{"id":9505,"date":"2016-10-22T20:39:38","date_gmt":"2016-10-23T03:39:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/?p=9505"},"modified":"2017-07-25T10:39:34","modified_gmt":"2017-07-25T17:39:34","slug":"misportrayed-the-most-mischaracterized-trial-and-the-most-misunderstood-defendants-in-oregon-history-ammon-and-ryan-bundy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/misportrayed-the-most-mischaracterized-trial-and-the-most-misunderstood-defendants-in-oregon-history-ammon-and-ryan-bundy\/","title":{"rendered":"Misportrayed – The Most Mischaracterized Trial and the Most Misunderstood Defendants in Oregon History… Ammon and Ryan Bundy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-2\"<\/p>\n

Summary of Testimony and Closing Arguments in <\/strong><\/h1>\n

The Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge<\/strong><\/h1>\n

By Scott Michael Rohter, October 2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Historical Background Leading up to the Trial, and Testimony<\/strong><\/p>\n

The trial of Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five other defendants who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January of 2016 is notable both for what is being discussed in the courtroom and for what is not being discussed in the courtroom. What isn\u2019t being discussed or barely being\u00a0discussed\u00a0in the courtroom forms the underlying basis for all of the defendant\u2019s actions and the alleged crimes which they have been accused of committing.<\/p>\n

\"federal_land_map_of\"

Map showing the disproportionate share of land owned by the Federal government in the Western United States<\/p><\/div>\n

The discussion that is not going on inside the walls of Federal District Court\u2026 the one which can only be settled by Congress concerns a much bigger occupation. This is the occupation of over seven hundred million acres of land in twelve western States by the Federal government. Seven hundred million acres of land is half of the land west of the Rocky Mountains. That is about 25% of all the land in the entire country\u2026 and all of this land was confiscated from\u00a0just twelve States. They were the last twelve States to join the Union beginning with California in 1850 and ending with Alaska in 1959 (This list doesn’t include Hawaii which\u00a0became a State in 1959).\u00a0 The twelve effected\u00a0States\u00a0lie beyond or at least partially beyond the Rocky Mountains.<\/p>\n

The occupation of Western States dates all the way back to the Reconstruction Era, and the period\u00a0following the Civil War when Federal troops occupied the South As time went\u00a0by and the occupation of Southern States\u00a0came to an end\u00a0the focus of the Federal government’s occupation\u00a0shifted from to the West. and as it did it changed from directl control of\u00a0the people to controlling their land and\u00a0 resources. If you control the land and\u00a0the resources then you also control the people.<\/p>\n

A combined total of 50% of the land in America’s twelve Western States was confiscated by Congress when these States were admitted to the Union. It was the price they paid for becoming\u00a0States, but that price\u00a0violated a fundamental principle that dates all the way back to the founding of our country\u2026 It violates\u00a0the Equal Footing Principle by which all States were supposed to be admitted to the Union on the same basis as all of the other States. All new States were supposed to be admitted to the Union on the same basis as all of the previous States. That was the intent of the Equal Footing Principle.<\/p>\n

Seven hundred million acres is an area bigger than the size of most countries in the world. The occupation of this land has\u00a0to come to an end. I would prefer to see it come to an end sooner\u00a0rather than later, and peacefully rather than violently, but it must come to an end one way or the other.<\/p>\n

\"bundy-cliven-and-carol\"

Cliven and Carol Bundy<\/p><\/div>\n

The\u00a0most persecuted family in America today is the Bundy Family. The members of this family\u00a0are primarily cattle ranchers. They live in four western states which are\u00a0largely owned by the Federal government.\u00a0\u00a0These states\u00a0are Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho.\u00a0Together with the Hammond Family of eastern Oregon these two families are\u00a0at the top of\u00a0the Justice Department’s hit list for prosecution. It doesn’t seem to matter who the President is or who the Attorney General is. Whether it is\u00a0Donald Trump or Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch of Jeff Sessions it makes no difference.. The Hammonds and the Bundy family are being prosecuted because they are leading a national\u00a0effort to\u00a0get\u00a0Congress to\u00a0reconsider the constitutionality of the Federal government\u2019s control\u00a0over so much confiscated State land.<\/p>\n

Congress\u00a0considers\u00a0approximately 700 million acres of land\u00a0which\u00a0it currently controls through one federal agency or another as America\u2019s public lands. These lands\u00a0are strictly controlled and managed\u00a0 primarily by three government departments: The Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These lands\u00a0were essentially stolen from the\u00a0last twelve States\u00a0to join the Union.\u00a0What follows\u00a0is a table listing\u00a0these twelve western States in the order that they were admitted to the Union and the amount of land that was confiscated from each State by Congress under the\u00a0twelve different Enabling Acts. The data in this table is approximate as the Federal government continues to seize\u00a0more land and claim them as\u00a0National Parks and\u00a0Monuments.\u00a0It is\u00a0unclear whether the actual percentage of land owned by the Federal government in each state\u00a0includes the lands that are administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If it\u00a0does not than these percentages would actually\u00a0 be much higher. Here\u00a0is one source that\u00a0I\u00a0used for this table: https:\/\/fas.org\/sgp\/crs\/misc\/R42346.pdf<\/a>\u00a0 Another\u00a0excellent article on this subject is linked here: http:\/\/www.deseretnews.com\/top\/2318\/0\/From-03-to-811-What-percentage-of-each-state-is-owned-by-the-federal-government.html<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 California\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 1850\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 48% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Oregon\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 1859\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 53% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nevada\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 1864\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 85% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Colorado\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a01876\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a037% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

5)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Montana\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 1889\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 30% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

6) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Washington\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a01889\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 35% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

7)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Wyoming\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1890\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a048% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

8)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Idaho\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1890\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a062% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

9)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Utah\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a01896\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a067% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

10)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Arizona\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1912\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a048% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

11)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 New Mexico\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1912 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a041% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

12)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alaska\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a01959\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a069% owned by the Federal government<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Five States which are largely owned by the Federal government are at the root core of this States rights issue. They are Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Oregon. That is because the\u00a0ranchers and farmers who are leading this battle live in these five States. A combined total of 60% percent of the land in these five states is either controlled by the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the U.S. Forest Service. When you add to that the land controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs the amount is even higher. This fact makes life extremely difficult for farmers and ranchers living in these States and for native Americans as well. The poverty level for members of America\u2019s Indian tribes is at least four times higher than it is for the rest of the nation. The fact that so many Western counties can\u2019t even afford to provide basic government services for their residents, and the fact that so many Indians are living below the poverty level can both be traced back to the same problem\u2026 The problem is that Congress controls their land and their resources. Whoever controls the land and the resources controls the people.<\/p>\n

\"The

The Hammond family of Burns,Oregon<\/p><\/div>\n

Other than ranching and cattle, the Bundys and the Hammonds didn\u2019t really have much in common until\u00a0a few years ago. They didn\u2019t even know each other, but when the BLM started going after the Hammond Ranch with the same callous disregard for their constitutional rights\u00a0as they had gone about impounding the Bundy\u2019s cattle\u2026 a common enemy\u00a0united\u00a0them\u00a0in a shared destiny. It bound these two families together in an epic struggle of good against evil like the one epitomized in the Bible by the story of David and Goliath.. Their common enemy is our completely out of control Federal government and their common destiny is their desire to live as free men and women without the fear of reprisal from the Bureau of Land Management\u00a0and the Department of Justice.<\/p>\n

\"Ammon

Ammon and Ryan Bundy<\/p><\/div>\n

The members of these two families have stood up to the full\u00a0force and power of the Federal government which has\u00a0violated\u00a0their property rights and now wants to\u00a0confiscate their land in\u00a0the same way that it confiscated so much of the land in the last twelve States to join the Union. It has cost the Bundy’s and the Hammond’s dearly. Dwight and Stephen Hammond are serving\u00a0the remainder of a five year mandatory minimum jail term in a southern California Federal Prison over a thousand miles away from their family and friends<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Lavoy

Lavoy Finicum with five of his daughters<\/p><\/div>\n

Cliven Bundy and his four sons are all behind bars\u2026 They are Ammon, Ryan, Mel, and David. It has also cost the Finicum family of Arizona dearly. Jeanette Finicum\u2018s lost her husband of 22 years when challenged the federal governments control of State land and he was shot in the back three times by Oregon State police officers and allowed to die on the edge of a road. Her thirteen children are now fatherless\u00a0.<\/p>\n

When you see someone taking a stand to defend their\u00a0own rights\u00a0that\u00a0is understandable, but when you see\u00a0that person\u00a0risking their own life to in order to defend someone else\u2019s rights that is unusual. That what Ammon and Ryan Bundy did. That is what Lavoy Finicum did. That is the kind of men that they are.\u00a0 In the case of Lavoy Finicum… that is the kind of man that he was. When you see courageous people willing to risk their own lives in order to help someone else how can you let them stand alone? That is the question that I asked myself, and the answer\u00a0I learned was that I couldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

\"Supreme

Justice Antonin Scalia<\/p><\/div>\n

I have seen articles written about these\u00a0brave American patriots that are routinely published over and over again by the mainstream media\u00a0 and left wing activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and I trip\u00a0 and stumble\u00a0over such words used to describe them as anti-government activists, outlaw ranchers, or constitutional extremists. What is a constitutional extremist?\u00a0\u00a0Someone who believes that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means\u00a0has become\u00a0a constitutional extremist all of a sudden? Is that what it means? Someone who believes in the original intent of the Founding Fathers is now a constitutional extremist? Was the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a \u201cconstitutional extremist\u201d ? \u00a0I wonder what the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center would say\u00a0about that.\u00a0 Perhaps if members of their group would look in a mirror they would see who the real purveyors of extremism are in America today.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Since I determined that I couldn\u2019t let these fine Americans stand alone just like they decided that they could not let the Hammonds of Burns, Oregon stand alone\u00a0I have\u00a0attended their trial in Portland\u00a0as an observer and spent\u00a0more than\u00a0a week in the courtroom. What I have discovered about our legal system has\u00a0shocked and\u00a0saddened me.<\/p>\n

The law isn\u2019t about justice or mercy\u2026 It is about precedent and protocol. Our sixth President John Quincy Adams who was a lawyer\u00a0said this: \u201cThe law is an artificial human construct., and it is of no use outside of a courtroom.\u201d \u00a0<\/em>After observing the trial of Ammon and Ryan Bundy and their five co-defendants I am not sure if\u00a0it is still of any use inside of\u00a0a courtroom either.<\/p>\n

There were\u00a0thousands of\u00a0objections raised by the prosecution over the course of this\u00a0six week\u00a0long trial. Nearly 99% of these objections were sustained by the Judge. Most of the evidence presented by the defense was\u00a0labeled as cumulative and barred from the courtroom instead of considering that it was corroborative and allowing the jury to hear it.<\/p>\n

There were fifteen paid government informants who infiltrated the protestors while they were at the Wildlife Refuge\u2026 There are only seven defendants on trial. The informant to defendant ratio is two to one. There will be seven more defendants going on trial next month. That means there were still more informants at the Refuge than there will be actual defendants in the courtroom. The government was only required to release the names of three of these informants. The defense attorneys were required to stipulate to the jury that there were nine informants not fifteen.\u00a0Meanwhile the names of the other twelve informants are not going to be released. They are still be around probably mixing with supporters or visiting the defendants in jail.\u00a0 No one knows who they are, and no one is ever going to know who they are. All\u00a0efforts to reveal their names\u00a0have been\u00a0blocked by the prosecution and by Judge Brown.<\/p>\n

The prosecution presented their case first. They also got to go last. They\u00a0had the first word and the last word. It seems unfair. The very last thing the jury heard before they adjourned to deliberate the merits of the government’s case was the government\u2019s rebuttal to the defense\u2019s closing arguments.\u00a0\u00a0 It isn\u2019t right. It isn\u2019t even reasonable, but the law is not about what is right or what is reasonable. It is about legal precedent and legal protocol.\u00a0 That is what I learned from following this trial.<\/p>\n

Legal precedent is like a plane flying on auto pilot straight into the side of a mountain. You\u00a0hope the pilot\u00a0would assume control of the plane and redirect it so it doesn\u2019t crash into the mountain killing everyone on board, but the law doesn\u2019t worry about saving its passengers.. and it doesn\u2019t care about the plane. That plane is our country.\u00a0The only thing\u00a0the law cares about is something called Stare Decisis,<\/em> or legal precedent\u2026 If something goes wrong because of the law and our country goes crashing into the side of\u00a0the mountain\u00a0with everyone on board then so be it.. The law is the law\u2026 It\u00a0must be followed. Justice\u00a0is blind\u2026\u00a0but not in the way that you thought.<\/p>\n

\"brown-anna-judge\"

Judge Anna Brown<\/p><\/div>\n

Anna Brown is the judge in the Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. She is openly biased\u2026 Putting her hands on her face and rolling her eyes sends pretty obvious signals to the jurors, and so does the very condescending way in which she\u00a0addresses Ryan Bundy who is representing himself.<\/p>\n

None of the defendants are allowed to discuss the Constitution in front of the jury. Only a lawyer is qualified to properly understand it and explain it, or even to discuss it in front of the jury in the judge\u2019s opinion… Ammon Bundy wasn\u2019t\u00a0 permitted to read from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. He was also prohibited from reading the Bible or from another religious book\u00a0 he believes in\u2026 None of the things which are so important to understanding why Mr. Bundy did what he did could be entered into evidence during the trial.<\/p>\n

\u201cI would be happy to read from the Constitution your honor\u201d <\/em>Ammon said\u2026 Objection!\u00a0 <\/em>The prosecution blurted out\u2026 Objection sustained, <\/em>responded the judge\u2026 “No thank you Mr. Bundy. The court instructs the jury to disregard Mr. Bundy\u2019s last remarks.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>This is just a snapshot of how the trial proceeded with Anna Brown firmly in control of the proceedings, but what do you expect from someone who was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton?<\/p>\n

Ammon said that his older brother Ryan and Lavoy Finicum had just come up to Burns on January 2, the day of the rally and neither had any plans to stay. Lavoy\u2019s intentions were to return to Arizona within a day or two, and Ryan didn\u2019t even\u00a0bring a change of clothes with him. Neither man knew what Ammon had been contemplating. Ammon said he never saw David Fry with a gun. When asked if he was the leader of the occupation Ammon responded, \u201c I guess I am, but I would like to make something clear. I never tell someone else what to do. I teach correct principles and I let other people govern themselves.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Ammon testified that on January 27th there was a meeting with key individuals from Harney County to discuss how to begin implementing a plan to\u00a0 return\u00a0some of\u00a0Harney County’s land to its rightful owners. On the way to another meeting in Grant County to speak with local ranchers about reclaiming their property rights\u00a0Ammon said that\u00a0the\u00a0vehicle he was traveling in was approached from behind. \u201cWe pulled over and I saw that there were men in the trees. There were red dots all over me. I was aware that my life was in danger,\u00a0and I was not armed.. I was afraid to even reach for my hat when I got out of the car so I didn\u2019t dare ask anyone why I was being arrested. I was\u00a0forced to lay on the ground for several hours in the cold and in the snow. Then I was told to crawl backwards on my hands and knees on the asphalt. Eventually I asked why I was being arrested, but\u00a0I didn\u2019t receive an answer. I knew that my life was in danger, but I believed that the risk we had taken was worth it because of everything that was happening to ranchers and farmers in the West.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cSince the armed standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada I have flown on airplanes about forty different times. Each time I have been taken into a back room and strip searched.. I knew that something was different, but I didn\u2019t know what. Later I found out that I was placed on a terrorist watch list\u00a0because Senator Harry Reid called me a terrorist. I am not a terrorist. I love my country.\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n

Reflecting on his activities on behalf of the Hammonds he said, \u201cI knew that a protest wasn\u2019t enough. After each protest nothing ever changed. The government just continued to\u00a0inflict abuses upon the people and take more of\u00a0our rights away.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Referring to what role his father might have played in the occupation Ammon said, \u201cNone really. He taught me to do the right thing and deal with the consequences.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

Speaking about his organizational efforts while at the Refuge Ammon said, \u201cWe were careful to take the credit cards out of the trucks so they couldn\u2019t be used by any of the protestors. I put the cards and the money in a safe place so they could be returned to their rightful owners. We marked the level of fuel in the main fuel tank so we could leave it with the same amount of fuel\u00a0that it originally had in it. <\/em>Mr. Mumford asked, \u00a0Did you or anyone else dig any trenches on the property before you were arrested?<\/em> Ammon said, \u201cNo\u201d. Did the fact that politicians were coming to see you at the Refuge make you think that what you were doing was working? <\/em> Ammon said, \u201cYes\u201d. Does it still feel like it is worth it? <\/em>Mr. Mumford asked. \u201cYes\u201d, Ammon responded. Are you willing to die for this? <\/em>\u201cI don\u2019t want to die, but I would be willing to die.\u201d Then he referred to Martin Luther King and he said, \u201cIf someone isn\u2019t willing to take a hard stand then things never change.\u201d<\/em> After his testimony on the witness stand he was then placed under cross examination by the prosecutors.<\/p>\n

At one point in their cross examination the prosecutors asked Mr. Bundy in a stern voice, \u201cDo you think you can just walk into any government facility and stake a claim of adverse possession Mr. Bundy?\u201d Of course not, <\/em>he said. There has to be a legal basis for a title dispute. I can\u2019t just walk into a post office and do what you suggested because there is no basis for a title dispute<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is not the same thing as a Post Office, or a military base, or a Federal courthouse. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to maintain post offices, and courthouses, and military basis, along with “other needful buildings<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

Other needful buildings refers to any building\u00a0that is necessary for the proper administration of the government\u2019s legitimate constitutional powers, but there is no way that other needful buldings can be construed to provide the basis for a 140,000 acre bird sanctuary. There is no way that the language in Article 1 Section 8 can be stretched to infer that the government can do that\u2026 not under the Enclave Cause\u2026 not under the General Welfare Clause and certainly not anywhere else in Article 1 Section 8. Ammon went on to testify on the witness stand that, \u201cThe Federal government cannot own any land in any State without the consent of the State legislature,” <\/em>and he is absolutely right about that.<\/p>\n

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 reads as follows\u2026 \u201c\u2026 (The Congress shall have power) To exercise authority over all places purchased by the consent of the State Legislature <\/u> for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.\u201d <\/em>The State Legislature must give its final approval before the Federal government can buy it, and the only purposes this land can be specifically used for are stated in the Constitution. There is no other purpose for which land can be used by the Federal government other than those which are stated in the Constitution. The Federal government has no other constitutional basis to own\u00a0land in any State.<\/p>\n

Then Federal prosecutors asked Ammon Bundy if he had in fact a small business loan from the government. \u201cYes, and I have made all of my payments. I am even managing to make my payments while I am in jail. I went to a bank in Idaho and I borrowed some money for my business. I don\u2019t see anything wrong with that. I don\u2019t know if the Federal government lent the bank the money or if they are just the guarantors on the loan, but \u00a0I don\u2019t see any place in the Constitution where the Federal government is forbidden from promoting commerce. We could get into the Constitution if you want.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/em>No thank you , Mr Bundy.\u201d<\/p>\n

After spending a week in the courtroom my perception of this trial is that the government is trying to claim that it doesn\u2019t have to follow the Constitution anymore, and that any other laws regarding land use and property rights which have to be obeyed by the people likewise don\u2019t have to be followed by the government either such as the laws regarding adverse possession. It is also clear to me that the government\u2019s motive in ending the occupation of the Refuge was that it looked like they were losing control and they wanted to quickly restore law and order, but what they fail to see or understand is that all law and order is based on the Constitution and you can\u2019t have law and order without respect for the Constitution.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Closing Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Marcus

Marcus Mumford, Attorney<\/p><\/div>\n

Marcus Mumford speaking on behalf of Ammon Bundy was the first to make his closing arguments after the Prosecution finished theirs. I thought he was magnificent. He began by telling the jurors what an honor it was to represent a man like Ammon Bundy, and he ended his remarks by asking the jury to stand up for his client just like his client had stood up for the Hammonds\u2026 against injustice. \u201cThe only thing standing between my client and the Federal government is you , the jury.\u201d In the middle Mr. Mumford displayed several passages from the Constitution and great quotes from American presidents on the video screen.. One from Woodrow Wilson was, \u201cIf you want to make enemies just try to change the status quo.\u201d Another from John Adams was \u201cIf people don\u2019t put limits on the Federal government they shall be ridden like horses, and fleeced like sheep\u2026\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mr. Mumford quipped that there were more informants in this case then there are actual defendants in this courtroom and we still don\u2019t know who they all are. He pointed out that the defendants can\u2019t be accused of a conspiracy if they were conspiring with government informants. That is called entrapment. He was careful to spend some time on the legal definition of reasonable doubt as beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of certainty that the jury has to find before they can convict any of the defendants in this case. He spoke at great length about the origin of the concept of reasonable doubt and why the bar became so high in criminal cases. He explained that it was more for the souls of the jurors than it was for the souls of those actually accused of a crime.<\/p>\n

Mr. Mumford pointed out how the prosecution called forty-seven witnesses and all but three of them worked for the government. All but two of the government witnesses were paid by the government\u2026 They are Butch Eaton and Nick Bleuler.<\/p>\n

The acts of an informant with a defendant cannot form the basis of a conspiracy. The only person with a gun in the car with Ammon Bundy when he was arrested was a paid government informant named Mark McConnell. Mr Mumford pointed out videos selectively edited\u00a0by the prosecution and the court can lead\u00a0jurors to come to an incorrect conclusion. He demonstrated this by playing a rough draft of a you tube video that Ammon recorded but never released because he was not happy with the message\u00a0it left.<\/p>\n

Mumford said that just because BLM employees or employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service were not actually at their desks during the occupation that didn\u2019t necessarily mean that they couldn\u2019t do their jobs, but it does prove that the defendants never threatened them or intimidated them. They weren\u2019t even there. You can\u2019t impute a threat to somebody or claim that someone intimidated someone else without any evidence of it. \u00a0You cannot surmise what would have happened if one of the USFWS employees who didn\u2019t hear about the order to stay home would have showed up at the Refuge. \u00a0\u201cYou cannot make conclusions from a lack of evidence\u201d, he said. If you have any questions at all after listening to the government\u2019s case than you must find the defendants not guilty.<\/p>\n

The District Manager for the\u00a0Fish and Wildlife Service\u00a0told his employees not to report to work before the occupation ever began not because of anything the defendants had done or were going to do\u2026 No one had any idea what the defendants were going to do at this point.. Not even the defendants knew what was going to happen next because Ammon didn’t tell anybody what he was thinking.. \u00a0The only one who knew anything about going to the Refuge was Ammon which proves that there was no conspiracy. Rather it was a spontaneous response to what had happened to the Hammonds. The District manager of the\u00a0Fish and Wildlife Service3\u00a0told his employees to stay home because of something that the government itself had done when it became known around town that they had obtained a first right of refusal on the Hammond Ranch yet they were still going to send the Hammonds back to jail for five more years.<\/p>\n

Ammon\u2019s attorney said that what his client had done was a lawful response to a violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution and that the defendants had the right to keep and bear arms when lawfully exercising their First Amendment Rights. Then he listed some of the things that the defendants had done to begin a claim of adverse possession. \u00a0They changed the sign at the entrance to the Refuge. They changed other signs. They obtained a Post Office Box for the newly created Harney County Resource Center. They paid for the garbage to be picked up. They controlled the ingress and egress to the facility. Mr. Bundy was clearly demonstrating his intentions to stake a claim of adverse possession to the Refuge.\u00a0 Whether he would have prevailed in a court of law is not the question here. You are not being asked to decide the merits of his claim of adverse possession. You are only being asked to judge him based on his intentions, not whether he was right or wrong.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Ammon knew that the land on which the Refuge was built was not purchased with the consent of the Oregon State Legislature therefore it was a violation of Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Furthermore Mr. Mumford was careful to distinguish between Ammon Bundy\u2019s actual intent and the unintended consequences of his actions. You are not judging Mr. Bundy based on the effect of his actions, but rather on his intent. \u00a0Then referring to Shawna Cox he said that Ms. Cox didn\u2019t take any official government records as charged. In her capacity of researching the history of the land and title transactions that formed the 140,000 acre Refuge she just made copies of the documents she found and put them on a thumb drive.<\/p>\n

All of the evidence that was introduced in the trial to show Mr. Bundy\u2019s state of mind was offered so that the jury could judge Mr. Bundy on his intent not on the effects of his actions. During his closing arguments the judge wasn\u2019t even paying attention to anything Mr. Mumford said. She was doing other things at her bench.<\/p>\n

\"ryan-bundy-2\"

Defendant Ryan Bundy<\/p><\/div>\n

The next person to present their closing arguments was Ryan Bundy representing himself. He said he felt it was rather ironic that he is being charged with a conspiracy to prevent government employees from doing their jobs when in reality he was just trying to get the government employees to actually do their jobs\u2026 He wanted to read from the Constitution, but the prosecutors objected on two occasions and the judge sustained both of their objections. Ryan was warned not to try to read from the Constitution again because the court believes that only a lawyer is qualified to read the Constitution. He was speechless for a while as the jury stared at him. Then he regained his composure and pointed out that a person wearing a BLM jacket driving a government vehicle had visited the Refuge while the defendants were there and that man driving the truck was treated with respect and allowed to do his job. He wasn\u2019t intimidated or threatened by anybody.<\/p>\n

He told the jury that he never fired his weapon even when he was being fired upon by the FBI and he reminded them that he still carries that slug in his shoulder from being shot.<\/p>\n

\"Shawna

Defendant Shawna Cox<\/p><\/div>\n

Shawna Cox\u2019s attorney pointed out that her client wasn’t a conspirator. She didn’t have a gun. She didn’t threaten or intimidate anybody and she didn’t keep anybody from going to work\u00a0or doing their job. She was a volunteer.\u00a0 She has always been a volunteer her whole life.. If somebody needs something. Mrs. Cox\u00a0is always there to help\u00a0out. That’s the kind of person she is.<\/p>\n

Mrs. Cox’s attorney also pointed out that no one from Harney County was ever accused of being a part of the conspiracy even though they met with the defendants. They participated in the meetings. They visited the Refuge, and they\u00a0served as\u00a0members of the Committee of Safety. She told the jurors that was because the government wanted to paint a picture of a bunch of unwanted outsiders coming into Harney County and trying to stir up a lot of trouble. Arresting and charging actual Harney County residents didn\u2019t fit in with their theme that the government was trying to create.<\/p>\n

The government tried to claim that when Shawna Cox told Lavoy Finicum to “gun it” after the vehicle she was riding in was pulled over\u00a0and\u00a0they were\u00a0being fired upon by police and FBI agents that she was “picking and choosing what laws she would obey.”<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0Tiffany Harris speaking on behalf of Mrs. Cox pointed out that the government has been picking and choosing which laws\u00a0it will obey all through the course of this trial from the very beginning\u00a0when they\u00a0incarcerated the defendants for\u00a0eight months\u00a0without bail, and without the presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mr. Olson speaking on behalf of David Fry said that it is not enough to just help one another or to share common goals and interests. That does not constitute a conspiracy. He portrayed Mr. Fry as a disturbed young man of Japanese \/ American ancestry who had formed an on line friendship with Lavoy Finicum whom he wanted to meet in person, but he was someone who knew absolutely nothing about adverse possession. All he really wanted to do was protest against government corruption in general and the fact that America had dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<\/p>\n

\"Ryan

Ryan Bundy family<\/p><\/div>\n

Mr. Olson echoed what Mr. Mumford said earlier when he observed that in order to prove the charge of preventing government employees from doing their job by threats or intimidation you had to actually prove that they knowingly and willingly prevented government employees from actually doing their job. He said\u00a0unless you can do that you can’t find them guilty. You cannot just attribute motivations to the defendants that you cannot prove, and since no government employees ever tried to go to the Refuge\u00a0during the\u00a0whole time\u00a0the defendants were there they couldn\u2019t actually prove threats or intimidation of any kind.<\/p>\n

\u00a0He pointed out that the government\u2019s own informant, Terri Linnell testified that David Fry didn\u2019t have any guns at the Refuge echoing what Ammon Bundy had said earlier on the witness stand. He reminded the jury that if they find the defendants are not guilty on count 1 of the indictment than they cannot find them guilty on count 2 of the indictment.<\/p>\n

Mr. Fry\u2019s attorney remarked that while David Fry has many things to work on in his life he is not a man of threats or intimidation.<\/p>\n

Speaking on behalf of another defendant, Jeff Banta\u2019s attorney, Robert Salisbury asked, \u201cHow can you have an agreement to conduct an illegal act when those accused of the act have never even met or talked with each other before?\u201d My client went to the Refuge to support the Hammonds on January 9. He left and came back on January 10 and stayed for about 30 minutes. Then he came back again on January 25. Mr. Finicum was killed the very next day. Mr. Banta only stayed at the Refuge because he was afraid of being killed himself. The fact that the FBI sent in the Hostage Negotiating Team to get the last\u00a0few\u00a0people\u00a0off of the Refuge rather than the SWAT Team indicates that the FBI saw the remaining holdouts as a danger to themselves rather than a danger to anyone else. My client is innocent of all charges.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The most memorable thing I remember about the closing argument from Neil Wampler\u2019s attorney is that he said, \u201cMr. Wampler is being prosecuted\u2026. because he has a big mouth.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Ken

Defendant Ken Medenbach<\/p><\/div>\n

Finally it was Matthew Schindler\u2019s turn to address the jury last. He represents Kenneth Medenbach who was not present. Mr. Medenbach is suffering from cancer and he couldn\u2019t be in the courtroom, but he gave his consent for the trial to proceed without him. The first thing Mr. Schindler did was to pull the podium back about three feet from the jury box. \u201cI am a big man,<\/em> and I don\u2019t want to threaten or intimidate anybody\u201d, <\/em>he said. That was such a great way to\u00a0begin his closing arguments. He went on to say\u2026 \u201c If Ken Medenbach had put up a sign at the entrance to the Refuge which said, “I will kill any government employee who tries to come to work”,<\/em> that would have been a threat, but simply changing the sign to read… Permanently Closed<\/em>, or… Harney County Resource Center<\/em>\u2026, that is not a threat. That is a political statement.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“In order to be convicted of theft of government property you have to do more than just use it. You have to intend to keep it. Mr. Medenbach was on his way back to the Refuge with the truck he was driving when he was arrested. How can it be theft if he was returning it?” Schindler asked<\/p>\n

\"Matt

Matt Schindler, Attorney<\/p><\/div>\n

“<\/em>I have represented many defendants in Federal court before and I have never even once talked about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in order to defend them… but this case is different. \u00a0A conspiracy doesn\u2019t\u00a0result in\u00a0a member of Congress getting up on the floor of the\u00a0House of Representatives and delivering a speech blasting the government\u2019s abuse of power, but this so called\u00a0“conspiracy”<\/em> did.. This case is different. In fact… people who are accused of the crime of conspiracy always do it out of self-interest, but I can find no evidence of any self-interest that was served in anything that these defendants ever did.\u00a0 Yes, this case is very different, and you should find all these defendants not guilty.\u201d<\/p>\n

With that\u00a0emotional\u00a0plea\u00a0to the jury, closing arguments in the Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were over, and the prosecution got\u00a0an opportunity to present their\u00a0final rebuttal. It seems unfair. \u00a0They\u00a0got\u00a0to go\u00a0first, and they got to go last, but then I told you that the law is not about what is fair or\u00a0just or reasonable\u2026 The law is only about one thing. The law is about legal precedent and legal protocol. America\u2019s sixth President, John Quincy Adams who was\u00a0also a distinguished\u00a0lawyer\u00a0once quipped that, “the law is of no use outside of a courtroom”<\/em>.\u00a0 I’m hoping that it is still of\u00a0some use inside of a courtroom..\u00a0For now I am\u00a0just crossing my fingers and holding my breath and praying it is.<\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\"\"

The trial of Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five other defendants who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January of 2016 is notable both for what is being discussed in the courtroom and for what is not being discussed in the courtroom. What isn\u2019t being discussed or barely being discussed in the courtroom forms the underlying basis for all of the defendant\u2019s actions and the alleged crimes which they are accused of committing…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":9510,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,20,6],"tags":[701,698,774,799,721,697,797,798,723,779,796],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9505"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9505"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9505\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10077,"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9505\/revisions\/10077"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9510"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}