Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

Ammon Bundy Refutes the Bias Report

Ammon Bundy refutes the bias report recently published accusing WA Representative Matt Shea and other elected representatives of Domestic Terrorism.


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:

7 Comments on Ammon Bundy Refutes the Bias Report

  1. And PS…Shea should retain another Matt, Namely, Matt Schindler, who showed his fighting spirit at our trial in Portland..He of 6’4″ stature and size 17 shoes was, to say the least, a powerful presence.

    • Joe..As far as I can see, the only lawful judgement would come if Matt launched a defamation suit against Rampart, which I wish he would do..A precedent might be found in the Alioto/Look Magazine affair back in the -60s..Joe Alioto, Mayor of San Francisco at the time, was linked to the Mafia in a Look article. He sued the s- – t out of Look for Defamation of character and won, with a huge $$$ settlement as satisfaction. Maybe if Matt sued he could drag these Troglodytes out into the light of day..

      • I was thinking more along the lines of the actual law, not what is: the counterfeit law. If we employ the actual law in America, then any one of these criminals (Troglodytes?) in office (guilty on the record of infringing many natural-born rights) could be accused officially, the affidavit recording an accusation then taken to an independent grand jury in any county officially, the accused then investigated with the full force (jurisdiction criminal and civil) of law by the members of the independent jury, then found reasonably indictable (but not convicted by the members of the independent grand jury), the accused could then be presented with a court date, the accused could be arrested if the accused refuses their trial before the country (trial by the country, by the people, is trial by jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law), and then the jury could find which facts matter, as the members of the independent trial jury determine not only fact, but also law, and just remedy, restitution, or punishment. But alas, few people are aware of the actual power of truth based law: the common law.

        “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. ” M’Kean, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1788

        I looked up Troglodytes and found:
        “a person who is regarded as being deliberately ignorant or old-fashioned.”

        I make it a habit of looking in the mirror to find someone ignorant. I am ignorant as to how people can fail to see these facts concerning the actual law. I am ignorant as to how people can fail to see that what is in place is counterfeit law, a usurpation that occurred in 1789. I am ignorant as to how to convey this information, doing so effectively against a very large pile of falsehood.

        I wonder if you too have your comments sent to moderators every time before your comments are then posted publicly.

        “When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.” Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763

        • Are you still peddling the nonsense the Articles of Confederation is still the Law of the Land?

          You should be more than moderated…you should be looked askance upon.

          Let the facts show:
          1) The Annapolis Convention, formally titled as a Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government, was a national political convention held September 11–14, 1786, in which twelve delegates from five states—New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia—gathered to discuss and develop a consensus about reversing the protectionist trade barriers that each state had erected.
          2) The Confederation Congress accepted the advice of the Annapolis Convention and arranged the Federal Convention of 1787.
          3) The Federal Convention of 1787 created the U.S. Constitution and submitted in back to the Confederation Congress with these words, “That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.”- Federal Convention, Resolution and Letter to the Continental Congress (17 Sept. 1787). The only thing the Federal Convention had the authority to do was offer the “Opinion of this Convention”…and that is ALL THEY DID DO.
          4) The Confederation Congress then had the choice…to offer the Constitution to the 13 States for Ratification or not…they CHOSE TO. It is the Confederation Congress who could have stopped the U.S. Constitution right there.
          5) All 13 States DID ratify the U.S. Constitution making it the Law of the Land.

          There was no conspiracy…there was not usurpation…it was legal. Was there criticism? Yes. Was the U.S. Constitution the best the framers could have done? No, they admitted as such…they only did what they thought the people “would receive”.

          • “You should be more than moderated…you should be looked askance upon.”

            That tactic is called by many names, it changes the subject from the subject to me personally.

            As to the law of the land:

            “the judgment of the peers and the law of the land,” to authorize the king to make execution upon a party’s goods or person; but that in cases of arrest and imprisonment, simply for the purpose of bringing a man to trial, vel should be rendered by or,because there can have been no judgment of a jury in such a case, and “the law of the land” must therefore necessarily be the only guide to, and restraint upon, the king. If this guide and restraint were taken away, the king would be invested with an arbitrary and most dangerous power in making arrests, and confining in prison, under pretence of an intention to bring to trial.” Lysander Spooner, an Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

            When deception works those deceived don’t know it.

            “There was no conspiracy…there was not usurpation…it was legal.”

            Facts could be found the lawful way, or the dictatorial way.

            Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13 Luther Martin
            “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. ”

            A witness at the convention identifying (not by name) conspirators.


            The Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.
            “Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
            A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.”

            They knew that their usurpation required deception, as there was no lawful process by which the perpetual Articles of Confederation could be replaced with a National Constitution.

            “Was there criticism?”

            There was whistle-blowing:

            FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
            Melancton Smith
            “He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”

            George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention
            June 04, 1788
            “Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.”

            June 14, 1788
            Patrick Henry:
            “Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.”

            “Was the U.S. Constitution the best the framers could have done?”

            The “Framers,” so-called were all criminals. Members who refused to sign the confession, such as Luther Martin, and George Mason, were not criminal “Framers.”

            “……they only did what they thought the people “would receive”.”

            The evidence shows otherwise.

Comments are closed.