McConnell Outed as Government Informant
By Shari Dovale
The Malheur Protest Trial continued today with Judge Anna Brown repeating her orders to Ryan Bundy not to bring up the “FBI Cover-up”. “This is very serious controversy,” she told him. She warned him that if he attempted to bring up this point that she will have him removed from the courtroom and he will forfeit his right to represent himself.
Later in the morning, Oregon State Police (OSP) Trooper Jeremiah Beckert testified about January 26, 2016, the day the FBI and OSP set up an illegal Dead-man’s Roadblock on Highway 395 north of Burns.
Beckert testified that Mark McConnell, driver of the jeep, was a cooperating government informant that tipped them off as to the vehicles, which occupants were in the vehicles, etc. Beckert told the court that McConnell was the only occupant of the jeep that was armed. The other two passengers, Ammon Bundy and Brian Cavalier, were not armed.
Beckert brought with him a 24-page statement to refresh his memory, but stated that most of the events were very clear in his mind. “This was a High Profile incident,” he stated. “A once in a lifetime event.”
When defense attorney Mumford questioned him about the legality of the events, Beckert said, “It is not my job to understand the laws. It is my job to do what my supervisor tells me.”
Beckert testified that he was assigned to apprehend the jeep during the operation to arrest the protesters. He was in an unmarked truck, and when he saw the jeep he hit his lights and sirens and went up behind them. After the arrests of the jeep passengers, Beckert drove off to assist with the vehicle driven by LaVoy Finicum.
He testified that Finicum was on the ground and not moving when he arrived, and continued to describe the events after that, leading to the arrests of the remaining passengers.
Judge Brown attempted to limit how many details were discussed in front of the jury, but some made there way into open court. It was noted that no shots came from the truck, and several non-lethal rounds were shot towards the truck. The lethal rounds were not discussed.
“So the round that was shot into my shoulder, was it lethal or not lethal?” Ryan Bundy attempted to ask on cross examination. This was another question that went unanswered.
Since the defendants perception is the main focus, it would have been nice to hear if they could have discerned the difference between lethal and non-lethal rounds being shot at them, however, the Judge was having none of that.
The prosecution has not presented a strong case, yet I am sure it will be enough for Judge Brown to send it to the jury. Let’s hope and pray that the jury is smart enough to see through them.
Basically, from the article, and from other information such as the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution the criminal actions, and quite possibly treasonous also, are the actions of Judge Brown, Trooper Beckert, and the others that also participated in the unlawful actions AGAINST American citizens in violation of their Oaths, contracts, and the Protections FROM THOSE THAT SERVE WITHIN GOVERNMENT written into the US Constitution, the legitimate government of this nation.
“Oregon State Police (OSP) Trooper Jeremiah Beckert… said, “It is not my job to understand the laws. It is my job to do what my supervisor tells me.”
No, actually that Oath he was REQUIRED to take (and sign a form that he took it and understood it – can anyone get a copy of that document, should be public) requires that he understand not only the US Constitution, but the Oregon Constitution as well as he is responsible for them FIRST and foremost as they are the Supreme LAW that all laws MUST follow (US Constitution), and the highest LAW of the state (Oregon Constitution). The highest law of your (generic “your”) state is over all other laws/codes/regulations/statures/etc. The only thing it is not higher then the is the US Constitution itself – and the US Constitution is a VERY short document but it guides how all laws/codes/regulations/statures/etc here in the USA MUST be to be lawful and the people themselves to be bound by them.
It is critical to understand that these sections from the Oregon Constitution are LIMITATIONS placed upon those who serve within the Oregon government.
Preamble to the Oregon Constitution: “We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution.”
Section 8. Freedom of speech and press: “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.”
Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures: “No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”
Section 26. Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature: “No law shall be passed restraining any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their Representatives; nor from applying to the Legislature for redress of grievances.”
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”
But it goes beyond that as he, and all who work for he state, as the US Constitution is the FIRST contract that must be followed by him (and others) no matter what his superior orders are, or what the duties of the position he occupies requires; the support and defense of the US Constitution is his and all Oath Takers, first and strongest duty and the one they swear to uphold. Second for Beckert, that he is REQUIRED to follow is the Oregon Constitution as the HIGHEST LAW of that state and the one that all laws/regulations/codes/etc must follow in order to be binding on the people of the state of Oregon.
All of this was confirmed by the Nuremberg Trials (Nazi Germany), that those that “just followed orders” and/or “just did their jobs” are personally accountable for their actions even without an Oath. They still got the death penalty and were hung for “just following orders” and/or “just doing their jobs”.
That has been the practice here in the USA since her beginnings. Military personnel were/are held accountable for following unlawful orders.
But more important is that breaking the Oath(s)- some are combined, some take 2 Oaths – are at least one felony and the crime of Perjury. So far, though he has not been removed from duty as is required of all Oath breakers until he gets his day in court. (and yes, judges can be guilty also).
“The constitution of a state is the fundamental law of the State.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199.
“What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.
“Constitutional provisions and amendments to the Constitution relate to the fundamental law and certain fixed principles upon which governments are founded. Constitutions are commonly called the organic law of a State.” State ex rel. Halliburton v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408, 130 S. W. 689.
“A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.
“The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.
THIS IS WHY THE OATH IS TO THE US and to STATE CONSTITUTIONS instead of to the people who serve within our governments — > “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.
*Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
BRAVO!
QUOTE: “This was a High Profile incident,” he stated. “A once in a lifetime event.”
MY COMMENT: Here is a government employee (OSP Trooper Beckert) hyped up on adrenaline thinking that whatever happens in this “lifetime event” is extremely important to civilization. He may be required to become a hero by eliminating any threat that may be perceived by the law enforcement team. Then, during the entire lead-up to the actual stopping of the vehicles, the trooper is conjuring up all kinds of dangerous scenarios which may arise… The trooper is still a sophomore in high school, unable to de-escalate interactions with his neighbors and fellow Americans on a highway, at a refuge headquarters, and on Main street in Burns, OR. Actually, during the roadblock, Beckert may have reverted back to his second grade days, playing cops and robbers and “good guys” versus “bad guys.” Now, he is testifying in court attempting to cover his fellow government employees asses.
QUOTE: “It is not my job to understand the laws. It is my job to do what my supervisor tells me.”
MY RESPONSE: This quote is very, very disturbing. It is simply an individual seeking to absolve himself of any and all individual accountability. THIS IS THE MINDSET OF 99.9% OF ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. Another not so long ago society went to hell with this kind of individual following government orders, the NAZI German society produced individuals who “just followed orders” while loading their fellow human beings into gas chambers, etc. In a personal incident in court, I had Assistant Attorney General Angela Zurlini state, “We just need to agree to disagree” about http://manfined1500forlookingforajob.blogspot.com/2011/12/man-fined-150000-for-looking-for-job.html
to which I replied, “No we don’t need to agree to disagree because I am not fining you $1500.00 for hanging a flier on a private bulletin board.” Zurlini absolved herself of individual responsibility by stating, “Neither am I” [fining you $1500.00]. Which means in her mind that she is just following orders, and the government is [unconstitutionally] fining me, not herself. Zurlini and all government employees are not required to have a conscience and abide by their Oath of Office. They want the “government” to be responsible, not themselves…
Good call. Government Employees (emphasis on employees) just fall in line with the crowd running the show. They have lost all individualist thoughts and reasoning capabilities. They have little or no respect for their fellow man. All this melting of individual ideas and beliefs, in to one giant robotic machine called government. It was obvious McConnel was a pawn for the feds, inspire of his attempt to act like he was an innocent bystander. He was the only one who hopped into his rig and headed home, a free man. LaVoy’s lifeblood is on his hands. Maybe he’ll be shunned by anyone who calls him friend. We can always hope.
“So the round that was shot into my shoulder, was it lethal or not lethal?” Ryan Bundy attempted to ask on cross examination. This was another question that went unanswered.
As well it should have. It would be hard to imagine a question more stupid than that one.
It was a perfect question and should have been answered.
Ben Farrell, were it your shoulder, would you then give a damn? It was a fair question, and you KNOW IT.
The intent of the question was quite shrewd. The reason it was not answered or not ALLOWED to be answered was they would have had to admit that they were shooting at unarmed individuals.