guilty of tampering with vehicles and equipment, and destruction of property.
Aerial surveillance captured Patrick driving a government Dodge Durango on the refuge property on Jan. 27, 2016. He also was filmed cutting a barbed-wire fence on the perimeter of the refuge on Jan. 11, 2016.

— Ehmer, 46, of Irrigon, Oregon, guilty of tampering with vehicles and equipment for using a refuge excavator to dig trenches on the property on Jan. 27, 2016.
The judge found him not guilty of removing government and private property.

FBI agents had found a maroon pouch stuffed beneath the passenger seat of his car that contained refuge gas cards, an employee’s ID card and cash and receipts belonging to the nonprofit Friends of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

His defense lawyer argued that Ehmer had taken the pouch for safekeeping, believing it contained cash donations for the occupiers.

Prosecutors, the judge found, failed to prove that Ehmer knew the pouch belonged to the refuge or the federal government.

“In light of the lack of evidence that Ehmer opened the pouch; the label on the front of the pouch that read “New Money”; and the lack of markings associating the pouch with the United States government, the MNWR, or the Friends, the government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ehmer knew or should have known that the pouch or any of its contents belonged to the United States and/or to the Friends,” Brown wrote.

Ehmer, after the hearing, said he was pleased about the not guilty verdict.

“The world knows I’m not a thief now,” he said.

— Thorn, 32, of Marysville, Washington, guilty of one count of tampering with a vehicle — a refuge all-terrain vehicle, but not guilty on another count of tampering with a vehicle, what was described in the criminal information sheet as a front-loader.

His lawyer argued that it was a backhoe, and noted that refuge manager Chad Karges had identified the vehicle as a backhoe.

The judge, as a result, found “the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the machine that Thorn operated was the alleged front-end loader.”
— Ryan, 28, of Plains, Montana, guilty of tampering with vehicles and equipment for using an excavator to dig trenches with Ehmer on Jan. 27, 2016.

https://i1.wp.com/media.oregonlive.c...g?zoom=2&w=860

Oregon standoff defendants: Outcomes, sentencing dates

Of 26 indicted, 11 pleaded guilty to felony charges and three others pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespass charge. Seven were acquitted of all charges after a trial last fall. Four others were convicted of felony charges and misdemeanor charges after jury and bench trials that ended this month. Charges were dismissed against one defendant, Peter Santilli.

The defense had argued that the federal regulation involving trespass at a national wildlife refuge was vague. They also said defendants never received formal notice they were trespassing and the government couldn’t prove that the four ever saw trespassing signs on the property.

Defense lawyers pointed to testimony and photos that showed the Durango, ATV, excavator and front-loader didn’t have U.S. Fish & Wildlife decals on them and the Durgano also had no license plate.

Prosecutors countered that the defense team’s arguments in the face of “overwhelming” evidence defied common sense.

“At the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, notices were posted at the entryway regarding permissible uses, at the front gate noting when the refuge was open and near the offices and workplaces defendants occupied designating those areas closed to the public. …Defendants’ claims that they did not see these signs is simply not credible,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Barrow wrote in a court filing.

Prosecutors conceded in their legal brief that the vehicles and equipment had no government markings, but argued strong circumstantial evidence showed the defendants knew they belonged to the refuge. But even so, Barrow argued, the government didn’t need to show the defendants knew the vehicles belonged to the Fish & Wildlife Service because ownership isn’t an element of the tampering charge.

Defense lawyers said, though, that both sides agreed before the trial that prosecutors had to prove that the defendants knew the equipment belonged to the government as an element of the offense.

Attorney Michele Kohler, who represents Ehmer, said the government can’t change the burden of proof now. “The defendants’ entire defense rested on the lack of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that as to each defendant they ‘knowingly’ committed the offenses alleged,” she wrote.

The judge found that reasonable people in the defendants’ circumstances would know that they lacked authority to enter the vehicles that they found on the refuge.

Prosecutors filed the misdemeanor charges against the defendants in late December after last fall’s across-the-board acquittals of occupation leaders Ammon Bundy, his older brother, Ryan Bundy, and five co-defendants on felony charges.

The four defendants had wanted a jury to decide the misdemeanor counts, but Brown ruled they didn’t have the right to a jury trial for such petty offenses.
Each misdemeanor conviction could bring up to six months in prison.

Patrick and Ehmer were present in court Tuesday. Ryan and Thorn waived their appearances, but Thorn listened to the proceeding by phone.

Sentencings are tentatively set for May 10. Further hearings will be set on government forfeiture and restitution claims.

Andrew Kohlmetz, Patrick’s lawyer, said he expected the misdemeanor convictions.

“Nobody harbored any illusions about what was going to happen,” Kohlmetz said. “We always expected they would be found guilty.”

But he called the misdemeanor counts “throw-away charges in case the others didn’t stick.”

Tung Yin, a Lewis and Clark Law School professor, said that the guideline range for defendants’ sentencing will be calculated based on the most serious convictions, such as the federal conspiracy to impede or possession of firearms in a federal facility.

“Practically speaking, the misdemeanors don’t likely add much in terms of the sentencing guideline range,” Yin said.

Patrick chooses custody over electronic monitoring

https://i1.wp.com/image.oregonlive.c...size=199%2C248
Jason Patrick’s new mug shot, March 21, 2017MCSO

Pretrial services officer Nick Nischik had recommended Patrick be placed on home detention and electronic monitoring. Nischik argued that Patrick had been difficult to contact because he had no stable residence, has remained unemployed for close to a year despite a pretrial condition that he find work and hasn’t resolved a pending charge in Georgia.
In light of the jury’s verdicts on his felony charges, Barrow told the court he didn’t think Nischik’s request was unreasonable.

But Kohlmetz said monitoring was unnecessary.

“We object to the request of GPS monitoring,” Kohlmetz said, noting that Patrick has made all court appearances and committed no new offenses. He said Patrick was staying mostly with his mother and sister in Washington state, had found “spot work” with B.J. Soper and was spending the past year preparing for his case.

Patrick was indicted in 2015 on a charge of making terroristic threats, a felony, in Houston County, Georgia, and hasn’t been required to appear in court as he intends to fight the allegation at a trial, his lawyer said.

“It sounds worse than it is,” Kohlmetz said.

He was overheard “threatening to kill everyone inside the Warner Robins Municipal Court complex,” south of Macon, physically resisting arrest and refusing to follow a police officer’s commands to leave the courthouse lobby, according to the indictment filed in Houston County Superior Court.

Brown noted there were many times that Patrick “simply refused to do what was directed,” citing late arrivals to his trial.

“For Mr. Patrick, there’s every incentive to continue his defiant behavior,” the judge said. “He can’t simply come and go from place to place given his current status.”

Brown said she was approving the electronic monitoring for Patrick but asked that his lawyer provide the pretrial services officer with more specific information about where Patrick would be staying.

Moments later, Kohlmetz stood and told the court, “Mr. Patrick would prefer to be taken into custody.”

Before court, Patrick told The Oregonian/OregonLive that he would cut off an electronic monitoring anklet or bracelet if the judge had ordered it. His time in custody will count toward any prison term he is given once sentenced, his lawyer said.

“Jason strongly believes people in authority need to be questioned,” Kohlmetz said. “Some people in authority don’t like to be questioned.”

Patrick’s mother, Vickie Patrick, said later she wasn’t surprised by her son’s decision.

“He always prepares me ahead of time,” she said. “It’s still harrowing yes, but I’m not surprised, at least.”

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C482
Free Range Report

Related

Feds try to crucify second round of Oregon Standoff defendants on minor charges March9, 2017In "Bureau of Land Management"

Nevada, Oregon Bundy trials marred by bumbling prosecutors, tainted witnesses February16, 2017In "Government Run Amok"

Citing bias, Oregon Standoff defendant seeks new judge for case February 3, 2017In "Human Rights"


Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Share




Government Run Amok, Human Rights, Land Disputes adverse possession, Ammon Bundy, Judge Anna J. Brown, Malheur Refuge, misdemeanors, Oregon Standoff, trial

[monty]

Double Jeopardy ~ Outpost lf Freedom

Burns Chronicles No 58 – “Twice Put in Jeopardy”

March 22, 2017, 10:16 pm
Burns Chronicles N^o 58
“Twice Put in Jeopardy”

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...uble-Gavel.jpgGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 23, 2017

Of course, we must start with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, as it is the “supreme Law of the Land. The pertinent part reads:
“No person… shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

Now, that phrase, “twice put in jeopardy” is also referred to as “Double Jeopardy”, though whichever way we choose to phrase it, the meaning is quite simple. If you are charged with a crime, absent a mistrial or some other legitimate cause, you can only stand trial one time.

It used to be that a crime was simply stated. If you murdered someone, then you were charged with murder. If you murdered more than one person, then additional counts of murder were added to the charge. You would not be charged with, say, unlawful discharge of a firearm within the limits of the city, destruction of private property if the bullet damaged something, assault, illegal possession of a weapon, or any other crimes that you may have committed while also committing murder. You simply stood trial for murder.

If you were acquitted, that was it. If they found additional evidence that proved that you had really committed the murder, that was too bad. They had their chance, and they blew it.

This protection, afforded by the Bill of Rights was a prohibition against the government trying and then retrying, you until they could get a conviction. It also precluded your being tried by one court, found not guilty, and then tried by another court in different jurisdiction, for the same crime..

So, let’s look at what has recently occurred in Portland, Oregon. The first trial, in September and October 2016, comprised of charges arising from the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), near Burns, Oregon. In that trial, which included the charge of “conspiracy”, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Neil Wampler, Kenneth Medenbach, and Jeffrey Banta (Group 1), were acquitted by a jury.

The next trial, held in February and March 2017, included the remaining defendants, Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer, Darryl Thorn, and Jake Ryan. This second (Group 2) trial went to the jury with the same charges as the first trial. However, it appears that United States Attorney Billy J. Williams, concerned that after spending an estimated $100 million dollars thus far, and no conviction to show for it, opted to insure a conviction justifying the extravagant expenditure of public money. He did so by bringing additional misdemeanor charges, not by a Grand Jury, but rather by what is known as an “information”.

The two trials were conjoined for certain portions of the respective trials (some of the testimony that also applied to the misdemeanor charges was heard by the jury). When the felony charges went to the jury, the Court continued with a bench trial (judge only, no jury) and additional testimony with regard to the misdemeanor charges.

As a side note, the felony trial portion ended with a guilty verdict of at least one guilty charge against each defendant.

Now, we move on to the misdemeanor bench trail of the defendants. The Judge, Anna J. Brown, who presided over the Group 1 and Group 2 jury trials was also the judge who presided over the bench trial. This somewhat irregular practice was discussed in “Burns Chronicles No 54 – To Jury, or, Not To Jury” and decided outside of the Rules of Court. After a few days of deliberation, she found all four defendants guilty of at least one charge. On March 21, 2017, she filed “Legal Standards, Findings of Fact, and Verdicts on Class B Misdemeanor Charges“. We are going to take some excerpts from that document to understand just what happened when these additional charges were brought and tried.

1. Many individuals both within and outside of the Burns area learned of the re-sentencing decisions and strongly objected to the Hammonds’ being required to return to prison.

Well, that is what started his whole situation. Dwight and Steven Hammond were tried, found guilty, sentenced, served their time, and then tried, again, in the appellate court, sentenced to an additional 4 years in prison, which they are currently serving.

1. Beginning in November 2015 individuals from outside the Burns area, including Ammon Bundy who lived in Emmett, Idaho, traveled to Burns to organize a protest in support of the Hammonds. At least some of them also sought to prevent the Hammonds from being required to return to prison.

Heck, Ammon Bundy was acquitted in the Group 1 trial. However, the inclusion of his name in this document is a stunning insight into the thought process of Judge Brown’s desire to obtain a conviction, setting aside the jury verdict, at least in her own mind, the rules of jurisprudence and the Constitution notwithstanding.

1. As part of their ongoing protest of the re-sentencing of the Hammonds, Ammon Bundy and others, including Defendant Jason Patrick, organized and recruited people during December 2015 to participate in a protest march to take place on January 2, 2016, in Burns, Oregon, in support of the Hammonds.

The acquittal in the Group 1 trial is ignored, as this statement is made in the misdemeanor “Findings of Fact”. So, the jury’s finding of not guilty of conspiracy is now asserted as fact in order to justify a misdemeanor conviction.

1. In anticipation of the January 2, 2016, march, Ammon Bundy held a private meeting on December 29, 2015, at a home in Burns, Oregon. Ryan Payne, Jon Ritzheimer, Blaine Cooper, Defendant Jason Patrick, and others were present at that meeting. Ammon Bundy requested all attendees to leave their cellular telephones outside of this meeting so that the substance of the meeting would not be recorded.
2. At the December 29, 2015, meeting, Ammon Bundy proposed an armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) (located approximately 30 miles south of Burns) to take place after the protest march on January 2, 2016. Some, but not all, of the meeting attendees agreed with Ammon Bundy’s plan.

Here, again, we enter the realm of conspiracy, which was also found by the first jury to have not been committed. However, she manages to present this, too, as fact.

1. Consistent with the plan developed at the December 29, 2015, meeting, Ryan Payne, Jon Ritzheimer, Defendant Jason Patrick, Blaine Cooper, Brand Thornton, Walter “Butch” Eaton, and others left Burns as the January 2, 2016, protest march was concluding. They drove in multiple vehicles to the MNWR headquarters compound.
2. When they arrived at the MNWR headquarters compound, these individuals conducted a military-style sweep of most of the MNWR headquarters buildings to ensure that there were not any MNWR employees present. Most of the individuals who conducted the sweep, including Defendant Jason Patrick, were armed with long guns, including AR-15-type semiautomatic rifles.
3. After sweeping the buildings, these individuals set up armed blockades at each entrance to the MNWR headquarters compound and placed armed individuals in a fire watchtower near the main entrance to the MNWR headquarters to keep lookout on the surrounding area. Those who staffed the blockades were usually also equipped with radios. By taking over the MNWR in this fashion, the armed occupiers secured the MNWR headquarters compound and controlled who could enter and remain on the premises.
4. Due to holiday and weekend staffing there were not any employees present at the MNWR when the individuals conducted the sweep, but the MNWR was otherwise open to the public on January 2, 2016. There were, nevertheless, numerous signs around the MNWR headquarters compound that gave notice of the hours during which the MNWR was open to the public, the specified conduct that was permitted and prohibited on the MNWR, and the identified areas that were always closed to the public. Multiple signs clearly stated the MNWR was only open to the public from sunrise to sunset.

Again, the determination of the actual facts, by the first jury trial, are given, contrarily, as “Findings of Fact” in the third (misdemeanor) trial. How can those statements be facts, in light of the jury’s findings in the first trial? Judge Brown has presented them as facts, conjecture (accusation in the indictment), that, clearly, the jury did not find convincing. For the record, there was only one sign, that up on Sodhouse Lane, not “multiple signs”.

1. At the conclusion of the protest march in Burns, Ammon Bundy announced to the remaining protesters that he and others had decided to continue the protest by taking a “hard stand” and taking over the MNWR, and he invited protesters to join them at the MNWR.
2. Ammon Bundy and others from the protest proceeded to the MNWR to join those who had earlier swept and secured the MNWR headquarters compound. This conduct began the armed occupation of the MNWR headquarters compound that would last until February 12, 2016.
3. Between January 2 and January 26, 2016, various occupiers organized armed “security” teams that maintained the armed blockades at the entrances to the MNWR headquarters compound and the armed lookouts in the fire watchtower near the main entrance to the MNWR headquarters compound.
4. Notwithstanding these armed security measures, the occupiers permitted various individuals to proceed past the blockades at the entrances, to visit the MNWR headquarters area, or to stay and to join the occupation. Most of those individuals who were permitted to enter the MNWR were supporters of the occupiers, but from time to time media representatives and counter-protesters were also permitted to enter the MNWR headquarters compound. Nevertheless, no federal officials, including federal law-enforcement officers, BLM employees, or MNWR employees, entered the MNWR headquarters compound during the occupation. If any MNWR employee or unsympathetic federal official had sought entry at the entrance to the MNWR headquarters compound during the occupation, it is highly improbable that the occupiers would have permitted them to enter the premises.

Judge Brown’s conjecture that employees would have been denied access, had they sought to go into the MNWR is purely conjecture. There is absolutely nothing presented, of a factual nature, supportive of this “Finding of Fact”.

1. During the armed occupation of the MNWR headquarters compound, the occupiers used vehicles and equipment owned by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that were ordinarily kept at the MNWR and used by MNWR employees in the performance of their duties. The occupiers used the vehicles and equipment both for transportation and to block the entrances to the MNWR headquarters compound. These vehicles and equipment included construction and maintenance equipment, USFWS-owned trucks, and other vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles.
2. Throughout the armed occupation Ammon Bundy and others publicly and repeatedly expressed their objections not only to the handling of the Hammonds’ case (“the plight of the Hammonds”) but also their objections to federal land-ownership and land management policies (“federal overreach”). In particular, Ammon and Ryan Bundy publicly and repeatedly stated the MNWR was the type of federal facility that facilitated the federal land ownership and land-management policies to which they strenuously objected and that they wished to overturn.
3. As part of their objections to “federal overreach” in land-management policies, Ammon Bundy and other occupiers advocated asserting a claim of “adverse possession” on the MNWR to try to redistribute ownership of its land to local landowners.

That is contrary to the established facts. In Court, it was made clear that the occupiers would transfer the land to Harney County, the state of region, or even a local Committee of Safety that had recently been formed. It was never intended to go into private ownership. That would be theft, not adverse possession, as was their stated objective.

1. As noted, there were numerous signs throughout the MNWR headquarters compound that gave notice of the hours the MNWR was open to the public and of certain marked areas that were always closed to the public. See, e.g., Ex. 61, 91, 126, 165, 440. Although no federal-government official ever served the individuals occupying the MNWR with a notice of trespass or an official demand to leave the MNWR, on several occasions various individuals, including Sheriff Ward, unequivocally communicated to the occupiers via Ammon Bundy and the media that they were not welcome to remain at the MNWR and that they should leave. In light of the extrajudicial nature of the occupation, service of a formal notice of trespass on those occupying the MNWR would have been a meaningless action and would have created an unreasonable risk of unnecessarily enflaming a volatile situation involving numerous armed individuals.

This is rather interesting. Both state statutes and the underlying common law require that the trespassing party must be noticed that they are trespassing. That notice was never served to the occupiers; at best, they were asked to leave. That request, as opposed to a Demand, is an absolute necessity, and totally within the right and responsibility of the owner of the property. Risk is not an excuse to avoid the legal responsibility of the property owner, especially when the owner would have had proper recourse through Sheriff Ward, though that would require the Demand, not the request.

1. Each person who participated in the occupation of the MNWR, including Defendants Patrick, Ehmer, Thorn, and Ryan, knew the MNWR was the property of the United States government and knew they were not authorized to occupy and to exercise control over the property as they did. This fact was not only obvious to any reasonable observer, it was fundamental to the purposes of those who took over and continued to control the MNWR. Indeed, knowing that their actions were not authorized was inherent in the occupiers’ efforts to attempt to assert “adverse possession” over the MNWR and to protest what they described as federal government overreach.

So, we see all of the elements of the crimes alleged in the Group 2 felony jury trial. This, in an analogical sense, is the crime of murder, as first discussed. However, so as to have no doubt, we find Judge Brown concluding her “Findings” with, “in the armed occupation of the MNWR“.

1. Defendants Patrick, Ehmer, Thorn, and Ryan, therefore, each actively participated in the armed occupation of the MNWR.

So, now we know what the crime is, “the armed occupation of the MNWR“. We even have some of the elements of the crime. Let’s compare the felony convictions to the misdemeanor convictions of each of these four defendants.

Jason Patrick
Felony: Convicted of conspiracy to impede.
Misdemeanor: Convicted of trespass, tampering with vehicles and equipment and destruction of government property. Jason's occupation of the MNWR resulted in the Trespass conviction. As was determined by the jury in the Group 1 trial, the impeding was an effect, not an intent, of the occupation (trespass). The tampering of vehicles was as simple as driving them around the MNWR, which is their purpose. In addition, the serious crime of destruction of government property was the act of cutting some barbed-wire fence to facilitate access. This is a practice quite common in ranching and is almost as easily repaired as it is to cut.

Duane Ehmer
Felony: Convicted of depredation of government property. [Note: Depredation is defined as “an act of attacking or plundering”. What they did consisted of digging a short trench in the ground.]
Misdemeanor: Convicted of trespass and tampering with vehicles and equipment.Duane depredated government property as well as tampered with government property. However, I have trouble even distinguishing between the two.

Darryl Thorn:
Felony: Convicted of conspiracy to impede and possession of firearms in a federal facility.
Misdemeanor: Convicted of trespass and tampering with vehicles and equipment.

Darryl, as like Jason, was found guilty of impeding, which was an effect, though not an intent, of the occupation (trespass). He is also convicted of tampering with vehicles, though in his case, unlike Duane, he was not found guilty of depredation.

Jake Ryan
Felony: Convicted of depredation of government property.
Misdemeanor: Convicted of trespass and tampering with vehicles and equipment.

Jake, then is found guilty of depredating government property as well as tampering with government property, just like Duane. However, as with Duane, I have trouble finding the distinction.

We should also ask, since all were found guilty of trespass, though only two were found guilty of conspiracy to impede, what the distinction is between the two charges, where the trespass resulted in the impeding, but only if the impeding was a result of the trespass? Boy, that is a difficult one to even begin to grasp.

However, it is clear to see, back to the analogy of murder, that they are also charged with something similar to “unlawful discharge of a firearm within the limits of the city”, but perhaps even littering for leaving the spent brass on the ground.

As I previously asserted, the misdemeanor charges were brought to insure a conviction, should the jury have returned a not guilty verdict, as in the Group 1 trial. Since the jury verdict came on March 12, and the misdemeanor verdict was delivered on March 21, Judge Brown could have easily dismissed the misdemeanor charges, or at least nolle prossqui (not prosecute) the misdemeanors.

Judge Brown, then, presented as facts that which the Group 1 jury found not to be facts sufficient, if even true, to result in guilty verdicts.

Most often, we would put the prohibition of double jeopardy in the context of one trial followed by a subsequent trial. However, in this instance, both trials began together. When the felony portion went to jury, the misdemeanor trial continued in the presence of the Judge. This was simply a maneuver intended to avoid the appearance of that which is strictly prohibited.

By not taking the easy way out, her actions have clearly “twice put in jeopardy” the defendants, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  69
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

Like this:



Tags: Ammon Bundy, Anna Brown, Bill of Rights, Billy J. Williams, Burns Oregon, Constitution, courts, hammond, Harney County, Honor, Judge, jury, law, Moral Values
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback

[monty]

Elias Alias has received two new videos on the murder of LaVoy Finicum. They are posted on his blog, https://thementalmilitia.net/2017/03...icum-2nd-page/

Forensic Analysis of the Murder of LaVoy Finicum 2nd Page

• Home
  
  • ENGAGE
  
  
• Reveille
  
  • BOOT CAMP
    
    • LANGUAGE
    • RIGHTS
    • READERS REGIMENT
    
    
  • OCS
    
    • COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS TRAINING (CPT)
    
    
  • INTEL
    
    • HIDDEN HISTORY
    
    
  • OPS
  • BOOTS ON THE GROUND
  • PSYOP/MIND WAR
  • SPIRIT SOUL PSYCHE
  • LOVE’S THOUGHT SYSTEM
  
  
• Allied Camps
  
  • AE911TRUTH
  • CHUCK BALDWIN LIVE
  • CLAIRE WOLFE
  • CYRELLYS GEIBHENDACH
  • FREEDOM ADVOCATES
  • FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION
  • G. EDWARD GRIFFIN
  • JAMES JAEGER
  • JIM WHITE NORTHWEST LIBERTY NEWS
  • LEVEL 9 NEWS
  
  
• Articles & Information
• Radio
• Memberships

Forensic Analysis of the Murder of LaVoy Finicum 2nd Page

• All TMM
• MindWar
• News
• PSYOP
• Rights

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0...?s=96&d=mm&r=g
Elias Alias March 28, 2017

https://thementalmilitia.net/wp-cont...um-guitar.jpeg
LaVoy Finicum
Note from Elias Alias, owner/editor: Many of you have already seen the top two videos below, as they were published on September 25 2016 Here.

The four videos below are not only credible, they are valuable as excellent “forensic analyses” of LaVoy’s last moments on earth. I am proud to post these videos at The Mental Militia, for they pose serious questions which challenge what the government has said about the assassination/murder of LaVoy Finicum. Such questions lead to yet deeper insight into the nefarious underbelly of some government agencies, such as the FBI. This murder shows that the same consciousness which prompted the mass murders at Waco, Texas is still alive in our current law-enforcement community and must be addressed before yet more innocent Americans are squashed under the mechanical rollers of a berserk government. Thank you for viewing this very important work.

I would also like to thank our friend for sending the two most-recent videos to The Mental Militia and inviting The Mental Militia to be the first to post them on the Internet. This individual wishes to remain un-named, so we will honor that and respect the need for privacy. But we are grateful for all the good work which viewers will appreciate as they watch, and I personally would ask anyone reading here to please help these videos get spread around.

This page has four videos which were created by the same individual. They came to me in this sequence —
“Forensic Analysis of the Murder of LaVoy Finicum” (1)
“The Foam Bullet Used To Justify Killing LaVoy Finicum”. (2)
“The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum: The Planted Gun” (3)
“The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum: The Two Shots That The FBI Lied About” (4)

Regarding the third video, there are serious questions about whether a gun was “planted” on LaVoy’s body after the law-enforcement agents murdered him. If I recall correctly, various witnesses (who were with LaVoy that day) have indicated that he did not bring his gun with him on the trip. There are questions about the gun claimed by the government to have been in LaVoy’s jacket pocket, including the question of ownership of that particular gun. I will verify two items of interest and enter my findings here after verification. Please keep in mind when viewing video number 3 that serious questions are involved, which is why our friend made the video

In video number 4 we find an anomaly in which two bullets penetrated the truck LaVoy was driving while passengers were inside that truck, but only one entry hole is observable in videos or photos. Our friend has raised several points to ponder. In that regard it is important to note that the FBI agents on the scene of LaVoy’s murder lied about firing shots, then lied again in trying to cover up the truth about having fired the two shots. Two, or maybe three, FBI agents caused the FBI to launch an investigation into their actions and their lies. By starting that investigation the FBI has noted that at least two of their agents lied about these two shots in question.

The Mental Militia is very fortunate to have a good working relationship with the individual who has produced all four videos on this page. We send our respectful thanks and a grateful Salute!

LaVoy Finicum Assassination Forensic Study Released!
https://youtu.be/0fpO6Oh0r2U

The Foam Bullet Used to Justify Killing LaVoy Finicum

The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum 3 The Planted Gun



The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum 4 The Two Shots That the FBI Lied About

Posted in All TMM, MindWar, News, PSYOP, RightsTagged Lavoy Finicum, Malheur Wildlife RefugePost navigation

An Empire Strikes Home Part One

One thought on “Forensic Analysis of the Murder of LaVoy Finicum 2nd Page”

• Pingback: Forensic Analysis of the Murder of LaVoy Finicum - TMM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
COMMENT
NAME *
EMAIL *
WEBSITE

SEARCH TMM

Search for:

---

Help Us Reach Others!

Amount: $ DONATE

---

TMM NEWSLETTER

---

RECENT ARTICLES

• Forensic Analysis of the Murder of LaVoy Finicum 2nd Page
• An Empire Strikes Home Part One
• An Empire Strikes Home Part Two
• An Empire Strikes Home Part Three
• An Empire Strikes Home Part Four

---

ARCHIVES

• March 2017 (8)
• February 2017 (8)
• January 2017 (6)
• December 2016 (12)
• November 2016 (2)
• October 2016 (8)
• September 2016 (11)
• August 2016 (1)
• July 2016 (6)
• June 2016 (7)
• May 2016 (5)
• April 2016 (9)
• March 2016 (5)
• February 2016 (9)
• January 2016 (6)
• December 2015 (8)
• November 2015 (12)
• October 2015 (2)
• September 2015 (4)
• August 2015 (7)
• July 2015 (1)

[monty]

Deb Jordan reports that Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom was arrested and is being held in Sacramento waiting extradition to Portland

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...c9&oe=5957612B
Deb Jordan6 hrs

JUST IN: Journalist Gary Hunt has been arrested and is being held in Sacramento California facing extradition to Portland Oregon, charged with contempt of Judge Anna Browns order to take down all material pertaining to Malhuer Refuge Informants. A charge of aiding and abetting defendants during the Occupation of the Malhuer Refuge may be forth coming. As of his arrest California had no agreement with Oregon to extradite him.

After writing a series of articles he wrote exposing the names of the informants used during the Occupation Mr. Hunt was ordered to take the material down from his web-site and refused. That refusal resulted in a warrant for arrest and it appears that warrant has now been served.

Gary Hunt is a long-standing journalist who reported on both Ruby Ridge and Waco and was a presence at both tragedies. Gary received a call giving him 1 hour to turn himself in, which he did peacefully this afternoon Pacific Time. A family associate gave me this statement:

Gary Hunt, of Outpost-of-Freedom has been arrested. There are no details as of yet but it is presumed it is in regards to a Contempt of Court charge related to his disclosure of the identities of Federal Informants involved in the occupation at Malhuer NWLR in Oregon last year. Please share and spread the word. Gary is a journalist. This is a violation of the first amendment protected right of free speech and freedom of the press.

Gary has asked that everyone read this article for clarity.
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2084


http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...-w-Dont-Go.jpg
#freegaryhunt #waronthefreepress #freedomofthepress #

Freedom of the Press #11 – Aiding, But Not Abetting

Freedom of the Press #11 Aiding, But Not Abetting Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom March 3, 2017 (Coincidental to the presumed authority…
OUTPOST-OF-FREEDOM.COM