Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Explaining the Malheur Protest Trial

The country is under a Rule of Law that is contrary to the US Constitution.

Explaining the Malheur Protest Trial

Explaining the Malheur Protest Trial

By Shari Dovale

I have been sitting in the courtroom throughout the majority of this trial. Beginning from the jury selection, it has been obvious that the government’s agenda will be upheld, at the cost of the truth.

The government controlling your rights. Their sign, and my ticket to a watch list.
The government controlling your rights. (Their sign, and my ticket to a watch list.)

For those that still don’t understand, let me explain.

Ammon Bundy and the other defendants are on trial for ‘Conspiring to Impede Federal Officers’. This means that the government is accusing them of not allowing the employees of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to go to work.

Keep in mind that employees have already testified they continued to work.

The government is allowed to bring in any evidence they deem appropriate to prove this charge. Evidence includes the actual weapons owned by LaVoy Finicum, Facebook ‘Memes’, and coaching of witnesses while they are on the stand.

The defendants, however, are not allowed to explain why they were there (the Hammond case), what legal doctrine they based the protest on (Adverse Possession) or how the FBI lied about the murder of LaVoy.

This meme could get me on a Terrorist Watch List.
This meme could get me on a Terrorist Watch List.

It has been decreed by Judge Anna Brown that, though the government first introduced the killing of LaVoy, the defense will be held in contempt and charged $1,000 per instance if they even try to discuss the FBI cover-up of the killing. Brown has called it ‘irrelevant.’

Remember, the government first brought it up, and is allowed to discuss what they want.

Discussing the US Constitution is off limits as well. Judge Brown has made it very clear that only she can explain the law to the jury, and to have them consider the words of the Constitution is contrary to that ruling. If the jury were to read the Constitution, they might learn of more rights than she would like them to know, such as ‘jury nullification.’

Brown made specific demands of the jury that they must swear to follow her ideas of the law and not consider this basic right. She stated that nullification is “just not right” but she fell short of calling it illegal.

The Hammond family were in a similar position during their trial. Their jury was given very narrow instructions as to determine if Dwight and Steven actually started the fire in their case. The Hammond’s never denied starting that fire. But they were not allowed to present their defense of what happened.

The original judge in their trial understood that the charges were a great overreach. He went outside the sentencing guidelines and gave them shorter time at their sentencing. The two men served the time. However, the Federal government was still unable to get their hands on the ranch and went back for further punishment. The Hammonds were forced back to prison under double-jeopardy to serve additional time.

This is relevant because the Hammond case is what brought the Bundys to Oregon. Yet, Judge Brown will not allow these details into the trial.

Another 'anti-government' meme
Another ‘anti-government’ meme

The FBI cover-up of the murder of LaVoy is relevant as well. The protesters have stated their fear and distrust of the FBI. These events substantiate their fears. The final four holdouts were affected even more by these events. They had already seen one of their own murdered, so their belief that they too could be killed is extremely relevant. Yet, Judge Brown states that it has no bearing on the case at hand.

Do not forget that the government did not follow their own laws during this trial. They had specific guidelines on their Facebook warrant, yet they screwed that up and went way outside of the scope of the warrant. Though the judge agreed the government messed it up, she still allowed it to be used as evidence. How’s that for bias?

The defendants are not allowed to put on a defense, period. This means that there is no defense to the government agenda. The government can say that ‘Liking’ someone’s Facebook meme can label you a terrorist. The government can say that the US Constitution is irrelevant. The government can say lying and hiding evidence of a murder is okay … if it is done by them. How do the citizen’s of this country defend against an out-of-control government like this?

The country is under a Rule of Law that is contrary to the US Constitution, and what this country is based on. We are under imperial rule, governed by the elite ruling class, not by the people, as it was designed.

God help us.

Right-Wing Conspiracy meme
Right-Wing Conspiracy meme

6 Comments on Explaining the Malheur Protest Trial

    • To begin with, the ‘Dead-man’s roadblock’ was illegal. The FBI began shooting at the first stop. They continued to fire their weapons up to, and including, the second stop at the roadblock. Not a single weapon was fired back at them.

      Then, the FBI lied and tried to hide evidence.

      Flip this scenario and say the protesters had done this. Everyone would be screaming Murder!

      So why is it unacceptable to use that term in reference to the actions of the FBI?

    • Steve, I beg to differ. If you have viewed the videos and analysis; murder is what took place. YOU lose credibility by making that statement. Catch up.
      I sat in that courtroom a week ago today. I saw the first Prosecution witness, Claudia Bonia, the FBI person who was responsible for authentication of the Facebook files. I watched her sit on the stand and look at the Prosecution and wink and smile. Now, I don’t care if you’ve known any of those people since you were a kid, if you’re on the stand your focus is on your testimony and what is taking place. These people are being persecuted by twisting Facebook posts. The way the FBI handled the evidence was on Hillary Clinton’s level. In any other case, the poor handling of evidence would have it become inadmissible. Their nonchalant arrogance drove me crazy.
      The Prosecution is jumpy, tight assed, and will object immediately on any little thing. They are always checking with each other on stuff. One guy will stand up and then realize he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and has to ask someone else for the details. I watched Anna Brown tell them more than once to LET THE DEFENSE FINISH THEIR QUESTION BEFORE YOU OBJECT!”
      The Feds are doing everything in their power to obfuscate the core pieces of this event. SHAME on all of them.

      P.S. Shari, I have a butt load of notes to type up. The first few days back in town shut me down from doing much, I had the grandkids. I’ll let you know when I get them done.

    • LaVoy Finicum was murdered and that is truth. If I am now not credible at least I know the truth. You are in fantasy land where corrupt and criminal judges, lawyers and government are the end of justice, liberty and America as we knew it.

  1. Shari, having covered this story for a bit now, do you get a sense of how the jury is processing all of this? I know you aren’t a mind reader, but in general, do you feel that the juror’s thoughts mirror those of your own?

2 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Malheur 7: Examining the Prosecution Evidence - Redoubt News - Washington
  2. Malheur Protest Trial: The Big Gun Show - Redoubt News - Oregon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*