Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Malheur Jury Rejects the Thought Police

You no longer have to actually commit a crime, you just have to think about it.

jury

Malheur Jury Rejects the Thought Police

by Shari Dovale

Thursday’s verdict in the Malheur Protest Trial sent a resounding message to everyone that the citizen’s reject the over reaching tyranny of Federal government.

The trial judge, Anna Brown, and the prosecutors repeatedly told jurors that crimes did not have to take place. All they were to determine is if the defendants had held a conversation about committing a crime.

Straight out of George Orwell’s 1984.

You no longer have to actually commit a crime, you just have to think about it, and maybe discuss it with someone, to be charged.

The trial had been stacked against the defendants from the beginning. The judge repeatedly ruled against them, beginning during jury selection. Allowing people into the jury pool that had obvious ties to the prosecution and rejecting anyone that might be sympathetic to the defense.

One juror was seated that had been a former employee of the very organization that was central to the charges in this case. Judge Anna Brown denied the requests of defense to remove the former BLM employee for bias stating that she felt he could be impartial. That decision came back to haunt her this week when the jury questioned this man’s bias in a inquiry to the court.

Can a juror, a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, who opens their remarks in deliberations by stating ‘I am very biased …’ be considered an impartial judge in this case?

Brown made every attempt to keep this man on the jury before Marcus Mumford filed a motion addressing that very point. Brown was forced to replace him with an alternate juror.

When the deliberations began again on Thursday, it only took about 5 hours for the unanimous verdicts of Not Guilty to be announced. The jury rejected the government’s plan to hold people accountable for their perceived thoughts without ever actually committing a crime.

The jury must have seen the dangerous precedent this would have set for our country. No one wants to be charged for crimes they did not commit, but it is even worse to be charged for crimes that the government admits did not happen.

The repeated statements throughout the trial that this case was not about committing crimes but only about talking about it, was as scary to the jury as it was to the rest of the Nation.

Truth and Justice prevailed this week in Portland! The US Constitution triumphed!

The Federal government was sent a very clear message from ‘We The People.’

Not Guilty

6 Comments on Malheur Jury Rejects the Thought Police

  1. I give God credit for all of the mis-steps by judge, prosecutors and the BLM plant in jury. Also The Bundy brothers were great scholars of the Scriptures and Constitution, both of which were banned at every attempt to enter them as evidence of good intent. They both were quoted by the brothers and inspired this positive outcome.

  2. I just hope against hope that we can keep running with this torch of liberty. I will continue to speak out aginst tyranny every chance I get. Please everyone, this is the very least you can do. Do not be afraid.

  3. Another systemic problem surfaced in that court room as well?
    After interviewing all of the long time participants that have observed this process this came about when the verdict was issued.
    One of the defense attorneys insisted that the court show the authorization paperwork to the defense as to why the two Bundy brothers after being 100% cleared could not leave? He was surrounded by federal marshals saying we don’t NEED authority, WE’RE the authority here before dog piling and tasing the attorney.
    This is the deep state throwing a temper tantrum after being put in their place? This attitude is prevalent among most levels of federal positions of power as the Congressional oversight committee members Congressmen Jason Chavett and Trey Gowdy have found . They are having to forcefully school and correct Department heads on just what their positions must submit to on national television!?
    I hope the lawsuit of the Malhuer defense attorney breaks hell out of the ” Justice Department ” budget?

  4. Of course you don’t have to commit the crime to do the time. Conspiracy to commit a crime (talking about it, planning it, etc.) still shows intent. This isn’t thought police, this is common sense. If you are arguing that people can’t be arrested for a crime until AFTER they’ve committed said crime, then you invalidate the work of countless anti-terrorism forces across the country. Even on a local level, if a local cop sees someone stalking a kid and getting ready to snatch them, are you arguing that they need to sit by and wait for the kidnapping to actually occur before they intervene? Come off it man.

  5. They that arrest before a crime are committing the crime. This is law and agencies spending time and money on fabricated evidence, like here are also the criminals.

3 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. OREGON TRIAL | cindyloulife
  2. Pie N Politics » Bundy Trial: C.O.W.S. Responds to Tazing of Marcus Mumford
  3. C.O.W.S. Responds to Tazing of Marcus Mumford - Redoubt News - Washington

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*