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 Constitution category.

BUNDY: Malheur II – Guilty Verdicts On Misdemeanor Charges

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

Redoubt News.com

The prosecution of the Malheur Protesters for misdemeanor charges was an exercise in ‘going through the motions’.

by Shari Dovale

When I sat in the courtroom and watched the Bench Trial that was ordered by Judge Anna Brown, the prosecution was completely unprepared. They had no opening statement, instead relying on a single ‘chart’ outlining who was charged with what. Even Judge Brown seemed shocked by AUSA Barrow’s seeming nonchalance.

It was made painfully clear that the prosecution of the Malheur Protesters for misdemeanor charges was an exercise in ‘going through the motions’. Judge Brown, in chastising Barrow for his lack of preparedness gave hope that she would actually look at the evidence and defense arguments and see how preposterous the charges were.

That was proven to be wishful thinking, as she handed down guilty verdicts for the four remaining defendants.

  • Jason Patrick was convicted of trespass, tampering with vehicles and equipment and destruction of government property.

  • Duane Ehmer was convicted of trespass and tampering with vehicles and equipment. Duane was found not guilty on one charge.

  • Darryl Thorn was convicted of trespass and tampering with vehicles and equipment. Darryl was found not guilty on one charge.

  • Jake Ryan was convicted of trespass and tampering with vehicles and equipment.

Their sentencing is tentatively set for May 10th.

To add insult to injury, Judge Brown berated Jason Patrick as to his nonconforming behavior. She cited examples of the day he was 10 minutes late. The train was confirmed late, and a juror was late for the same reason.

She also mentioned the day that the US Marshals would not allow him in the courthouse. The US Marshals decided to give him a hard time that day for not having his identification, which was confiscated from him when he was arrested. He had been coming into the courthouse every day of the first trial, every day of each hearing, and every day of the second trial, until that day. Judge Brown had to amend the rules on that day to issue all defendants special identification, so there would not be any further issues with the Marshals.

Patrick has never missed being at the courthouse when he was told, with these two exceptions. I can personally confirm this, as I saw him every day.

Brown continued to verbally thrash him, citing his behavior in court. However, they never mentioned that he was never charged with contempt for his behavior, therefore he must not have offended the court. She also mentioned his lack of a permanent home. Again, he never missed a court appearance, and his home is in Georgia.

She then weighed the choice of electronic monitoring or whether he should be placed into custody right there, on the spot.

Patrick made the decision for her and emptied his pockets on the defense table, removed his belt, took off his jacket and placed his hands out to be cuffed.

The US Marshals complied and booked him immediately after the hearing.

Patrick is now incarcerated in the Multnomah County jail until the sentencing hearing.

Duane Ehmer, also in the courtroom, was not taken into custody. Thorn and Ryan were represented by their attorneys.

Malheur II – Guilty Verdicts On Misdemeanor Charges

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

BUNDY: Burns Chronicles 58 – Twice Put in Jeopardy

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

Redoubt News.com

Misdemeanor charges were brought to insure a conviction, should the jury have returned a not guilty verdict, as in the first trial.

Burns Chronicles 58
Twice Put in Jeopardy

by Gary Hunt
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 offense 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.

Jeff Banta, Neil Wampler, David Fry and Shawna Cox

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”.

MUCH  MORE  HERE

Burns Chronicles 58 – Twice Put in Jeopardy

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

Bundy: Bunkerville Defendant is FBI Informant Greg Burleson

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

by Shari Dovale

March 22, 2017


The Nevada Bunkerville Protest Trial heated up today when it was unintentionally disclosed that defendant Greg Burleson has been a paid informant for the FBI since 2012.

The prosecution called FBI Agent Michael Caputo and FBI Agent Adam Nixon to the stand and, in an unusual move, the court instructed the jury that this testimony would be used only in reference to Defendant Burleson.

The prosecution attempted to be careful of how they questioned the witnesses, however, they did ask a few questions that raised eyebrows. The only defense attorney that was allowed to cross examine the agents was Burleson’s attorney, Terrence Jackson .

Jackson gave every impression that he was not aware of his client’s true status. He questioned the witnesses until they made the admissions. Over multiple government objections, and amid several small conferences with the other defense attorneys, Jackson continued to hammer at the agents with questions until they admitted to Burleson’s status as a Federal Informant.

Burleson has worked with the FBI on other cases prior to the Bunkerville Protest. Towards the end of 2015 Burleson initiated contact with the FBI. It is believed that this was the time that the scheme to plant Burleson in the prison was hatched.

Burleson has been kept apart from the other prisoners, it was said, due to medical problems. It has been reported that he has gone blind, is in a wheelchair and suffers from Diabetes. Complaints of lack of medical care have been made throughout the time of his incarceration.

Burleson was not taken from the courtroom after the shocking announcements, and no motions were requested for a mistrial. Though, this seems to be a likely case to be declared a mistrial.


As one of the defendants, Burleson had access to all pretrial conferences and defense discussions. All investigations and other evidence would have been completely available to him, and therefore, to the FBI and prosecution, as well.


What will the government do next? If this case does not get thrown out, it will indicate just how deep this corruption goes.

Bunkerville Defendant is FBI Informant

 

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

The Persecution of the Malheur Protesters

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

Redoubt News.com

March 12, 2017

By Shari Dovale

The high-profile case of the Constitutional Protest at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge finished with the government rejoicing at guilty verdicts on Friday, March 10, 2016.

The acquittals of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, as well as 5 others last fall, was a very harsh blow to the government that reportedly spent in excess of $100 million on their persecution of these patriotic American citizens.

Changing their tactics for the second trial, prosecutors Ethan Knight and Geoff Barrow, along with Judge Anna Brown, ensured a biased verdict.

Repeatedly during the course of the trial, Judge Anna Brown refused to allow testimony and evidence to be presented by the defense that could have cast doubt on the government’s case.

On one particular day, Judge Brown’s rulings cut the defendants witness list from 18 down to 8. Then she chastised the defense for not having enough witnesses to fill the afternoon.

When she did allow defense witnesses to testify, she severely limited their testimony, with several witnesses only on the stand for minutes, and a few telling me later that they were not allowed to give the jury the whole truth.

A major point of contention in these trials were the Confidential Human Sources (CHS) also known as paid FBI Informants. Evidence of 15 informants came out in the first trial, but when the defense tried to pursue this during the second trial, Judge Brown shut them down.

Defense lawyers reportedly issued subpoenas to at least 3 informants, Will Kullman, Fabio Minoggio, and Allen Varner. Yet none of the 3 gave any testimony.

It was brought to light that the Informants were allowed to break the law, and possibly entrap the defendants. FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker admitted under oath that paid FBI informants who infiltrated the protest were authorized to conduct illegal activities while at the refuge.

One of these examples was Fabio Minoggio, who gave firearms training and led the protesters to practice shooting weapons on a (repeatedly played) video at the refuge boat launch. Minoggio, otherwise known as John Killman, also provided training to protesters in hand-to-hand combat, how to “clear” a vehicle, and interrogating people.

Another informant was Allen Varner, who was reported to be a leader of a security team on the refuge. He was in position to order defendants to break the law, therefore setting them up for prosecution.

However, jurors were not allowed to hear most of these details.

One of the most damaging points of this trial was when Judge Brown insisted that Ammon Bundy, and the other defendants from the first trial, were to be called “Co-Conspirators” though they were acquitted of these charges. Legally, they are NOT conspirators, but were constantly referred to as such. This had to have prejudiced the jury in favor of the prosecution.

Brown also allowed video excerpts that could not be authenticated. This is a direct slap at the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, which reads in part: “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. The defense could not cross examine a video, and the person that made the video was excused by Judge Brown from testifying.

Judge Brown did suggest that Ryan Bundy could testify to the video, which was another vindictive blow to the defense, as Bundy is under indictment in Nevada for the Bunkerville Standoff, and could not possibly wave his rights under the Fifth Amendment: “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.

Other defense witnesses reported threats and intimidation from the prosecution. At least four witnesses were told to speak to council as their testimony could allow the government to prosecute them as well, with Brand Thornton and BJ Soper among this list. This was clear intimidation of witnesses and, again, hampered the defense.

It was publicized after the last trial that Judge Brown talked to the jurors about how better to try these cases. They told her that they really wanted to convict and suggested that the prosecution should have allowed misdemeanor charges, including trespass, to give the jury more options.

The prosecution added several of these charges, just a couple of weeks before the start of the second trial, that were not made during the first trial. The charges were considered misdemeanors, though they carry monetary penalties as well as jail time. Despite this, Judge Brown decided that the jurors would not deliberate on these charges. She held a Bench Trial so she could decide the fate of the defendants herself.

It was well known in the courtroom that the Bench Trial was treated as ‘a given’ by the prosecution. Judge Brown seems to have heard these rumors and berated AUSA Barrow for not being prepared. When asked for his opening statement, Barrow handed out a sheet of paper that gave a graph of the charges and indicated that this should be enough of a statement. His lack of presentation was another indication that he felt the Bench Trial was an exercise in ‘going through the motions‘.

Yet the defendants should have been allowed a jury trial on these charges as well. The sixth amendment clearly outlines: “In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” No where does it say that misdemeanors will not be allowed a jury trial.

The only bright spot in this entire propaganda-hyped persecution is that these defendants now have the opportunity to bring this case to the next level. After the May 10th sentencing, defendants will file for their appeals. We can only hope that Judge Brown allows them to remain free, and not incarcerated, during the process.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Persecution of the Malheur Protesters

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

Bundy: Mixed Verdicts on Malheur Protest Trial II are in:

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

Redoubt News.com

Each defendant was found guilty of at least one charge.

By Bret Roush

Each defendant was found guilty of at least one charge.

  • Count 1) Conspiracy to Impede Federal Officers by Threats of Force or Intimidation

  • Count 2) Carrying a weapon on Federal Property

  • Count 6) Depredation of Federal Property (Only against Jake Ryan)

  • Count 7) Depredation of Federal Property (Only against Duane Ehmer)

If the defendant was not found guilty on count one they could not be found guilty on count two.

Jason Patrick was found guilty on count one, but not count two.

Darryl Thorn was found guilty on counts one and two.

Duane Ehmer was found guilty on count seven.

Jake Ryan was found guilty on count six.

Before the judge returned to the courtroom, Darryl Thorn led the gallery (those that wished to participate) in the Lord’s Prayer.

Matthew Schindler tried to break the tension, “Who is getting tased?”.  US Marshals did not appreciate that bit of levity as one came back into the courtroom to remind everyone that no reactions were allowed.

It was stressed after that there would be no reaction to the verdicts being read, by Judge Brown and again by the courtroom guards.

All of the defendants were released pending sentencing on May 10th.

“This verdict changes nothing on the righteousness of the message.” -Schindler

http://redoubtnews.com/2017/03/10/mixed-verdicts-malheur-protest-trial-ii/

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

Bundy: FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, LaVoy Finicum, Lawsuits

PNP comment: This is not too bad of an article for the typically-left OregonLive. But, it does need to be remembered that Ryan Bundy still has a bullet in his arm and he was sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle. It is now believed that LaVoy left the vehicle to draw FBI sniper fire away from those who were in the vehicle. — Editor Liz Bowen

By Les Zaitz |

The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author
on March 08, 2016 at 10:10 AM, updated January 26, 2017 at 12:15 PM

BEND – An FBI agent is suspected of lying about firing twice at Robert “LaVoy” Finicum and may have gotten help from four other FBI agents in covering up afterward, authorities revealed Tuesday.

The bullets didn’t hit Finicum and didn’t contribute to his death, but now all five unnamed agents, part of an elite national unit, are under criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department. Inspector General Michael Horowitz is leading the independent inquiry.

The remarkable disclosure came as a team of local investigators released findings that two state troopers shot Finicum three times in the back during the chaotic scene at a police roadblock Jan. 26. One bullet pierced his heart, an autopsy showed.

A prosecutor ruled the fatal shooting was legally justified, saying state law allows use of deadly force when officers believe a person is about to seriously injure or kill someone. Finicum kept moving his hands toward a pocket that contained a loaded handgun. Although he was shot from behind, Finicum had a trooper in front of him armed with a Taser who was thought to be in danger.

Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum’s death is investigated: What was found

Finicum, 54, an Arizona rancher, was one of the leaders of the Jan. 2 takeover of  the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns.

Investigators gave no details to explain why the one FBI agent, a member of the Hostage Rescue Team, wouldn’t report the two shots. They also didn’t indicate what his four colleagues did to warrant investigation other than saying it was related to conduct after the shooting.

“The question of who fired these shots has not been resolved,” said Greg Bretzing, special agent in charge of the FBI in Portland. The federal agency is cooperating with the inspector general’s investigation, he said at a news conference.

The revelation is certain to inflame suspicions about Finicum’s death and shake confidence in the FBI, which came under intense fire for botched handling of violent sieges at Ruby Ridge in Idaho and Waco, Texas.

Some supporters have claimed Finicum was shot while surrendering, that he was unarmed and that he was shot nine times. The sheriff in neighboring Grant County, Glenn Palmer, described the police operation as an “ambush.”

Finicum’s family said in a statement a month ago that he was “executed in cold blood” and accused police agencies of deliberately misleading the public about what happened. His widow, Jeanette Finicum, didn’t retreat from that stance after watching the news conference.

“My husband was murdered,” she said in a statement.

The attorney for Ammon Bundy, the occupation’s now-jailed leader, found the  news of the FBI shots troubling.

“I’m going to have to go back and reconsider all the conspiracy theories that I’ve written off,” said the lawyer, Mike Arnold.

Investigators had planned to release police reports, interview transcripts, photographs, the autopsy report and new video to allow the public to evaluate the police findings in Finicum’s death.

But they ended up releasing only one video and 19 photographs, citing the new criminal investigation for the change in plans. They also withheld the names of the involved troopers and FBI agents, saying they’ve tracked up to 80 threats against them, mostly on social media.

Document: Text of announcement of findings

The shooting happened after police stopped a Jeep and a pickup carrying the key figures of the occupation along a remote stretch of U.S. 395 north of Burns.

Finicum was driving the truck that carried carried Ryan C. Bundy, 43, Ryan W. Payne, 32, Shawna Cox, 59, and Victoria Sharp, 18. In the Jeep behind them was driver Mark McConnell, 37, Brian D. Cavalier, 44, and Ammon Bundy, 40, the public face of the occupation. They were bound for a community meeting 100 miles north of the refuge in John Day.

Officer statements and cellphone video taken by Cox from inside the truck showed that Finicum repeatedly ignored police orders, first at the traffic stop and then after he crashed trying to elude officers. He nearly ran over an FBI agent before stalling in a roadside snowbank.

What happened in just seconds after that crash could lead to criminal charges against the FBI agents.

Cox’s video showed that one shot hit the truck’s left rear passenger window as Finicum stepped out. At the time, Finicum appeared to have his hands at least at shoulder height.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_fbi_agents_und.html

 

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

Federal Agents Told to STAND DOWN in Bunkerville

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

The six defendants on trial were determined to be the “least culpable,” yet could spend the rest of their lives in prison.

LAS VEGAS — Law-enforcement officers were ordered by the federal special agent in charge to cease “all operations” hours before an armed standoff at a Nevada ranch reached its tension-filled zenith in 2014.

But they did not. Three law-enforcement officers testified in federal court Thursday that they maintained their positions throughout the night and into the next day, anticipating a bloody gunfight at Bundy Ranch.

None of the officers explained in court why they were ordered to engage anti-government protesters — and open fire with less than lethal weapons — after being told at least twice to stand down, abandon their efforts to round up private cattle on federal land and leave.

This was one of the first times law-enforcement officials have publicly acknowledged the government orders to back down, drawing attention to a little-known detail about the high-profile confrontation.

The six-day standoff reached a climax on April 12, 2014, as hundreds of protesters formed a line across a wash near Interstate 15 about 80 miles north of Las Vegas. Armed men took up positions on the overpass, sighting their rifles at federal agents below.

“All operations had ceased? All operations were done?” Las Vegas lawyer Richard Tanasi asked McBride on cross-examination. “Despite that operations were over, despite your requests to fall back, your requests were being denied?”

Tanasi represents Steven Stewart, one of six defendants charged with conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction for taking up arms to stop the Bureau of Land Management from seizing cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy.

The six men, from Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma, are the first of 17 defendants to go on trial on charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch standoff. Although federal prosecutors designated them as the “least culpable,” the defendants face identical charges and could spend the rest of their lives in prison if convicted.

April 11 order: Pack up and leave

Federal authorities testified Thursday about an April 11 briefing to cease operations.

They said Dan Love, BLM special agent in charge of operations, said authorities were going to release Bundy’s cattle, pack up and leave the wash. They said a news release signaling the standoff was over would be sent out the next day.

Instead, the situation intensified through the night. National Parks police officers and rangers, who served on a regional operations team called to the Bundy Ranch, testified that they believed an attack was imminent.

McBride said supervisors ordered her team to take up defensive positions through the night and prepare for an attack on the incident command post that never came.

The next day, on April 12, supervisors ordered her to advance with three team members and fire non-lethal gas and pepper spray at protesters.

She said they approached the line of 100 protesters in the wash in a tactical “stack formation.” McBride was in the lead behind a ballistic shield, followed by an officer armed with a gun loaded with pepper rounds, a third carrying a gas-canister launcher and a rifleman for protection.

“The four of us were given OK (to fire),” McBride said, adding that they disregarded the order because they feared the pop of the gas rounds would be mistaken for gunfire and spark a shooting war.

“While we were standing there in the stack, we discussed it,” she said. “We would have shots fired against us.”

She said her team twice requested permission to fall back and her supervisor denied their request.

Thursday wrapped up the second week of testimony by government witnesses in one of the West’s most high-profile land-use cases.

For decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered rancher Cliven Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

Bundy issued a social-media battle cry. Hundreds of supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma.

Prosecutors counter that the protesters are lawbreakers who illegally pointed weapons at law-enforcement officers and conspired to block a lawful court order.

The defendants argue that conduct by reckless government agents led to the standoff. They said federal agents incited the violence against people exercising their constitutionally protected rights to assemble and bear arms.

The trial expected to continue for weeks

Federal Agents Told to STAND DOWN in Bunkerville

 

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

Bundy and Malheur Refuge updates

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

Redoubt News.com has a significant amount of new articles from the second Malheur Refuge Trial and very questionable BLM Supervisor Daniel P. Love.

Ammon Bundy held his own as he testified in Portland last week!

Please check them out at:

Home

or the below link.  — Editor Liz Bowen

Malheur II – Ammon Bundy Testifies

 

No Comments

Bundy: Malheur Refuge Second Trial — Judge stops reporter from testifying

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

Redoubt News.com

February 25, 2017

Malheur II – Judge Stops Reporter From Testifying

by Shari Dovale

In January 2016, former OPB reporter John Sepulvado, now with KQED in California, interviewed protest leader Ryan Bundy about the “hard stand” taken at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

Prosecutors wanted to call Sepulvado to the stand to authenticate the interview and have it admitted into evidence. Attorney Duane A. Bosworth, representing Oregon Public Broadcasting and Sepulvado, argued against the subpoena citing First Amendment protections, saying that forced testimony would “chill future sources, even nonconfidential ones”.

Judge Anna Brown was surprised at the government’s stance that no journalistic privilege exists to protect a reporter from having to testify in a federal criminal case. “I’m starting with the premise that there is a journalist’s privilege under federal law,” Judge Brown said.

But she has not taken that same stance in regard to journalist Gary Hunt. She has ordered Hunt to appear in her court as she intends to dictate what he is allowed to publish, and what he is not allowed to publish. It is also unclear as to whether she will attempt to force him to reveal his sources.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Barrow argued that the government wasn’t asking Sepulvado to disclose a confidential source.

Defense lawyer Jesse Merrithew, representing Jake Ryan, argued that “This is not an interview. This is a story that was editorialized by OPB to tell the news from their perspective.”

Judge Brown seems to want to force the defense to call Ryan Bundy to discuss the interview. However, this would violate his rights, as he is still under indictment in the Nevada Bunkerville trial. Additionally, the charge of theft of FBI surveillance cameras against Mr. Bundy resulted in a hung jury, which has yet to be dealt with.

Judge Anna Brown granted Bosworth’s motion to quash the subpoena.

I am a strong supporter of the first amendment. I believe in Freedom of the Press, and do not want my rights as a journalist to be thrown aside by any court.

In that respect, I agree with Judge Anna Brown.

My problem with the case is that Judge Brown is picking winners and losers. She has trampled on the US Constitution more times than any other judge that I have seen. She has denied Constitutional rights to the defendants, including, but not limited to, the right of bail.

The government has also claimed that a ‘redress of grievance’ is not a legal document, which Judge Brown upheld. However, it is clearly laid out in this same First Amendment.

Judge Brown has repeatedly denied defendants the chance to quote from the Constitution, stating that the law will be applied as she interprets it only. The Constitution is not allowed in her courtroom. So, why now?

The interview is very biased. Sepulvado has repeatedly called the defendants names, such as ‘thugs’ and ‘dipsh*t’, and admits to doing so. He was upset at the verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ and did not hide that. There can be no doubt that the final edited version of his interview was very biased.

The questions of how much was cut from the interview and thrown on the editors floor cannot be answered. It is obvious that the intent of the journalist was to develop a biased piece strictly for the purposes of propaganda. It would be a travesty for this to be admitted as ‘evidence’ against these defendants.

US Constitution

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Malheur II – Judge Stops Reporter From Testifying

 

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

Bundy: Wrapping up the Week at the Malheur Refuge, Oregon, second trial

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

Malheur II – Wrapping up the Week

by Shari Dovale

Redoubt News.com

February 25, 2017

The prosecution has presented the majority of their case in the second Malheur Protest Trial. This case is considerably shorter than the previous trial.

Witnesses included refuge manager Chad Karges, who testified that he was the one that directed the employees not to go to work. He made this decision a full two days before the rally that began the protest.

It was made clear that none of the protesters, or current defendants, had any contact with the employees of the refuge, therefore, there was no chance of threatening them. However, the prosecution is basing their case on implied and circumstantial evidence. Linda Beck indicated that she was willing to go to the refuge to retrieve a laptop computer but was ordered not to do so by Chad Karges.

The prosecution did their ‘Really Big Gun Show” again. Letting the jury see all of these scary weapons, and ammo to go with it, is very important to the prosecution’s case. If they cannot win on the facts, maybe they can win on emotion and scare tactics?

Judge Anna Brown

The big story of the week is the subpoena of John Sepulvado. The prosecution wanted to place into evidence a recorded interview that the former OPB reporter made with Ryan Bundy. Judge Anna Brown, in an unusual move, cited the First Amendment and quashed the subpoena

It does not make sense that she would support the US Constitution in this case, when she has already fought against it in the Gary Hunt case. She has ordered Hunt to appear in her court and shows every indication of trampling on the first amendment. You can read about that case here.

Judge Brown has repeatedly had issues with the US Constitution. Making multiple, and forceful, comments that the law in her courtroom is only as she dictates it to be and not the Constitution. She made an exception in this case, so she is picking winners and losers. I, personally, would like to see her stop cherry-picking this document and using it only if she sees an advantage.

We did have further testimony this week confirming Mark McConnell was a paid informant at the Refuge. Discussions of informants have been a big part of this trial, with the defense making the points that paid informants were possibly part of the security team. If that is true, this would indicate that the FBI set up the defendants to break the law.

It has already been established that Fabio Minoggio, also known as John Killman, was in charge of weapons training at the Refuge, yet the defendants are having to defend themselves against these gun charges, seemingly initiated by this Confidential Human Source (CHS) or paid informant.

Duane Ehmer

Facebook posts and Memes are another part of the prosecutions case. The government went all out to cherry-pick select posts, yet are fighting having any other posts admitted into evidence. A classic example is Duane Ehmer, who has been described as a fierce Facebook-er. Duane has been known to post, share, and comment on hundreds of Facebook posts each day. Memes are a favorite, as well as comments that agree and disagree with other posters. Ehmer has never been afraid to share his thoughts. So, out of the hundreds of postings, the government decided on five posts/memes to represent Ehmer. His attorney, Michelle Kohler, rightfully argued to have the postings just before and just after included in the record, to put them into context.

The FBI witnesses, beginning with former Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing, all had the same theme. ~If the defense asks any questions, we do not remember.~ For a man that was in charge of the entire state of Oregon, and the complete operation of the Malheur Refuge, one would think he was more intelligent than that. He spent nearly the entire month at the refuge, but remembers very little about it.

Example of a ‘Meme’ found on Facebook

Other agents commented the same way. They said they needed to refer to their reports, but the reports were not there. Really? I have seen subpoenas that included bringing documents and supporting information with them. I guess the prosecution forgot that part when they issued them to the FBI?

Again, the prosecution is not putting on their best case. The defense is easily combating the evidence. One wonders why the government does not seem to be worried about this case.

…Don’t forget the Bench Trial coming up…

Monday is expected to be the final day of the prosecution case. Blaine Cooper is expected to testify against the defendants, as well as a few more government witnesses before the prosecution rests.

The defense is expected to begin on Tuesday, February 28th, with Ammon Bundy testifying first. Ryan Payne is expected to testify right behind Ammon. The defense does not expect their case to go longer than a week.

This case could be wrapped up much earlier than first anticipated.

Malheur II – Wrapping up the Week

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