Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Astarita Trial: Second Week of Testimony

At least one trooper from the OSP did not necessarily consider the protesters as “dangerous”.

Astarita Trial: Second Week of Testimony

Astarita Trial: Second Week of Testimony

By Staff

The trial of W. Joseph Astarita, the FBI agent that allegedly shot at LaVoy Finicum on January 26, 2016 has continued throughout the week.

Revelations were highlighted throughout the week, including the following:

There was much testimony about the crime scene and where all officers were standing during the incident. Testimony about the investigation included the attempts to interview the law enforcement officers. There were major revelations concerning the FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) agents interviews.

When questioned during the investigation, the FBI HRT agents made demands that they could only be questioned as a group and without any recordings of the interview.

Their answers during the interviews were vague and they could not remember details, such as where they were positioned or the color of their shell casings. It seemed very strange to the investigators that trained FBI agents responded this way.

There was a second plane that not too many people knew about. This plane was higher in the air and was able to record with infrared technology after dark.

The video from the second plane was played in court and proved to be very clear. It was shown to have captured at least three officers looking around, using flashlights, and bending down to pick objects up from the crime scene.

The crime scene was not secured properly. There was a period of time in which people in general could have walked around disturbing the scene. The FBI, however, had complete control over the area, including blocking traffic from both directions.

Shell casings from 40mm and .308 were seen on the ground, yet they were not all found during the official investigation. A ‘spent’ .308 casing was seen in the northbound lane that was missing later that evening.

Joey Pollard from OSP testified, “Agent Astarita approached me with an AR15 magazine extended to me and wondered if it belonged to OSP.  It was a metal magazine.  We use Pmag, so I pretty much dismissed it as ours. I did not take possession of the magazine.” 

At least one trooper from the OSP did not necessarily consider the protesters as “dangerous”. He admitted that he believed them to be “armed” but only potentially dangerous.

The testimony from nearly all of the law enforcement so far has included the points that Agent Astarita had been hyped up and over-the-top in his behavior. One officer testified that Astarita was yelling loud and constant commands. Some of the information coming from the courtroom suggests that Agent Astarita was possibly very angry during the incident, or at least afterwards.

Jeanette Finicum, widow of the slain rancher, has been in the courtroom every day, with video updates in the evening. She describes in one video how Agent Astarita knocked the hat off Ryan Bundy’s head. She also describes how other law enforcement officers had done the same thing to her husband, as per the video. They had either thrown or kicked LaVoy’s hat when they went to attend to his body. This suggests some possible volatile feelings running through the agents on the scene.

One trooper testified of a conversation he had with Officer #2. “I was taking pictures with my phone.  He called my attention to the brass casing almost under my feet on the fog line.” However, he did not take a picture of the casing.

The general feeling after all the testimony is that there appears to have been a cover-up by multiple HRT agents. Why then is only a single agent on trial?

This defense continues it’s theory that the blame should all fall on Officer #1, and it has been covered up by his “friend” Travis Hampton.

Both the prosecution and the defense have continued the talking points that 1) LaVoy was armed and Dangerous; 2) LaVoy was a militia leader; and 3) Everyone associated with him were to be feared.


Jeanette Finicum, update on Tuesday:

Jeanette Finicum, update on Thursday:


Wendy Kay and Carol Williams contributed to this article.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:


3 Comments on Astarita Trial: Second Week of Testimony

  1. For as much as LeVoy’s murder was a tragedy and that we believe the rule of law in this country has been severely damaged by liberal judges, I thank God for the justice system trying this case and bringing to light the evidence the FBI and OSP were willing to hide. May justice prevail.

  2. Consider the recent takeover of the ICE facility in Portland ? Did the Bundy crew or Finicum do anything even close to what these maniacs did ? And also consider that during the protest at Burns nothing was destroyed or anybody harmed in any way ? Yet at the same exact time Black lives matter was burning down numerous cities and attacking and even killing people, yet they were invited to the Whitehouse as some sort of heros numerous times ?

    These are the same exact kind of double standards we see from the many crimes committed by DOJ and FBI and other gov agencies in the last few years. This bureaucracy is not only out of control it is seriously corrupted in a myriad of ways !

    The only crime Finicum and the Bundy crew committed was tresspass and last I checked nobody ever gets short for tresspass except only specific people who show the government to be criminals ! The real criminals are in DC and every state capitol, like Salem Oregon and they walk freely today even after committing murder !

  3. The false narrative is being brought out – once again – from the dark room of willful ignorance and blind obedience, and the false narrative is dragged out from that dungeon into the sunlight of truth concerning facts that matter.

    The false narrative is a bold lie that those in power are in power for our salvation, our protection, our property, our lives, our liberty, and our happiness. This lie that the “federal” government exists for our collective protection is here and now naked, a lie. In these summary justice “Admiralty” trials, where normally there is a presumption of guilt previous to any accusation whatsoever, there is now, suddenly, a conclusion of innocence after the fact of murder.

    If this matter concerning this conspiracy murder of Lavoy Finicum followed the law of the land, our common laws for our collective protection against harm done to innocent people, harm done by guilty criminals, then those representing the government would treat those accused of the crime the same way as every other presumed to be innocent accused individual. There would be no obvious, in your face, double standard: no cause to wonder why there is a double standard.

    The accused in this case would not be automatically assumed to be guilty of the worst possible crimes imaginable. The presumed to be guilty in this case would not have an army of armed men assault the presumed to be guilty perpetrator. The assumed to be guilty perpetrator would not be imprisoned after torture, and then the assumed to be guilty perpetrator would not be extorted in the effort to inspire a confession of guilt.

    That presumption of guilt by the government is not happening in this case. Why the double standard?

    What ought to happen if the government was really in power for our mutual defense?

    The people, represented by a Grand Jury, would investigate the matter, independently, which means independent from the government itself, and if the people, through their Grand Jury investigations, where the people command all legal jurisdiction both civil and criminal – if the people – find reasonable suspicion to try the case, to find the truth in that case, then the people themselves initiate a cause of action, the people themselves, not the government, offer the accused a trial by the country, a trial by jury, according to the common law, and the government is in place to facilitate that trial by the country. The people themselves present the accused with their reasonable suspicion so as to offer the presumed to be innocent accused a trial for the benefit of all the people, including the accused.

    That was and is the tried and true method of voluntary mutual defense of the people, by the people, and for the people, and it is the process by which fact is discriminated from fiction, and law is discriminated from that which is outside the law: in every case worthy of the cause, as determine by the people themselves, not as dictated – arbitrarily – by anyone claiming to be an agent of the “government.”

    Clearly this government is not here to help. Clearly this government is here to plunder, enslave, extort, torture, murder, serial murder, and mass murder, and as clearly, in this kangaroo court case, this government is here to let everyone know that this government can do whatever it wants to anyone whenever this government wants to do anything to anyone, anytime, and anywhere. Clearly this government is here to “justify” any conduct done by an agent of this government to anyone.

    Clearly the false government is not merely caught murdering someone who dares to point out that the government is guilty of crimes, clearly the government is guilty of counterfeiting a cause of action for a member of the criminal government. One of those who is determined to be innocent after the fact of murder is offered a trial by the same criminal government that ordered the murder in the first place.

    If a victim of murder leaves a family behind, and a member of that family accuses someone of that crime of murder, then the lawful process involves a gathering of the people themselves, in a grand jury, to command all jurisdiction both civil and criminal, to investigate the matter, and offer the accused their trial by jury, for the accused, and for the accuser. The accuser, accusing a government agent of murder, would be represented by the people, and so would the accused also be represented by the people, if the law of the land was in force.

    The accused is presumed to be innocent of murder.

    The accuser is presumed to be innocent of false accusation.

    The trial is conducted for the purpose of discovering the truth. The trial is conducted for the purpose of laying before the people the facts that matter in the case, and the people themselves, in their trial juries, determine what is or is not just in that case. The people themselves, not the government, determining if someone is guilty of anything whatsoever.

    When agents falsely calling themselves the government presumed guilt before the fact, assault the presumed to be guilty, extort the presumed to be guilty, and enslave, or murder, the presumed to be guilty, then said agents confess their true color: under the color of law.

    When the same are then counterfeiting a trial of one of their own, suddenly there is determination of innocence after the fact where the fact that matters in this case is the sudden death of someone surrounded by agents claiming to be the government.

    There is hope. Hopefully those who managed to be placed on the jury will be those who can clearly see the facts that matter in this case. Our mutual defense against all criminals, even when the criminals claim to be the government, depends upon individuals who can somehow accurately discriminate fact from obvious, in your face. lies told by people claiming to be the government.

Comments are closed.