Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

Refuge Manager Changes Testimony On Witness Stand

Karges was the only one to tell the employees to not go to work.


Refuge Manager Changes Testimony On Witness Stand

by Aubrie Bosworth and Shari Dovale

The manager of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge south of Burns, Oregon, testified in the Protest Trial being held in Portland, Oregon. Chad Karges took the stand on the second day of testimony, spending most of the day being questioned by the government and defense attorneys.

Karges told of how he was concerned for the safety of his 16 employees after seeing a caravan of cars pass his house after a rally on Saturday, January 2, 2016.

He instructed his employees to “not report to work until they were instructed” by him. However, he stated contradictory dates for these instructions.

He admitted to telling to 2 maintenance workers to leave the refuge and go home on December 31st, a full 2 days before the rally took place in Burns.

Though he first said that he learned of Bunkerville through internet stories, he admitted to reading ‘government reports’ after the incident in 2014, which held weight in his decision to empty the refuge of workers.

He attempted to say that his information came from rumors, or common knowledge, throughout the town of Burns. But, it seems to us that it would not be reasonable to empty a facility of workers based on rumors.

He told of how he went to the refuge on Friday, January 1st, to remove a laptop computer from his office for a meeting he was attending. He testified that all the doors were locked at the refuge, but on cross examination, it was revealed that he never personally checked any door other than his own office. He relied on what he believed to have been true, based on general behavior of the employees.

He also testified that when Linda Beck asked him if she could go to the refuge on Saturday, January 2nd, to retrieve paperwork from her office, Karges specifically told her not to go. He was concerned for her safety, even though no specific threats had been made by the protesters, and the rally had not even taken place at that time.

He was not concerned for his own safety, demonstrated by his personal visit on Friday, January 1st. But, based on rumors within the town, he became concerned for the safety of his employees.

He also testified that $400.00 had been taken from the safe, but later confirmed that he did not know of this personally. Again, he testified to what someone else had told him.

So, this man testified to quite a lot of hearsay, statements from others, and reports from a 2014 grazing rights incident, to not allow his 16 employees to go to the refuge. He was the only one to tell the employees to not go to work. The defendants never spoke to them and never kept them from working.

17 Comments on Refuge Manager Changes Testimony On Witness Stand

  1. Interesting, why isn’t he being charged with impeding federal officers from doing their jobs at the refuge since he is the one that told them not to return to the refuge. My understanding is that they were able to do their jobs but from home. So, is there really any impeding going on?

  2. Face the truth. The government has a vested interest in this land…. (well at least those who are selling the mineral rights do). That’s the point, follow the money. Government at it’s worst, or these days, the norm. Those who ignore the foundational reality to this travesty of justice, are selling their souls. Simple as that. We see this happening all over the nation. This corrupt government in action……

    • Well said. Short and to the point. Too big of govt collecting taxes on everything they can think of. Hunting, fishing, cars, drivers license, car tabs, property taxes, sales tax, business licenses, and on and on and on. Speeding tickets, always of getting our $$$$$. After we have already paid tax on that too.

  3. But, to the point of the article. If the testimonies of the witness contradict or do not support what he or she said previously, UNDER OATH, then perjury could become an issue. Also, “hearsay” is not testimony, unless it is first (or later) corroborated by the person who said it before the witness testifies. Absent first-hand testimony, hearsay is inadmissible – of course, if someone is dead, and/or there are copies of valid documents, while originals are not available any longer, courts generally allow such “second hand” testimony – but not very often from what I’ve seen. A stain on a green dress is not, of itself, evidence, unless the owner of the dress testifies as to the stain’s origin – then it is up to the other party to try to discredit the person (and not the stain).

  4. Actually his testimony is quite consistent with his previous statements published in the Oregonian.
    Here’s a point you keep missing: There is no such thing as grazing RIGHTS on public land. They are leases that ranchers pay for. Rights don’t cost money, therefore ranchers don’t buy grazing rights.
    Don’t pay for the lease or misuse the land, and you can lose your grazing privileges and rightly so.

    • Missing Fred Beyers’ point. A right, by contract, is enforceable. One who leases a place of residence, for example, has a right to protect it from invasion, even by the landlord who must obey “the law” regarding same (varies by state). If I have a lease, I am entitled to the respect of the powers (rights) spelled out in it. No one is contending that “rights are given by government” – in fact, they are not rights, but privileges. But a contract, in law, assigns to each party of the contract “certain rights and privileges” which cannot be denigrated or destroyed upon one party’s say-so, unless specifically spelled out and signed unto by the parties to said contract. Know the truth and it shall set you free.

    • Not true. We have the right to travel but we still have to pay for a drivers license, vehicle registration, and vehicle insurance.

      We have the right to carry a gun, both concealed and openly, yet in most places, one must pay for a permit.

      Simply stated, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • If there were a REAL judge presiding, the judge would find the case to be a bunch of trumped-up charges and dismiss with prejudice, then turn the prosecution over to be investigated. The prosecutor has a DUTY to act upon truth, not lies.

  5. That’s the problem for liars. They can’t remember what they said in the past. When you tell the truth, it’s ALWAYS the same!!!

Comments are closed.