Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Courts category.

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Lawsuits, Liberty

Redoubt News.com

August 5, 2017

This has been a very eventful week in the Bunkerville Retrial of four defendants. The prosecution has demonized these good men at every turn. They have portrayed them as lawless militia, anti-government radicals, and immoral propagandists.

by Shari Dovale

I Guess I Was Wrong”

The week began with more government agents taking the witness stand to tell how afraid they were of these gun-totin’ cowboys. BLM Special Agent Robert Shilaikis took some video of the events on April 12, 2014, because he was expecting a gunfight and wanted documentation. He was afraid that memories would fade over time.

He did not video record any protesters firing weapons. He admitted that some of his commentary of the videos was based on reviewing the footage later, not on what he saw at the time. He had to clarify some of his commentary, and his identification, as he was shown to be mistaken during his testimony.

“I Guess I Was Wrong,” he would say at least twice when confronted with his own video proof contradicting his testimony.

Shilaikis showed his bias repeatedly during his testimony, and the defense called him out on it. Profiling everyone as militia based on their clothing was a point for the defense to grill him on. He testified as to the defendants “ideology” and was asked how he could “see” that on the videos?

Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, April 12, 2014

Judge Gloria Navarro jumped in on the bias when the defense attempted to compare and contrast the witnesses statements towards the defendants when they began to question the witness about Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, and his dress of camo, tactical gear, and a black hat turned backwards on his head. After all, they had demonized “Black Hat” Eric Parker over these very points. The theory put forth was that, by turning his ball cap around, Parker was ready to shoot his long gun.

Judge Navarro wasn’t having that in her courtroom and refused to allow the testimony.

Sling Your Long Guns”

The jury picked up on several points and asked Shilaikis if anyone pointed a weapon at him. Of course, he had to admit that they did not. The jury also wanted to know about the order to “Sling Your Long Guns” and whether that was meant for just the BLM or all Law Enforcement.

Shilaikis attempted to imply that the order to “Sling” their long guns was more of a suggestion, and that it was a discretionary order. “Each law enforcement officer can make the decision to put away their long gun based on what they perceive as a threat.”

The defense jumped all over that one and the jury did not seem to buy it either.

AUSA Myhre used Special Agent Willis to introduce multiple photos that depicted the same thing. How many times can you see the same picture and not call it “cumulative”? They introduced several photos as evidence that they did not take, but downloaded from various sites on the internet.

Evidence was introduced from the “Frontline” documentary aired on PBS in May 2017. This brings up questions of how PBS was able to obtain sealed discovery for this show. The court is not addressing this issue, but the people want to know.

The prosecutors do not plan to prosecute PBS for releasing sealed discovery evidence. How about they release the rest of the evidence for the public to review?

Another unusual event this week, when a juror was questioned this week about a text message she received from an outside source concerning this trial. The message said, “You have 2 hours more to finished. Pass death sentence on this prisoner.” The juror immediately brought it to the court’s attention and said it would not affect her ability to be impartial. The court accepted that.

What is an FBI Employee?

A very controversial witness took the stand by name of FBI Special Agent Sarah Gibson Draper, of Idaho. Draper was placed in charge of gathering Facebook evidence on Parker, Drexlar and Stewart.

The posts that she introduced discussed the events, but did not directly show any law breaking.

What was most interesting about her testimony was the dancing around concerning “FBI Employees”. Each time an attorney would ask about an “Agent” she would correct them to say “Employee”.

What is the difference between an FBI Agent and an FBI Employee? Draper is attempting to avoid calling them paid informants. They are employees because they are being given compensation by the government, yet they are selecting their words carefully because of the negative connotations of the word “informant”. Judge Navarro does not want that word brought up in front of the jury, and she is very heavy-handed on this issue.

I have noted there seem to have been at least 5-6 informants referenced in this case.

The jurors are not asleep on this issue. Some of their questions were specifically about whether or not the FBI “provoked” or coerced the defendants. They want to know more about this, yet seem to know that the information is being kept from them,

The McVeigh Connection

Draper introduced a Facebook post of Parker’s that was strategically redacted. They omitted references to the “Miller’s: in which Parker praised the patriots for vetting these unstable people and removing them from Bunkerville.

The post also had redactions that told of the reasons the men crouched down on the bridge as they were being “green-lighted”. This means they identified government snipers that had their weapons aimed directly at them.

What they did not omit was a reference to “McVeigh”. The purpose of the government introducing this vague reference was to get Draper to say her “belief” is that this was referring to Timothy McVeigh, and explain to the jury that he was the “Oklahoma City Bomber” that killed over a hundred people. They intention was to imply that the defendants were either connected to McVeigh himself or at least his ideology.

The Prosecutor argued, “There is really not that much difference between what they did and what McVeigh did.”

Therefore, standing on a bridge in Nevada, where no shots were fired nor any person was harmed, afraid of the government’s hundreds of agents with firearms pointed at them, is not much different from blowing up a building and killing over 100 people?

“We or no one that we know of feel he is a martyr for anything,” said John Trochmann, spokesman for the Militia of Montana. “What would we have had to gain from blowing up public property?” asked Trochmann. “Who would gain anything unless someone wanted to pass some new type of anti-militia legislation?” – ABC News

This was completely misleading to the jury. They have cherry-picked evidence and the judge is allowing this. She sees no relevance to anything positive on behalf of the defense and has ruled it is fine to introduce obscure references and personal negative interpretations of those references.

Thumbs Up

Judge Gloria Navarro has stretched the limit of her lack of knowledge on the law. She continuously relies on the prosecution to give her foundations to admit evidence. She references her books while sitting in court to find ways to admit biased evidence.

An example of this is when the prosecution presented a Facebook “Thumbs Up” as a co-conspirator’s statement. If someone else posts a controversial statement, and you “Like” the post, you can now be prosecuted as a “Co-Conspirator”.

According to the rulings in this case, if you “Like” a post, then you have adopted that statement and taken ownership of it as your own statement.

*On a side note, I personally do not like all of the new social engineering emoji reaction buttons that Facebook has introduced. I general show my protest by only using a “Like”, not for agreeing with the post, but for appreciating people getting involved. I “Like” discussion. I “Like” debate. I want people to be involved. It’s the only way to get the truth to some people.

Bad Acts After The Fact

The prosecution has extended the dates of the “Conspiracy” to March 2016. This was deliberate so they could include information on Operation Gold Rush (Sugar Pine Mine, Oregon) and Operation Big Sky (White Hope Mine, Montana). Both operations took place at least a year after Bunkerville.

The government is attempting to show an ongoing agreement to threaten the government. They are attempting to portray these defendants as being so thrilled with their success at Bunkerville, that they formed a group called “Idaho 3%” and went around they country to wave their guns at Federal Agents and keep them from doing their jobs, like take someone’s property unconstitutionally.

They wore camo at these operations, and carried rifles. They conducted security patrols. All are being presented as horrible behavior, and anti-government. The prosecution, and Judge Navarro, have claimed that the ongoing conspiracy included the defendants glorifying the movement and recruiting to their ranks. By sharing the truth of what the government’s alphabet agencies are doing, they are furthering the conspiracy against the government.

The jury is questioning the government’s narrative, shown by the questions of whether or not these defendants are being charged for Sugar Pine or White Hope? Judge Navarro said that they are, as these events are part of the ongoing conspiracy. So now, anyone that was NOT at Bunkerville, yet did participate in Sugar Pine, OR White Hope, are now considered co-conspirators and can be prosecuted.

Is this for real? Only in Gloria Navarro’s courtroom.

Is the Militia Illegal?

When the questioning is completed by the attorneys, the jurors are given the option of asking the witness questions. After the questions are written down and turned over to the judge, she calls a sidebar in which all of the attorneys go behind a wall and discuss these questions before asking them of the witness.

On this particular day, Navarro allowed the jury to go to lunch while the attorneys discussed the questions in the courtroom. This was notable because the gallery audience could now hear the questions and discussion.

One of the questions was “Are Militias Illegal?” The prosecution went so far as to argue, “Yes, they are illegal in many states, including Montana.”

Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Constitution of Montana — Article VI — THE EXECUTIVE

Section 13. Militia. (1) The governor is commander-in-chief of the militia forces of the state, except when they are in the actual service of the United States. He may call out any part or all of the forces to aid in the execution of the laws, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, or protect life and property in natural disasters.
(2) The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.

This is the false narrative that the government is using against these defendants. Militias are NOT illegal. It is in the Constitution and they are important to our Nation.


These men were prepared to be martyrs on April 12, 2014. This was evidenced by a video from Steven Stewart taken that day. In it, he states that, “They were threatening us with chemicals earlier, to back down. So we pushed forward. They couldn’t gas us. We were going to be martyrs if they wanted to continue this.” Stewart said on the video.


This entire trial is based on false evidence. They have thrown out the rules of evidence and denied the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Every American should be upset by what is happening in Judge Navarro’s courtroom. If the government is allowed to proceed, and get away with, this mockery of justice, what will stop them from treating every other American the same way.

The prosecution is expected to rest their case on Monday, August 7th. The defense is then expected to take about a week to present their evidence, with the jury receiving the case for deliberations after that.

The target date for the next trial to begin is September 18, 2017. The jury questionnaires were mailed to prospective jurors last week.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bunkerville protesters on trial — for protesting

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

This charade of justice continues to devolve into something you’d expect more from a 3rd world government than our government.


There are a couple more new articles worth reading regarding this trial on the Redoubt News.com  home site.

No Comments

3 Percenters Demonized in Federal Court – Bunkerville Retrial

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Dept. of INTERIOR, Federal gov & land grabs

Oath Keepers.org



by Shari Dovale

August 2, 2017

Though the defendants are actually Eric Parker, Scott Drexlar, Steven Stewart and Ricky Lovelein, the prosecution has made their association the the group “Idaho 3%” a material part of the case against them. It is enough to believe the government is trying to prosecute the group, as well as the individuals.

3 Percenters

The Three Percenters (also styled “3%ers”) is an American patriot movement which pledges resistance against the United States government regarding any restriction of the United States Constitution. Their primary purpose is to protect constitutional rights and characterized as being ideologically similar to the Oath Keepers.

The group’s name is based on the that the historical American Revolution military’s armed resistance against the British, in the American Revolution, constituted three percent of the population. This number has never been accurately calculated, and estimates vary depending on whether or not slaves are included in the colonial population numbers and women are counted as potential combatants. Wikipedia

Only two of the defendants show a membership connection to the group. Eric Parker and Scott Drexlar have the group’s logo tattooed on their forearms.

The prosecution has claimed that the defendants conspired against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and, by extension, the US Federal Government. The government has not shown much success with this charge against these defendants.

The previous trial showed the jury in favor of acquittal.

The government needs this charge validated to fully demonize anyone that challenges them on their policies that contradict the US Constitution.

The prosecution is claiming the conspiracy was continued with their association the the Idaho 3% group, between training and recruitment. They also claim a further conspiracy against the federal government by the Idaho 3% involvement in other “operations”, such as “Operation Gold Rush” in Oregon and “Operation Big Sky” in Montana.

These events were about good citizens coming to the aid of their neighbors for support against the land grab of the alphabet agencies within the federal government. However, it should be noted that these events did not take place until months, or years, after the Bunkerville Standoff in April 2014.

Bunkerville was over. These are events “After the Fact” and do not, by themselves, show a state of mind for a time that long in the past.

Judge Gloria Navarro has allowed these events to be brought in as evidence against these defendants over the objections of the defense.

The Idaho 3% was not formed until after the events in Bunkerville. The government seems to want you to believe otherwise. They would like you to believe that anyone in a group like this is a dissident. They would like the public to call them ‘Anti-government’ and lawless. This is simply not true.

Entered into evidence, and played for the jury, is the overview of the Idaho 3%

For video, go to:

3 Percenters Demonized in Federal Court – Bunkerville Retrial

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


No Comments

OREGON: Judge: Counties can sue state over forest lands

Courts, Forestry & USFS, Oregon governments

By CARISA CEGAVSKE Senior Staff Writer

The News-Review

Aug 2, 2017

Linn, Douglas and other Oregon counties can sue the state for breach of contract after all, a Linn County Circuit Court judge has ruled.

The ruling came in a $1.4 billion class action lawsuit that revolves around forest lands formerly owned by 15 Oregon counties and now held in trust by the state. The counties argued they gave up the lands to the state on the condition they would be managed for timber revenue that would be shared with the counties. They’ve alleged that amounted to a contract, which they argue the state has breached by leaving too much timber standing, depriving the counties of the money they say they were promised.

Judge Daniel Murphy had ruled June 20 that the state was protected from the counties’ claim by sovereign immunity. At the time, Murphy said the counties, as entities of the state, could seek more favorable timber management but they could not sue the state for money.

After a July 13 hearing, Murphy changed his mind. In a final letter opinion July 17, the judge reversed himself, rejected the state’s sovereign immunity defense, and ruled that the case could proceed.

The July 17 decision was actually the second time Murphy had reversed himself on the immunity question. He had initially ruled to strike the state’s sovereign immunity defense. With the immunity defense out of the way again now, the case can move forward.

A pre-trial conference is scheduled for Sept. 14.

Douglas County’s portion of the land involved in the lawsuit is mostly located in the Elliott State Forest, and the total acreage is relatively small compared with that in other counties; however, Douglas County Commissioner Tim Freeman said the 4,800 acres the county gave to the state could potentially generate around $1 million a year in timber revenues.

Freeman said if the counties win the lawsuit, the additional money coming in to Douglas County would help reduce the amount the county needs to draw from its reserves to pay for county services. The county currently draws about $9 million a year out of its reserves.

Freeman said $1 million a year is a substantial figure, amounting to about half the annual cost to operate the former Douglas County Library System, or half the cost to pay for the county’s deputy district attorneys.

“A million dollars a year is real money. It would certainly be an important part of a revenue stream for Douglas County,” Freeman said.

Freeman said the judge’s decision on sovereign immunity is good news for citizens because states and counties have many contracts with each other. Frequently, those contracts talk about resolving contract disputes in the courts.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

New articles on the Nevada Bundy trials

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Hypocrisy, LAWS or law, Liberty

Redoubt.com news has a flurry of new articles regarding sentencing of defendants how Nevada’s Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro is handling the court room. 

Go to:  https://redoubtnews.com/

No Comments

FBI Privilege Keeps Defendant Out Of Jail

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, LaVoy Finicum

The FBI was informed of these findings in February 2016.

by Shari Dovale

FBI Supervisory Special Agent W. Joseph Astarita is facing 5 charges for his actions during the incident that resulted in the death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum on January 26, 2016.

Charges include obstruction of justice and giving false statements to investigators. Astarita is alleged to have fired two shots towards LaVoy and his vehicle, then lying about making these shots, as well as disposing of the shell casings.

It is reported that a conviction for making false statements could bring up to five years in prison; a conviction for obstruction of justice could bring up to a 20-year sentence.

In my humble opinion, this is a classic case of a fall-guy for the FBI. The difference will be seen in how rigorous the government prosecutes this case. Will this be an easy in-and-out for the defendant? Is he even worried?

Yes, I am sure that this man probably fired the two rounds at the truck. I believe that he shot the truck exactly where he intended. I do not believe that he “missed” his target.

The officers from Oregon State Police (OSP) fired the fatal shots into Finicum’s back. They were cleared of wrongdoing during this investigation, and the shots were determined to be “justified”. Let’s take just another quick peek at this.

The OSP officers were prepared for any reaction they may have received from the protesters. They were told that the protesters were “armed & dangerous”. Their weapons were out, aimed, and ready to fire.

The FBI Special Agent then allegedly fired his weapon twice, towards Finicum and his vehicle, missing on the second shot and hitting the top of the truck. This was made public when the video from passenger Shawna Cox was made available.

He missed on “the second shot”? What happened to the first shot? Did he miss twice? Or did he actually accomplish what he set out to do?

I believe that the two shots fired were, by design, intended to escalate the situation. When LaVoy exited the truck he had his hands in the air and was not holding a weapon. The situation was not out of control. There was no need to fire at him.

However, when FBI Special Agent Astarita fired his weapon, the shots went into the roof of the truck, exiting out of the rear window. It would have been a normal belief on the part of the OSP officers to think that the protesters were firing at them from the vehicle.

The agent was firing in the direction of the OSP officers. Was this to incite the OSP officers to fire at Finicum and the other protesters?

The public has been led to believe that this has been an active investigation for a year and a half. However, Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson and his investigators traveled to FBI headquarters over a year ago. They briefed the FBI’s then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, now acting director, about their findings and the FBI’s potential criminal liability in February 2016.

The FBI has been sitting on this information for nearly a year and a half!

The sheriff revealed that FBI leaders, after being told of his department’s findings, didn’t put the agent or four of his colleagues on leave. Actually, according to FBI headquarters, Astarita remains employed in an administrative capacity.

Finally, just this month, he was indicted by the Grand Jury. He made a court appearance this week with a Public Defender by his side and entered a plea of not guilty in a two-minute arraignment before U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart in federal court in Portland.

He was not held. He was not required to post bond. He was not given any specific instructions as to his behavior, travel, etc. As a matter of fact, US Attorney Billy Williams stressed that this man was to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. He was released on his own recognizance pending his trial scheduled for August 29th.

We can find no mugshot to indicate that he was even processed through the system.

He is being treated with the utmost courtesy and respect. He was not subjected to the invasiveness of the booking process. He was placed on administrative leave by the government. He gets to keep his job and stay out of jail.

He has not been charged with shooting at Finicum. He has only been charged with lying about shooting towards Finicum.

What about the four other agents that are “suspected” of helping him cover up this crime? They were seen on the video, huddled, and picking up objects from the ground. Will they be held accountable for their actions?

No one has been charged with destroying the shell casings.

No one has been charged with the death of LaVoy Finicum.

No one has been charged with escalating the situation to cause the death of LaVoy Finicum.

The non-violent protesters from the Malheur Refuge were held without bail for over a year. They were accused of being flight risks. They were shackled and treated poorly at every opportunity. They were not treated with the respect that this government employee enjoys.

And these issues are not being addressed by the FBI or US Attorney Billy Williams. The government has, again, set up the class system to give themselves special privilege.

BLM land grabPhoto Credit: Mark Graves | The Oregonian/OregonLive


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

California: Federal Judge Grants Request to Stay Enforcement of California’s Magazine Ban

2nd Amendment rights, Constitution, Courts

NRA News

June 29, 2017

Today, attorneys for the California Rifle & Pistol Association, supported by the National Rifle Association, obtained an important injunction in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, a federal lawsuit challenging California’s restrictions against standard capacity magazines. The injunction prevents California from enforcing the recently enacted ban against the mere possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, while the case is pending. The ban was set to take effect on July 1—less than 2 days from today.

In granting the injunction, Judge Benitez explained that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in this lawsuit because “public safety interest may not eviscerate the Second Amendment.”

Filed in May of this year, Duncan is the second in a series of carefully planned lawsuits challenging the package of gun control laws passed last year that have collectively become known as “gunmageddon” in addition to the anti-gun Proposition 63. The case challenges California’s restrictions on standard capacity magazines on the grounds that it violates the Second Amendment, due process clause, and takings clause of the United States Constitution.

As a result of the injunction, California gun owners will not be required to surrender or permanently alter their lawfully owned property by July 1. Instead, the injunction preserves the “status quo” while the constitutionality of the law is decided by the court.

To stay up to date on NRA’s legal efforts in California along with other important issues surrounding your second amendment rights be sure to subscribe to NRA-ILA alerts, check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage . To help contribute to NRA’s legal efforts in California click here.

No Comments

Federal judge blocks California ban on high-capacity magazines

2nd Amendment rights, Constitution, Courts

Sac Bee.com

June 29, 2017

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

Benitez added that “a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.”

The judge granted the request of attorneys from the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association to temporarily block the law.

In the days leading up to the ban, some California gun owners, pro-gun sheriffs and sellers have been reluctant to give up their magazines. Some gun owners have previously said that they were hoping pending court challenges would block the ban.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” said Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko in an earlier interview with The Bee. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

The ban is part of Proposition 63, approved with 63 percent of votes in November, that required background checks for people buying ammunition and instituted other firearms restrictions.

In a statement, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said that the proposition aims to prevent further mass shootings by those who own high-capacity magazines.

“Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way,” Becerra said in the statement. “Restricting large capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities.”

To get rid of magazines in compliance with the approved law, California gun owners would have been allowed to move them out of state, sell them to a licensed dealer, destroy them or hand them over to law enforcement.

Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks: 916-321-1418, @ayoonhendricks

Read more here:


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

LaVoy Finicum shooting: FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, LaVoy Finicum, LAWS or law, Lawsuits, Liberty
No Comments

Bundy: Liberty Roundtable Interview With Shawna Cox

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com

June 8, 2017

Cox said it was clear from the video that Ryan never had physical contact with the guard.

“Although Shawnna and Mack have different viewpoints, we clearly agree that the Bundy’s and their supporters should be treated with dignity and respect and certainly should not be in Prison!
We look forward to working together to make a valiant stand in defense of  our sacred rights of Due Process and speedy trials. In unity we recognize There Is No Liberty With Innocents in Prison!
Please support our efforts at http://www.TheFreedomCoalition.com
~ Sam Bushman, Liberty Roundtable, to Redoubt News

by Loren Edward Pearce

On June 1, 2017, Sam Bushman, of Liberty Roundtable podcast show, invited Shawna Cox to give her side of the story to what she observed in watching 6 videos of the circumstances surrounding the shirt incident with Ammon and Ryan Bundy, eventually leading to both of them being condemned to a 3 foot by 3 foot shower stall and then culminating in being placed back into “the hole” or solitary confinement.

Listen to The Interview Here: Liberty Roundtable

I reported on Bushman’s earlier interview with Richard Mack and objected to how they made assumptions, comparisons and conclusions about Ammon Bundy’s behavior and integrity. With the Shawna Cox interview, I am pleased to report that Bushman was very fair with her, giving her all the time she needed to report things as she recalled and interpreted them.


In Bushman’s interview with Cox, she noted at the 14:50 mark that there was a follow up, post incident interview with the security guard who had seized the shirt who claimed that Ryan had brushed his arm while trying to get the shirt back but that it was no big deal, he was not going to press charges. Cox said it was clear from the video that Ryan never had physical contact with the guard. He attempted to get the shirt, but it was out of reach and no contact was made. Cox said that the video shows the guard calmly walking away and throwing the shirt into a hamper and Ryan and Ammon returning to their bunks. It appeared that the incident was over and done with.

Some time goes by and the video shows 5 guards reappearing at the door of the pod. The first video ends and is replaced by a hand held video. What happens next has already been reported but what I would like to emphasize is that:

  1. The first video confirms that neither Ryan nor Ammon ever had physical contact with the guard and,

  2. That the guard himself acknowledged that it was not a big deal and was not thinking of pressing charges.

However, there appears to be an element of discrimination against Ammon for doing something that was commonly done for months. Why the sudden crackdown? Why was something that was a common practice, the hanging of shirts, now escalated to something requiring 13 hours (originally planned for 72 hours) of torture in a 3 foot by 3 foot shower stall? Did prison staff decide to teach Ammon and Ryan a lesson? Were they looking for a way to marginalize and weaken them by putting them back into solitary, thereby making their defense in trial that much more difficult?


After spending 41 days in solitary, Ammon had been released to the general population and was resting on his bed minding his own business. Following the example of many other prisoners, he had placed a shirt to block the bright light so he could get some sleep in the night only to be rudely awakened by a guard objecting to his shirt. That incident quickly escalated to something that could have ultimately taken his life, had they completed the planned 72 hours of confinement in the 3 foot by 3 foot space.




In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments
« Older Posts