Confidential Informants in the Malheur Protest Trial
by Shari Dovale
Marcus Mumford argued this week that the prosecution should reveal the names of the 15 Confidential Human Sources (CHS) used by the FBI in the Malheur Protest Trial.
The court contends that there is an initial privilege for the government to withhold identities. However, this contradicts the basic Constitutional right of the defendants to face their accusers.
There are 15 CHS, or confidential informants, and 129 reports from these sources that are in question. The defense received heavily redacted copies of the reports with numbers assigned to each informant and one report being completely blocked out.
Two of the informants have already been named. Mark McConnell was named by Oregon State Police Trooper Jeremiah Beckett during his testimony of the illegal traffic stop that lead to the murder of LaVoy Finicum on January 26th. Terri Linnell, also known as ‘Mama Bear’ at the Malheur Refuge, testified for the defense last week.
It is a concern that the informants actually coerced defendants into committing offenses, and may have taken part in what the government is calling a conspiracy. The court has stated that, “By definition, you cannot be a member of the conspiracy if you are a Confidential Informant.” However, Confidential Informants cannot knowingly break the law.
Therefore, with so many informants on the payroll in this case, the defendants should have the opportunity to explore if any of the informants were in a position to take part in this conspiracy.
Not only has there been evidence admitted in this trial that cannot be positively identified as belonging to the defendants, like many of the guns, there have been statements made by the government in which they admit the informants took part in leadership and/or organizational meetings. This puts some major constitutional violations in play.
“Government cannot create the problem and then deny me a solution,” Mumford said.
Added to the problem is that Ryan Bundy filed a motion over a month ago that requested this very information. Judge Anna Brown denied that motion, and only now is explaining to him that he (basically) filed it incorrectly. Ryan is representing himself in this trial.
The defendants are looking to have the names of the informants, as well as the information they relayed and the amounts they were paid, turned over to the defense before the case is completed, expected this week.
The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our content to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here
Paid informants are participating in accusing the defendants. We in America have the protected right to face our accusers before a jury so that the defense can question them face to face.
This is a principle protected in the Constitution. Do not let the government employees get away with not allowing the defense their right to question ALL ACCUSERS…
I’m not a Lawyer, but I’m smart enough to realize this Judge is not following the Laws of our judicial system. I’m hoping the jurors can see through the smoke screen put up by the judge and find them all not guilty. With all the effort by judge to sabotage this trial, now dragging in “secret” people, paid by the government to lie and affect a guilty finding. Money….I read in an interview with “mama bear”, she was paid $3000.00 to infiltrate into the protest. That in itself seems to smack of a crime. I pray each day that the truth here will win the day, and all the criminal behavior by the government is exposed for all to see. This whole Court proceeding should be dismissed. Praying for these good Americans.
Joel; As you may know, I am one of the Malhure accused, and have a bit closer perspective on these things. First, Momma Bear: she was recruited under duress by the FBI, but after being with us at Malhure she didn’t have the heart to rat on us. My lawyer, Lisa Maxfield of Portland, has seen the “Confidential Informant” reports Momma Bear sent to her FBI handlers and assures me they were nothing but trivia – no incriminating stuff. The proof of MB’s good heart was her testimony: she gave not one word of incriminating testimony.I might add my own impression after being with her, she’s for real. Vetting? that’s the conundrum..It’s all well and good that a core of us know and trust each other, but the #1 priority at these hot spots – above guns or food or even mountain money – is bodies, lots of people, and they’rs no way to have both a large influx and also effective vetting. This is not to say we should accept chaos at the “Next” one, just that a self-regulating mindset should be fostered.
Neil, Terri Linnell may have ultimately decided to side with the defense, but what if she had not? Would you still defend her in such a way? It will take a lot to forgive her or ANYONE who accepted payment to provide info against those who trusted her. It bothers many, many of us that she accepted payment to, put it mildly, “rat” on those around her. Maybe you don’t think much of what she did, but I personally would rather go without a roof over my head than to be an FBI PAID INFORMANT.
The next time something like this goes down Don’t just let anyone into your group without knowing more about them.