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 Bill of Rights category.

Bundy Refuge issue: An Insider’s View on INFORMANTS

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

PNP comment: I just found this article and wanted to post it. — Editor Liz Bowen

Redoubt News.com

April 1, 2017

By Terri Linnell

Informant’s agents were reading other reports, some biased, some clear entrapment, which skewed the results of the overall accuracy of the data.

Terri Linnell is known as “Mama Bear” to the Patriot community. She has been an activist since 2008, when her sleeping giant started to awaken. Terri has been to Washington DC three times for redress of grievances, and participated in the Bundy Ranch Standoff in Nevada.

She is known as “Betsy Ross” to the FBI community. She was given that name by the FBI when she agreed to be an informant at the Malheur Wildlife Protest in Burns, Oregon, during January 2016. Linnell later testified for the defense, stating clearly it was just a protest, protected under the first amendment.

Terri’s time as an informant was under 6 months, yet she will give you some insight to the inner workings of the FBI, and their handling of “Confidential Human Sources” and how the government is absolutely watching citizens.

In a Redoubt News exclusive series, Linnell has agreed to go on record recounting her experiences, combining her time protesting with her knowledge of the subtleties of the games being played against the people of our great country.

Informants: A Necessary Evil Or Illegal Act?

By Terri Linnell

After being in the Oregon Standoff Trial it’s been pretty easy to see the role of the 9 informants who were inside the refuge, and the 6 more informants outside the refuge. 15 total informants to tell the FBI what they couldn’t gather with their license plate scanners, aerial surveillance and tape recordings, drone surveillance, and other technology.

But the question is: how useful were these informants in the end? Did they show a non-biased view of what was going on? Did they avoid the pitfalls of agents trained to avoid entrapment? Well, in order to know these answers, we must examine the data.

Mark McConnellBurns Chronicles - Mark McConnell was clearly biased against the protesters. He also led a militia group in his home state, where the group was well-known. This leadership role in Arizona gave him automatic control of protesters who were volunteer security.

Furthermore, it was McConnell who led the organizers to their arrest, and the death of LaVoy Finicum in the most un-routine “routine traffic stop” the FBI has ever claimed to conduct.

Wolf, aka Allen Varner, ran one of the three security teams, as a co-leader with two others. This clearly created entrapment, since he was in the decision making process for the security volunteers who were arrested. The two other co-leaders were also arrested for crimes, yet how much influence did this informant have in decision making? A great deal.

Marshal Smith pretended to be a real US Marshal for ‘Judge Bruce’ who everyone believed to be a real judge, there to insure the protest didn’t break any laws. Impersonating a police officer gave credibility to the protesters that what they were doing was perfectly legal. Over the top? Absolutely. We are supposed to trust police.

Fabio MinoggioBurns Chronicles – Fabio Minoggio aka John Killman showed up for a brief period and had the security do drills and even some target practice down at the boat docks. The prosecuting attorney paraded the spent rounds from the target practice in front of the jury to show how dangerous these protesters were. Entrapment once again.

This is 4/9 informants inside the refuge creating entrapment and undue influence. That’s 44%, 11% each. A pretty big number, but let’s see how it’s really even higher.

I was another informant, and I volunteered as a kitchen cook. Although I did not create entrapment, the agent contacted read these other reports while I was at the refuge. Some of the data in the reports was not my data, but information the agent read in other reports, specific information duplicated from Marshal’s report. This was evidenced while I testified, as I had to deny time and again the prosecutor’s questions about ‘my’ reports since I did not report those facts at all.

This now puts 55% of the reports in jeopardy of either entrapment or poor data gathering techniques. Does anyone really believe the other 45% of the reports were done any better? Or should all the reports be thrown out?

Well, we can go one step further on informant reports. Informants gather their information through hearsay.

Hearsay

A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination:

  1. Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful.
  2. The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand.
  3. The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.

In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court.

Hearsay is gathered through informants, placed into evidence as fact, and a defendant cannot face his accuser. Therefore one can easily argue the removal of the informant program as a whole.

Please realize the informants have no legal training or required education, yet their testimony is heavily protected in court. Furthermore, none of the informants knew who the other informants were. None of the informants saw their own reports for final approval for accuracy.

Informant’s agents were reading other reports, some biased, some clear entrapment, which skewed the results of the overall accuracy of the data in a manner well over 50%. This is called good police work? Not in any sense of the word could it be considered ‘good’.

To top it all off, the journalist who researched these ‘sealed’ reports, and exposed the entrapment, Gary Hunt, is now sitting in jail. How dare he get a hold of public hearing evidence and dig for the truth! How dare Gary get a hold of redacted reports, where mass data is blocked out to hide the informant’s identity, in a public… let me repeat, PUBLIC trial, where the redacted reports remained sealed from the public even after the trial!

It’s amazing to me that we even have a Bill of Rights with all this constant hiding of evidence. I say how dare the government even think this is acceptable in America.Terri Linnell is known as “Mama Bear” to the Patriot community. She has been an activist since 2008, when her sleeping giant started to awaken. Terri has been to Washington DC three times for redress of grievances, and participated in the Bundy Ranch Standoff in Nevada.She is known as “Betsy Ross” to the FBI community. She was given that name by the FBI when she agreed to be an informant at the Malheur Wildlife Protest in Burns, Oregon, during January 2016. Linnell later testified for the defense, stating clearly it was just a protest, protected under the first amendment.

An Insider’s View on INFORMANTS – by Terri Linnell

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

Journalist Arrested For Defense of First Amendment

Bill of Rights, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts

Redoubt News.com

March 30,2017

by Shari Dovale

Gary Hunt has been keeping Americans informed of Constitutional violations by the government for over 20 years. He has reported on the Ruby Ridge massacre as well as the Waco Siege.

More recently, Hunt has released information pertaining to Confidential Human Sources (aka Informants) in the Bunkerville Standoff and the Malheur Refuge Protest.

It was revealed during the first trial of the Malheur defendants that the FBI use of informants were extensive and, possibly, illegal. This is based on the informants being involved with the leadership of the protest, in charge of security, training with firearms, and more.

However, the court, specifically Judge Anna Brown, ruled that the names of the informants were not to be made public by the defense. The defense, through their investigative skills, determined the names of some of the informants, such as Fabio Minoggio (aka John Killman).

The prosecution was forced to turn over their documents, of which they redacted the identifying information. The court then ordered the involved parties to not share this information, so as to keep the identities of the informants secret.

However, it did not include other members of the public, such as a journalist, if they somehow obtained copies of the reports.

Hunt, through his investigative skills, obtained copies of (presumably) all the 1023 reports (CHS reporting documents). He then went through them and identified many more informants. After confirming these identities, he published the information, which has been picked up by many outlets including Redoubt News.

The court has decided that this reporting is against their orders. Judge Brown ordered Hunt to take down all materials and information pertaining to the informants from his website. Hunt refused and distinctly laid out his arguments, publicly posted under the series “Freedom of the Press.”

Though Hunt is clearly not a party to the case, and has protections under the first amendment, the court has ordered Hunt to be arrested on contempt of court charges and brought to Oregon and her jurisdiction. It is thought that the court is considering adding ‘aiding and abetting’ charges as well.

Judge Brown has kept the arrest warrant close to the vest as she apparently was afraid of the word getting out to Hunt’s supporters. It does not seem likely that she was concerned Hunt could be considered a flight risk as he has already stated that he was ready for this legal argument.

Freedom of the Press 11 – Aiding, But Not Abetting

http://redoubtnews.com/2017/03/30/journalist-arrested-first-amendment/

 

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