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 blog archivesfor the day Thursday, March 23rd, 2017.

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

Sacramento County reeling from jury’s $107 million verdict against it in mining case

Lawsuits, Mining

March 22, 2017

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