Scroll-down for Previous Developments.

angry-jurors-1Friday, October 28, 2016:

Juror #4 Issues a Statement via The Oregonian/OregonLIve:  Government Failed to Meet Its Burden of Proof.  

“It should be known that all 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove ‘conspiracy’ in the count itself – and not any form of affirmation of the defense’s various beliefs, actions or aspirations,” Juror 4 wrote Friday in a lengthy email to The Oregonian/OregonLive.

 

“All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,” he wrote.

 

“But we were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,” the Marylhurst student wrote. “It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.”

 

“Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely-situated people as a means to convict,” the juror wrote. “The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.”

 

poot-verdict-celebration-hug-1Thursday, October 27, 2016:

BREAKING NEWS: 4:15 p.m. PDT — ALL DEFENDANTS ACQUITTED — FOUND NOT GUILTY — of ALL Criminal Conspiracy & Gun Charges.  More details later. 

It’s worth watching John Lamb’s reaction on Facebook.

IN FURTHER BREAKING NEWS, it has been reported now by multiple sources that in the chaos in the courtroom following reading of the verdict, Attorney Marcus Mumford was attacked, tackled and tased by U.S. Marshalls.  More details on that later too. 

According to multiple sources, when Attorney Marcus Mumford attempted to argue that his client, Ammon Bundy, was acquitted and should be released as Defendant David Fry will be, multiple U.S. Marshalls took Mumford to the ground and tased him in the courtroom.

“It just blows my mind,’ that a lawyer would be taken to the ground and Tased in a courtroom.” — Margie Paris, UofO law professor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As the Oregon Standoff Trial  jury is starting deliberations from scratch, the Defendants have filed a request to have an additional jury instruction given regarding Second Amendment Rights, that they had previously requested. According to Jury 2the language of the motion, this new request was filed based on the defendants’ assertion that the Government breached the assurances it had given both to the court and to the Defendants prior to its rebuttal case and closing arguments that it would not mention “Militia” or make any attempt to tie the so-called “Militia” and their guns and actions to the defendants.

To review Defendants’ Second Amendment Jury Instruction Request, CLICK HERE.

When Judge Brown instructed the newly-configured jury to begin deliberations from scratch, including selection of a new foreperson, she told them to completely disregard any previous deliberations as if they had never happened. She declined, however, to however, to give the jury Defendants’ newly re-requested Second Amendment Instruction.

Otherwise, while waiting for further developments, let’s explore some of the comments that have puportedly been popping up on MSM comment boards, including in response to Maxine Bernstein’s articles on The Oregonian/OregonLive.  Someone passed along a comment with notes about these purported comments, which raise all sorts of questions:

“Comments [on OregonLive comment boards about] max bernstien’s article 10/25/16  9:34 pm by @I AmBaady & @hampton “….that wasn’t our job or the judges…lt was the attorney’s job” 5:21 am 10/26/16 & at 4:19am  “we have a college student (juror)….this kid probably overreacted” & at 4:16am “sure wish the jury had not sprung a leak”

“Wasn’t our job”?   “We have a college student (juror)”? —  Who’s posting this stuff? Members of the jury?  Court staff?  Prosecution? “Sure wish the jury had not sprung a leak“?  Is there more to that story?

Is there much more to the whole equation than meets the eye.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wednesday, October 26, 2016:  One juror dismissed.  Alternate appointed, and deliberations set to start over from scratch 

The jury in the Oregon Standoff Trial began deliberations last Thursday (Oct. 20, 2016).

judge-brown-adjective-1Yesterday, separate jurors passed notes to Judge Brown expressing concerns and asking questions, indicating that the jury was in deadlock, and that one of the jurors, a former BLM employee, who had underreported his biases during voir dire examination, had expressed an admitted bias at the outset of deliberations, but nothing had been done about it.

According to OPB’s Conrad Wilson:

“The big takeaway from these jury questions: there’s some doubt about the government’s case.” — Conrad Wilson, Oregon Public Broadcasting

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss that juror — Juror No. 11 — or declare a mistrial in the case. To review Defendants’ Motion, CLICK HERE.  

This whole scenario also raises all kinds of questions about the possible tainting of the rest of the jury by Juror No. 11’s admitted biases, and whether or not he may have presented addtional information to the jury beyond the scope of the evidence presented during the trial.  The rest of the story is that in addition to being a former BLM employee, Juror No. 11 is also a current law enforcement officer, with the department of corrections.  How did he get past Voir Dire questioning?  Obvious masking of his background, connections, and biases?  Possible broader tainting of the rest of the jury? Lots of questions, but here’s one of the biggest: Why isn’t the Mainstream Media telling the whole story?

After much pushing with plenty of case law to support the motion, despite considerable resistance, Judge Brown finally dismissed Juror No. 11, forcing her to randomly select an alternate juror.  Alternate Juror #18 was selected.  Judge Brown then dismissed the jury for the day.  Jury deliberations will start over again FROM SCRATCH, beginning tomorrow.

Never a dull moment!

For Maxine Bernstein’s treatment of this issue, CLICK HERE. 

For more RANGEFIRE! coverage of previous trial developments, CLICK HERE.

RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback

 

 

4 Comments

  1. Dear Patriots,

    Please possible; please circulate on twitter and facebook to get these co-conspirators undivided attention on my behalf

    This is an. Open invitation to the following criminals below within this “De-Facto” Government, to an open and televised debate of the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge and allow the people to decide the truth as following

    1) the location of MWR

    2) did the federal government ever sold the MWR

    3) Who owns the MWR

    4) The Constitution

    5) Who is suppose to protect the MWR

    6) if they are PROFITING from the MWR

    7) Arizona Vs. California

    Bills they participated and voted in favor to land grab

    9) the set up of LaVoy’s assassination and the arrest of our Patriots

    10) the theft of the Hammond’s land

    11) Lewis and Clark Law School ORS being unconstitutional

    12) conflict of interest OWLS, The Lewis and Clark Show, HEDGE FUNDS, appointed positions, purchase of land from BLM, EARMARKS, and the Oregon Legislative Investment Council

    So-call Steven E Grasty

    So-call Gov Kate Brown

    So call Senator Ron Wyden

    So Call Senator Jeff Merkley

    So call Rep Boyd Britton

    So call Rep Cliff Bentz

    So call commissioner Dan Nichols

    So call commissioner Pete Runnels

    Self proclaim reporter Les Zaitz

    Self proclaim reporter Scotta Callister

    King “The Pin” Williams

    So call manger Chad Karges

    So call Rep Ted Ferrioli

    So call Rep Greg Walden

    So call Rep Gordon Smith

    So call Judge Anna J Brown

    So call Judge Ann Aikens

    So call Judge Stacey Beckermann

    So call sheriff David Word

    So call sheriff Wolfe

    Former so call sheriff Andy Bentz

    So call convervative Lars Larson

    So call AG Ellen B and former Sally Amanda Marshall

    and others…

    In loving memory of LaVoy; God bless our Republic.

    1. Lazaro,

      Check the United States Stautes at Large, which enacted Title 18 USC into positvie law

      http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=683#

      Go to Section 5 United States Defined.
      http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=685#

      Now go down to section 7 Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States Defined

      Now carefully read Section 7(3)
      “Any land reserve or acquired for the USE OF THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . ”

      Was public land reserved or acquired for the “USE OF THE UNITED STATES?”

      Careful reading of the statute indicates that it is within the confines of the constitution.

  2. Author

    Comments on max bernstien’s article 10/25/16 9:34 pm by @I AmBaady & @hampton “….that wasn’t our job or the judges…lt was the attorney’s job” 5:21 am 10/26/16 & at 4:19am “we have a college student (juror)….this kid probably overreacted” & at 4:16am “sure wish the jury had not sprung a leak”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *