Bundy Mistrial, Their Faith & Constitutional Patriots


John R. Houk

© December 23, 2017

 

I’ve been following the trials and tribulations the Bundy family of ranchers a number of years. The Bundys have received persecution from the Federal government, especially the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over property and public grazing land.

 

In the last post about the Bundys and Federal Prosecutors, “Will Bundy Prosecution MISCONDUCT be Given Pass by Judge Navarro?”, I elaborated a tiny bit of the misdeeds of the BLM grabbing Land and then exorbitantly charging ranchers to graze on Federally seized land.

 

I found out in a Tim Brown post that U.S. Federal Judge Gloria Navarro has declared a mistrial because of the blatant prosecutorial misconduct. Brown implies the few that have face minor charges and have been convicted might have their convictions tossed. Essentially this is yet another stain on Obama Administration non-legislated rules and regulations making it easier for government agencies to seize land and tell land owners how to work their own property.

 

Now comes the observation that will surely get me in trouble with members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons).

 

I consider myself a Conservative Biblically-oriented Christian. Most Mormons also consider themselves the same. However, most Christians that believe the Christian standard for faith in the Trinity believe Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Persons that constitute ONE God. The persons of the Godhood unity are all coequal as one.

Mormons don’t believe that standard:

 

According to Mormonism, Jesus is a created being, the first spirit to be born of the Father (Mormon Doctrine, p.129) and a celestial mother (Mormon Doctrine, p.516). Therefore, Jesus could not be the eternal God or part of an eternal Trinity. Mormons also teach that both the Father and the Son are men with bodies of flesh and bone (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20; Articles of Faith, p 38); as two separate people, the Father and the Son cannot be considered “one.”

 

… READ ENTIRITY (Question: “Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?” GotQuestions.org)

 

Since Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever; Christians believe Jesus is eternal and not a created being. As with the Trinity and the coequal Godhood, Christ as God is the coequal unborn Creator who emptied His Divine characteristics to be born in the flesh. Hence Jesus is not only coequal in the Godhood, He is both fully man and full God. This perfect nature is the basis of the Redemption of a believing humanity.

 

Mormons are not so taught:

 

8. Prior to creation human spirits were literal children of heavenly parents. Although their spirits were created, the essential “intelligence” of these spirits is considered eternal, and without beginning. At a family council, God the Father told the spirit-children that according to his “plan of salvation” they would have to leave their heavenly home, take on human bodies, and be tested before they could progress to godhood. Satan rejected this plan and wanted to implement one that would have involved loss of moral agency. Jesus opposed Satan and offered an alternative plan in which he would take on human form and live a sinless life so that his spirit brothers and sisters could become gods. When his plan was not accepted, Lucifer is said to have rebelled and taken “the third part” of the hosts of heaven with him to the earth to serve as tempters. READ ENTIRETY (9 Things You Should Know About Mormonism; By Joe Carter; The Gospel Coalition; 7/15/14)

 

Here are some more excerpts on the Mormon Jesus-Satan brotherhood:

 

The “christ” of Mormonism and the Christ of biblical Christianity are two distinctly different people. While it is true that when asking a Mormon if they believe in Christ they will confirm that belief, the “christ” that the Mormon believes in is not the Christ talked about in the Bible. … As will be pointed out below, the “christ” of Mormonism is not the Christ of true biblical Christianity.

 

In Mormonism, Mormons deny Jesus Christ’s unique divinity. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ is a created person. Mormons teach that every person including Christ has had two births. The first birth occurs as a spirit child in preexistence state.  This first birth happens when sexual relations occur between an exalted man, a god, and his goddess wife.  The second birth occurs much later as a human being.

 

… Mormon theology states that Christ was the first and foremost of subsequent billions of spirit children created through sexual intercourse between the earth god and his celestial wife. Mormon theology also teaches that later in order to produce the body for Jesus Christ the earth god again had to have sexual intercourse this time with the “virgin” Mary, who became Jesus’ earthly mother.

 

… In Mormon theology, there are infinite numbers of planets and infinite numbers of “gods” for each of those planets.  The essence of Christ is no different from the essence of any spirit child of Elohim, whether of men or of Satan and his demons. Every person on earth has the same essence or divine spark that Christ has. This means that every person can have the ability to become their own god or goddess. …

 

 

Mormon theology also teaches that Christ has a family relation with Satan. In other words, Jesus Christ is Satan’s brother. This is contrary to biblical Christianity and is just another example of how the two Jesus’ differ.  In Mormon theology since Satan (and his demons) was also a pre-existent spirit child of Elohim and his celestial wife, Satan is Christ’s brother. Looking closely at this teaching, we can logically conclude that the devil and all the demons are the spirit brothers of everyone on earth. This would mean that Christ, the Devil and we are all brothers and interrelated.

 

 

… Brigham Young’s controversial Adam-God discourse of April 9th 1852, he taught that the body of Jesus Christ was the product of sexual intercourse between God (Adam) and Mary, who then married Joseph.  This teaching is also used later to justify the marriage of more than one women. At the very core, this teaching denies that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and it maintains that Jesus was the literal offspring of the Father because according to Mormonism, the Holy Ghost does not have a physical body and could not have had sexual relations with Mary. In Mormon theology, the Father has a physical body and could have had sexual relations with Mary. The Father is “of flesh and bones.” READ ENTIRETY (WHO IS THE MORMON JESUS? EmpoweredByChrist.org)

 

So, here’s the thing. I’m not a big fan of Mormonism. The Church of Christ of the Latter Saints are a cult spinoff of the true Christian faith. AND YET, present day Mormons observe a morality that places many a mainstream Christian to shame. AND present-day Mormons are Patriots that honor the Flag, our nation and most importantly the U.S. Constitution initiated by America’s Founding Fathers.

 

The Bundys are these kind of Patriots. As a Christian American, I stand with the Bundys to protect their Constitutional Rights the American Left has slowly snuffed out for decades.

 

And with these my personal thoughts, I encourage to read the Tim Brown post about Judge Gloria Navarro calling a mistrial due egregious prosecutorial misconduct. I like Brown’s thought the weight of the law should be turned on the crooked prosecutors who have persecuting the Bundy family and other Ranchers.

 

JRH 12/23/17

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Judge Declares Mistrial In Bundy Ranch Case Due To Multiple Brady Violations By Prosecution

 

By TIM BROWN 

DECEMBER 21, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

After sealed hearings took place in Nevada in the Bundy Ranch standoff trials, Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial due to multiple Brady violations by the prosecution, but will this mean there won’t be a retrial?  Probably not.

 

Navarro blasted the prosecution for their lawless behavior in not turning over several exculpatory items to defense teams that were favorable to them.

 

Among those items were the cameras that were set up prior to the impoundment in 2014 in Bunkerville, Threat Assessment reports, names of potential witnesses, and reports from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reprimanding the BLM for not enforcing the court orders for years.

 

In all, there were at least seven Brady violations.

 

These violations are constitutional violations of the Fifth Amendment and Due Process.

 

Again, I ask, why are no charges being levied against Steven Myhre, his team of attorneys and the BLM in all of this?  They have been determined by a judge to be in violation of the law!

 

The prosecution didn’t act negligently nor did they violate the law unwillingly, but willingly.

 

Shari Dovale has more:

 

The government falsely represented that the view of the Bundy home was unintentional. This is huge. There could be, at minimum, sanctions coming for Acting US attorney Steven Myhre and other prosecutors.

 

Moving on to another item, Navarro referenced the snipers and that the indictment charges false representation, “But now we know there were snipers.”

 

She found that the information is favorable to the accused and bolsters the defense… “The court does find prejudice toward the defendants. This information may have caused a difference in the opening statements, cross examination of witnesses and undermines the outcome,” she said.

 

The judge continued her rebuke of the government for about an hour. She included other evidence, such as the threat assessment report and a log of activities surrounding the impoundment.

 

All together [sic], between 12/12/17 and 12/17/17, over 5,000 pages of new discovery and evidence has been revealed and there may still be outstanding discovery.

 

Several motions were made after mistrial was declared.

 

Ryan Bundy asked that the terms of the release of the defendants be changed so that they might be able to go home for the holidays to be with their families and the Las Vegas Review-Journal requested the unsealing of the evidence.

 

Additionally, the defense asked the Greg Burleson and Todd Engel be released, and it is expected that they will ask for their convictions to be overturned due to the suppression of evidence in their trial.

 

Wendy Kay Facebook Video of Ryan Bundy Speaking Outside Las Vegas Courthouse

12/20/17 1:08pm

All of these were considered by Judge Navarro and concerning the release of the defendants, she said that she would need to deal with pretrial services before ruling on that.

 

As to the request for unsealing the evidence, that would be answered on January 18th, 2018, almost two years since the Bundys were arrested on January 26, 2016.

 

The issue concerning Engel and Burleson will also have to wait until a later date.

 

One thing should be done here and that is to simply release all of these men.  Judge Navarro has to know the level of corruption that is clearly on display from Myhre’s office and the BLM.

 

The only just thing to do would be to release these men and not allow them to face trial again.  The US government has done enough damage to these men and their families.

 

Additionally, Steven Myhre and every person involved in suppressing the evidence should be arrested and charged.  If found guilty, they should not only be disbarred or removed from public service, but they should also face the same penalties that they sought for each and every defendant.  In other words, these people would never see the light of freedom again if convicted.

____________________

Bundy Mistrial, Their Faith & Constitutional Patriots

John R. Houk

© December 23, 2017

___________________

Judge Declares Mistrial In Bundy Ranch Case Due To Multiple Brady Violations By Prosecution

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Jihadi Wannabe David Daoud Wright Sentenced


Geller Wanted Life – Judge Gave 28 Years

 

John R. Houk

© December 20, 2017

 

Pamela Geller provided thoughts to the Court sentencing David Daoud Wright for planning to behead her.

 

On a personal level I almost forgot about this wannabe Jihadi murderer. I ran into the Geller Court submission at the G+ Community Kafir and Proud (Public). Daoud was sentenced to 28-years in the slammer.

 

Info on Mr. No Religion of Peace:

 

 

Wright was found guilty of the charges against him in October but had to wait an additional two months for his sentencing process to be resolved. Wright was found to have been plotting to murder and behead blogger Pamela Geller and was also disseminating ISIS propaganda and recruiting for the organization online.

 

Together with his uncle, Usaamah Abdullah Rahim, Wright also planned to murder police officers in this area, and possibly behad [sic] them on video.  Rahim was killed by police officers after approaching them while carrying a 13-inch knife, and Wright was apprehended just hours later while attempting to destroy evidence linking him to the foiled plot. …

 

“Despite the fact that he was born in Massachusetts, Mr. Wright turned against his country and joined a radical terrorist organization,” Acting United States Attorney William D. Weinreb said

 

Wright and his uncle Usaamah Rahim had also reportedly received details on how to kill their original victim, Pamela Geller, from ISIS fighter Junaid Hussain, who was killed by an airstrike in Raqqa in 2015. The pair also extensively researched bomb-making and how to acquire a variety of weapons to carry out their attacks. (Massachusetts Man Sentenced To 28 Years In Prison For ISIS Ties; By Ray Vann; Turning Point News; 12/19/17)

 

And here:

 

Case Number: 1:15-cr-10153-WGY

 

Judge: William G. Young

 

Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Suffolk County)

 

Plaintiff’s Attorney: B. Stephanie Siegmann and Gregory R. Gonzalez

 

Defendant’s Attorney: Jessica HedgesLinda MorenoForest O’Neill-GreenbergMike Tumposky

 

Description: Boston, MA – Massachusetts Man Sentenced to 28 Years in Prison for Supporting ISIS and Conspiring to Murder U.S. Citizens – Defendant and others conspired to behead Americans and kill police

 

An Everett man was sentenced December 19, 2017 to 28 years in prison for conspiring with others to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and kill persons in the United States.

David Daoud Wright, a/k/a Dawud Sharif Abdul Khaliq, a/k/a Dawud Sharif Abdul Khaliq, 28, of Everett, Mass., was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young to 28 years in prison. …

 

 

Beginning in at least February 2015, Wright began discussing ISIS’ call to kill non-believers in the United States with his uncle, Usaamah Abdullah Rahim, and co-defendant Nicholas Alexander Rovinski. Specifically, Wright created a “martyrdom” operation cell in Massachusetts. In April 2015, he created a Twitter page for the “Lions of America” and published a document entitled, Internal Conquest, on the internet in which Wright called on the “Lions of Allah” to kill Americans.

 

Wright also plotted with Rahim and Rovinski to behead U.S. citizens at the direction of ISIS, and identified a New York woman as the first beheading target. Rahim purchased three knives for this plot. In addition, Wright knew Rahim was communicating with an ISIS member in Syria, Junaid Hussain, who provided Rahim with an encrypted document containing details about the intended victim. In August 2015, Hussain was killed in an airstrike in Raqqah, Syria.

 

In preparation for their attack, Wright conducted extensive research on weapons, knives, machetes, bombing making components, and methods to subdue their victims. Wright also conducted research on “how to start a secret militia in the United States.” (United States of America v. David Daoud Wright, a/k/a Dawud Sharif Abdul Khaliq, a/k/a Dawud Sharif Abdul Khaliq; More Law Lexapedia; 12/20/17)

 

Thanks to the Boston Globe gleaning info from Wright’s mother, here is a snapshot David Daoud Wright’s youth before he was entangled with ISIS:

 

But Wright’s mother — along with an uncle and his defense attorneys — contend that he was an overweight 28-year-old who rarely left his mother’s home, where he spent most of his waking time playing video games or searching the Internet for a way to ease his loneliness.

 

Wright has a restless intellect that would often lead him to become obsessed with an issue for months on end until another caught his interest, his mother wrote. …

 

Muhammad painted a portrait of a difficult life for her son. He had little contact with his biological father, who was abusive to her, she said. He often struggled to fit in socially because he was so much heavier and taller than his peers — he wore size 13 shoes and was 6 feet tall in seventh grade, she said. (With her son facing life in prison, mother of terror plotter says he was ‘brainwashed’ by ISIS; By John R. Ellement; Boston Globe; 12/15/17)

 

So, what I glean from Wright’s mother and a little guess work with his given name being mostly Christian/English; Wright not only is an American citizen that learned to hate American culture, he was born in the USA. I mean if someone took the younger Wright under his wing, he could have grown up to be President like another young man raised as a Muslim in his childhood.

 

Without further ado, here is Pamela Geller’s Full Victim Impact Statement in regard for the judge to evaluate a sentence for David Daoud Wright.

 

JRH 12/20/17

Please Support NCCR

********************

Pamela Geller’s Full Victim Impact Statement at the Sentencing of Daoud Wright

 

By Pamela Geller 

December 20, 2017

Geller Report

 

Here is the full Victim Impact Statement that I read today at the sentencing of would-be jihad murderer Daoud Wright:

 

Pamela Geller Victim Impact Statement

 

Sentencing David Daoud Wright

 

It is impossible to overstate the devastation that Daoud Wright has brought to my life and that of members of my family. Not only did he target me for a brutal, cruel and violent death, but he targeted family members, and this will not even be over with his sentencing.

 

Daoud Wright wanted to kill me over my First Amendment right, free speech – speech he was indoctrinated to think was an immense evil by his violent and absolutist belief system and ideology. There has been no indication that he has given up these beliefs. If he says he has, his sincerity cannot be taken for granted, as deception is part of his twisted beliefs. Thus there is no assurance that anyone can possibly give me that if he is released from prison at any time in the future, that he would not resume his quest to kill me and my relatives.

 

Therefore Daoud Wright should be given the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

 

Not only has Daoud Wright made it impossible for me to live a normal life. Not only has he forced me to spend tens of thousands of dollars on security measures in my home, guards when I appear in public, and numerous other precautions. He terrorized our lives. He has caused me and my relatives physical and emotional distress, as well as the crippling financial costs required as a result of his mass murder plot.

 

All that is bad enough, but there is more. This will never end for me, and so it should never end for Daoud Wright.

 

If he gets out, my family members and I will be in new danger. If he doesn’t get out, others who share his violent creed could easily decide to take up where he left off, and finish the job he was not able to finish. Wright could even incite them and encourage them from prison.

 

All this has happened to me because I dared to stand up for the freedom of speech against violent intimidation. I urge the court to do the same thing: to show that the court is aware that the freedom of speech is the foundation of every free society, and that we take violent acts intended to suppress speech not just as the crime of one or two or three individuals, but as a challenge to the very foundations of our society and to basic principles of human rights.

 

Giving a lighter sentence to Daoud Wright would send the message to thousands of others like them that they can plot freely to murder those who say things that offend their evil ideology, and the consequences will be slight.

 

Please send the opposite message. Let Daoud Wright and those who think like him know that if they plot to kill Americans for the crime of speaking out against injustice, we will just speak out all the more – and they will pay the full price for their crimes.

 

Thank you.

 

The court did not listen, and gave this savage 28 years. He will, of course, be out sooner than that. The fat jihadi actually started crying when he had to make a statement — so dishonest, I couldn’t believe it. The defense wanted him sentenced to only 16 years, so at least the 28-year sentence is better than that. After he gave Wright 28 years, the judge ordered him to stay away from me and everyone close to me. And he will be on supervised release. So in that sense, it could have been worse.

 

Pamela Geller

 

“Man gets 28 years in plot to behead conservative blogger,” AP, December 19, 2017:

 

BOSTON (AP) — A man convicted of leading an Islamic State-inspired plot to behead a conservative blogger who upset Muslims when she organized a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest was sentenced Tuesday to 28 years in prison.

 

David Wright, who’s 28 years old, was sentenced by a judge in Boston’s federal courthouse two months after jurors found him guilty of conspiring with his uncle and a Rhode Island man to kill blogger Pamela Geller on behalf of the terror group.

 

Wright’s attorneys had asked for a 16-year sentence, saying he should be given the chance to redeem himself after serving his time. Wright insisted he never really wanted to hurt anyone but pretended to support the Islamic State group to get attention online.

 

Prosecutors and Geller wanted Wright to get life in prison. Prosecutors portrayed Wright as the leader of the conspiracy to kill Geller, who has spearheaded scores of events across the nation to decry Islamic extremism, such as the cartoon contest in Garland, Texas.

 

The plot to behead Geller, of New York, was never carried out. Instead, Wright’s uncle Ussamah Rahim told Wright on a recorded phone call that he decided to go after “those boys in blue,” referring to police. Wright told his uncle that was “beautiful” and encouraged him to delete all the data from his computer before carrying out his attack.

 

Hours later, Rahim was fatally shot by authorities after he lunged at them with a knife when they approached him in Boston.

 

Prosecutors said Wright collected dozens of gruesome Islamic State videos and documents that encouraged violence against Americans, including a manifesto that said America’s days are “numbered.” In court documents, they accused him of trying to “deceive” the court into believing that he never meant any harm.

 

Wright, who was more than 500 pounds when he was arrested, testified during the trial that he started sharing Islamic State propaganda because he was desperate for attention and an escape. But he said the plan to kill Geller was just “trash talk” and claimed he never believed his uncle was serious about attacking police….

 

Geller, who spoke at Wright’s sentencing, urged the judge to sentence him to life in prison, saying it was “impossible to overstate the devastation” he had brought to her life. She said she had been forced to live in fear and spend tens of thousands of dollars on security.

 

“There is no assurance that anyone can give me that he would not resume his quest to kill me and my relatives,” she said.

 

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

________________________

Jihadi Wannabe David Daoud Wright Sentenced

Geller Wanted Life – Judge Gave 28 Years

 

John R. Houk

© December 20, 2017

__________________

Pamela Geller’s Full Victim Impact Statement at the Sentencing of Daoud Wright

 

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

 

Will Bundy Prosecution MISCONDUCT be Given Pass by Judge Navarro?


John R. Houk

© December 16, 2017

 

For decades the Bureau of Land Management (BLM … Not to be confused with African-American racists pumping Black Lives Matter) has been utilizing bureaucratic rules and regulation (NOT CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION) to manipulate Western Ranchers use of their own land and/or Federal usurped land with excessive grazing fees to force Leftist Eco-Marxist agendas or protect Crony Capitalist agendas supported by the Left. Check out this BLM land grab assessment from the American Thinker in 2010:

 

The current practices of federal agencies provide a few clues. Although the only body authorized under the Constitution to buy or sell land for government purposes is Congress, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other federal agencies like the Forest Service have for several decades deprived private property owners of their land (and cattle) at below market prices. The land is then leased back to its owners for a yearly fee. Land that predates the BLM is simply confiscated by way of litigation [i].

 

In one such case, a rancher named Wally Klump contested the BLM’s rights to his land owing to the fact that his ranch predated the BLM by one hundred years. When Klump refused to move, he was held in contempt and sent to federal prison. The result should come as no shock, since internal BLM documents reveal that humans are viewed as a “biological resource” for the purposes of “ecosystem management activities.” (‘Sustainable’ Poverty: The Real Face of the Leftist Environmental Agenda; By John Griffing; American Thinker; 8/25/10)

 

Exposing a latent Marxism and Crony Capitalism inherent in the BLM goes a long way to explaining rancher hostility to this Federal Agency’s despotism toward private ownership and traditional grazing rights is so important.

 

The Bundy family organized a rancher stand-off against the BLM despotism which was aided none other than by the FBI (currently embroiled in Leftist cover-ups of Obama Administration probable crimes). Unsurprisingly, the Dems and Obama Justice Department have used the full resources of the Federal government to eradicate the Bundy family no doubt to make an example to other ranchers resisting BLM despotism.

 

The Obama DOJ faced a couple of problems.

 

First in the Bundy led Oregon stand-off trials, all the big dog defendants were acquitted by a jury with only minor convictions of other defendants. Immediately after Bundy exonerations in Oregon, the Feds arrested the Bundys and other rancher allies over their Bunkerville stand-off to protect the family cattle from BLM confiscation and slaughter because the Bundys refused to pay exorbitant grazing fees. The fee disagreement was an already much used BLM despotic tactic to force ranchers to conform to environmental and crony Capitalist rules and regulations.

 

The second problem for the Obama DOJ led persecution of the Bundys and their allies is that juries were acquitting minor participants, having hung juries or convictions again on minor (yet unfair) obstruction of justice violations.

 

And third, the Obama DOJ lost their Kemosabe ally in Obama’s Administration ending in January 2017 and the expected Leftist successor (Crooked Hillary) lost the November 2016 election.

 

For the Bundys, point three might be the most important. Obama originally set-up Daniel Bogden as the Federal Attorney General in Nevada. Bogden experienced some swamp draining by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. BHO appointed Bogden in 2009. Apparently Bogden’s replacement Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre is a part of the Bogden-Swamp. Federal Judge Gloria Navarro (an Obama Appointee) along with the rest  of the prosecution swamp have lost their Leftist political lifeline. This can be seen when Whistleblowers don’t fear Obamunist political reprisals.

 

Perhaps such is the case of Whistleblower BLM Investigator Larry Wooten. Wooten had put together an 18-page memo that explains how “the government employees engaged in a host of policy, ethical and legal violations” against the Bundy family before and during the Bunkerville stand-off in Nevada. The Bundy Defense Attorneys just recently saw this exculpatory evidence held back by the Prosecution. This sent the Obama appointed Federal Judge Gloria Navarro into enough of a tizzy that she sent the Jury home until she fully examined the memo.

 

I am willing to bet you have not read or heard a lick of this prosecutorial crisis from the Mainstream Media (MSM). Sadly, neither I have I run into any coverage by the still better disseminating Fox News channel.

 

I first heard of trial misconduct from a Tim Brown post in The Sons of Liberty Media under the title ‘After Prosecution “Missteps” in Bundy Trial, is it All Over? – Jury Sent Home, Will Be Called Back “If They Are Needed”’. That post is dated 12/13/17. After looking for other sources, I found the same Tim Brown post under the title “BUNDY PERSECUTION OVER? PROSECUTION MAKES BIG MISTAKE AT TRIAL, JURY DISMISSED” posted on 12/14/17 at Keep and Bear.

 

I enjoy reading Brown articles, yet I am certain Leftist too often dismiss him as a Far-Right Conspiracy Theorist. BUT SURPRISE dear Leftists, I have a couple of journalists from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and OregonLive.com. I am cross posting both even most of the info is repeated in both, there are tidbit differences that worth getting the full story. (azcentral.com has a decent post as well, but I find their website a bit difficult to scroll through: “Federal agent alleges U.S. misconduct, cover-up in Bundy Ranch trial”.)

 

JRH 12/16/17

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Memo alleges government misconduct in Bunkerville standoff case

 

By Rachel Crosby

December 15, 2017 7:42 pm

Las Vegas Review-Journal

 

A Bundy Ranch sign near Bunkerville, Nev. greets visitors on Thursday, May 19, 2016. (Jeff Scheid/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

 

The possibility of a mistrial in the Bunkerville standoff case was amplified this month after defense attorneys received a scathing memo outlining sweeping allegations of misconduct by federal investigators and prosecutors.

 

According to the 18-page memo, obtained late Thursday by the Las Vegas Review-Journal but first viewed last week by defense lawyers, the government employees engaged in a host of policy, ethical and legal violations.

 

The document, dated Nov. 27, was penned by Bureau of Land Management investigator Larry Wooten, who had been tasked with assessing how the agency handled the 2014 armed standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville. Wooten previously testified before the federal grand jury that returned indictments against the Bundys.

 

In his whistleblowing memo, which Wooten sent directly to the U.S. Department of Justice as a “last resort,” the investigator described pervasive misconduct by his fellow investigators, saying it reminded him of middle school. He argued that the behavior was so common and inappropriate that it could be “considered exculpatory and subject to trial discovery.”

 

Prosecutors handed over the memo last week, prompting defense lawyers to file a motion early Monday to dismiss the case, which already had been delayed a week over concerns that prosecutors were not sharing evidence with the defense in a timely manner. The memo is sealed and not part of the public court record.

 

Wooten said he repeatedly tried to report the allegations to his supervisors, who largely dismissed his observations. In February, Wooten was removed from the investigation after complaining to the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada, according to the memo.

 

In reference to the ongoing Bundy case, Wooten said investigators openly referred to the Bundys and their supporters using several different profanities and sexually inappropriate terms. In an office presentation, Wooten’s supervisor also included altered and degrading photos of the defendants, according to the memo.

 

‘Clear prejudice’

 

Wooten went on to accuse agency officers of bragging about roughing up Dave Bundy, one of Cliven’s sons, in April 2014, citing comments about the officers grinding Dave Bundy’s face into the ground so much so that Dave Bundy had “little bits of gravel stuck in his face,” Wooten said.

 

“The misconduct caused considerable disruption in our workplace, was discriminatory, harassing and showed clear prejudice against the defendants, their supporters and Mormons,” Wooten wrote, later adding that, on two occasions, his supervisor asked him, “You’re not a Mormon, are you?”

 

He added that, for a period of time, one of his supervisors “instigated” the monitoring of jail calls between the defendants and their wives “without prosecutor or FBI consent,” though he noted that Steve Myhre, Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney and the lead prosecutor on the case, quickly put a stop to the practice.

 

In the memo, Wooten also described misconduct separate from the Bundy case, which extended to “citizens, cooperators from other agencies and even our own employees.”

 

He added that supervisors openly talked about other employees’ mental health and often shared derogatory opinions of higher level supervisors, and he noted that he filed a separate formal complaint to the BLM in reference to those allegations.

 

In reference to when the U.S. attorney’s office had Wooten pulled from the case, Wooten said a supervisor subsequently violated his privacy by ransacking his office and by seizing case files, investigative notes and personal documents, including medical records. Those items have not been returned, he said.

 

“I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct, failure to correct and report, and cover-ups by (BLM) supervisors,” Wooten wrote.

 

Wooten went on to accuse Myhre, the case’s lead prosecutor, of relying on inaccurate talking points throughout his prosecution strategy and adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude in reference to BLM misconduct.

 

Wooten added that, prior to the investigation, he held Myhre “in the highest of regards,” but after Wooten’s attempts to report sweeping misconduct went unheard and got him kicked off the case, he now believes Myrhe is clouded by “extreme” personal bias and “a desire to win at all costs.”

 

“Not only did Mr. Myhre in my opinion not want to know or seek out evidence favorable to the accused, he and my supervisor discouraged the reporting of such issues and even likely covered up the misconduct,” Wooten wrote.

 

The U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada declined to comment Friday.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro is expected to reconvene court at 8 a.m. Wednesday.

 

‘Totally unusual’ case

 

It remains unclear if the explosive memo provides the defense a clear path to a mistrial.

 

UNLV law professor Ruben Garcia, who teaches professional responsibility, said the allegations, if true, are possible ethical violations that the State Bar of Nevada may investigate.

 

But for the purpose of the pending trial, Garcia said the decision is up to the judge.

 

“She’ll have to decide what is worthy of a dismissal, based on her standards and federal criminal standards,” he said.

 

Veteran Las Vegas defense attorney Tom Pitaro said the more common approach in situations of late discovery is to grant the defense extra time to analyze the new evidence and adjust their strategy. But, he added, given the extensive allegations and applicable case law, “Who knows?”

 

“This case of course has become so unique — just totally unusual,” he told the Review-Journal on Friday.

 

The 2014 standoff came after a years long legal dispute over grazing fees. Cliven Bundy had long contested the fees, which had been imposed for his continued, illegal use of federal land for cattle grazing.

 

In response, federal agents began rounding up and impounding the rancher’s cattle, but stood down after Bundy and a group of armed supporters protested the roundup and forced a shutdown of Interstate 15, garnering national media attention. The charges Cliven Bundy and his sons currently face stem from the standoff.

 

“The purpose of this narrative is not to take up for or defend the actions of the subjects of this investigation,” Wooten noted in the memo. “This investigation further indicated that instead of Cliven Bundy properly using the court system or other avenues to properly address his grievances, he chose an illegal, uncivilized, and dangerous strategy in which a tragedy was narrowly and thankfully avoided.”

 

Contact Rachel Crosby at rcrosby@reviewjournal.com

Follow @rachelacrosby on Twitter.

+++++++++

BLM investigator alleges misconduct by feds in Bundy ranch standoff

 

By Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

Updated Dec 15, 11:11 PM; Posted Dec 15, 1:36 AM

The Oregonian/OregonLive

 

Cliven Bundy

 

A scathing memo from the lead investigator who assessed how federal officers handled the 2014 armed standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy accuses agents of far-reaching misconduct, recklessness and unrestrained antipathy toward the family.

 

The 18-page document, obtained Thursday by The Oregonian/OregonLive, is dated Nov. 27.

 

Prosecutors shared it last week with defense lawyers for Bundy, his two sons and co-defendant Ryan Payne as they were in the midst of their conspiracy trial, but it’s not part of the public court record.

 

The memo prompted Cliven Bundy’s lawyer to file a motion early Monday to dismiss the case, already in disarray over concerns raised previously about the government’s failure to promptly share evidence with the defense.

 

The judge sent the jury home for more than a week as she tries to sort out the claims and prosecutors scramble to save their case.

 

The memo comes from Larry Wooten, who had been the lead case agent and investigator for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management after the tense confrontation outside the patriarch’s ranch near Bunkerville. Wooten also testified before a federal grand jury that returned indictments against the Bundys. He said he was removed from the investigation last February after he complained to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nevada.

 

Then last month he sent a whistleblower email to the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging a “widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff” at the Bureau of Land Management’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.

 

Wooten wrote that supervisory agents with the bureau repeatedly mocked the defendants in an “amateurish carnival atmosphere” that resembled something out of middle school, displayed “clear prejudice” against the Bundys, their supporters and Mormons, and prominently displayed degrading altered booking photos of Cliven Bundy and other defendants in a federal office and in an office presentation.

 

The memo described “heavy handedness” by government officers as they prepared to impound Cliven Bundy’s cattle. He said some officers “bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground and Dave Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face.” Dave Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy’s sons, was arrested April 6, 2014, while videotaping men he suspected were federal agents near his father’s ranch.

 

Wooten contends that supervisory agents failed to turn over required discovery evidence to the prosecution team that could help the defense or be used to question the credibility of a witness, as required by law.

 

The top agents also “instigated” the monitoring of jail phone calls between defendants and their wives without consent from the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the FBI, Wooten wrote, though the memo noted that Steven Myhre, Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney who is leading the prosecution of the Bundys, stopped the practice.

 

Myhre couldn’t be reached for comment late Thursday. On Friday morning, Trisha Young, a spokeswoman for the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s Office, said the office declined to comment.

 

Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy and Payne are accused of conspiring to block federal agents from enforcing court orders to confiscate family cattle on public land after Cliven Bundy failed to pay grazing fees and fines for years.

 

They’re also accused of using or carrying a firearm in a crime of violence, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice and extortion. Their trial began Nov. 14 in Las Vegas.

 

Wooten accused Dan Love, the former special agent-in-charge of the cattle roundup for the Bureau of Land Management, of intentionally ignoring direction from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and his superiors “in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.” He described Love as immune from discipline, though Love eventually was fired from the bureau for misconduct in an unrelated case.

 

Wooten said he learned from other agency supervisors that Love had a “Kill Book” as a “trophy,” in which he essentially bragged about “getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide,” following a joint FBI-BLM investigation into the alleged trafficking of stolen artifacts.

 

Wooten said his supervisor took photos in a secure command post at FBI headquarters in Las Vegas of an “Arrest Tracking Wall,” where photos of Cliven Bundy and co-defendant Eric Parker were marked with an “X” over them, and emailed out the photos, although no photos were allowed to be taken in that area.

 

Wooten called prosecutors in the Bundy case and told Myhre and Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed, as well as FBI special agent Joel Willis, of his fears that his supervisors weren’t sharing key witness statements with them.

 

On Feb. 16, Wooten said he asked Myhre if statements that Love made, such as “Go out there and kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle” or “I need you to get the troops fired up to go get those cows and not take any crap from anyone” would be considered evidence that must be shared with the defense. He said that Myhre replied, saying something like “we do now” or “it is now.”

 

Two days later, Wooten said his supervisor took him off the investigation and another Bureau of Land Management agent confiscated files from his office and from a safe in his office.

 

The material included computer hard drives, collected emails, text messages, case notes and “lessons learned,” Wooten wrote.

 

“These items were taken because they contained significant evidence of misconduct and items that would potentially embarrass BLM Law Enforcement Supervision,” the memo said. “I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct.”

 

Wooten said his supervisor told him that Myhre “furiously demanded” that he be removed and that Myhre had mentioned something about the bureau’s failure to turn over all crucial evidence to his office.

 

Wooten noted that he was ordered not to contact the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s Office.

 

He said he believed Myhre “adopted an attitude of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell”’ or “preferred ignorance” when it came to potential information from the federal land management agency that would have been helpful to the Bundy defense.

 

He also said prosecutors relied on inaccurate talking points, particularly not disclosing at previous trials the fact there were government snipers on surveillance outside the Bundy Ranch before the April 12, 2014, showdown.

 

“Not only did Mr. Myhre in my opinion not want to know or seek out evidence favorable to the accused, he and my supervisor discouraged the reporting of such issues,” Wooten wrote.

 

Wooten said he had held Myhre in the highest regard, but believes his judgment is “clouded” by personal bias and a “desire to win the case at all costs.”

 

Wooten, now working as a bureau agent in Idaho, sent the memo to an associate deputy U.S. attorney general who serves as the U.S. Department of Justice’s national criminal discovery coordinator. He obtained the lawyer’s contact information during a training by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boise, Idaho.

 

“I have tried to resolve these issues through my chain of command but I have failed,” he wrote in the memo.

 

But he felt it was “his obligation” to report his findings, describing his memo as a “last resort.”

 

He didn’t return phone calls or messages Thursday night.

 

Cliven Bundy’s lawyer Bret O. Whipple declined any comment on the memo, and would only describe the new information received as “quite a development,” one he hadn’t seen in his 20-plus years of legal work.

 

“In my mind, I think the case should be dismissed by next Tuesday,” Whipple said. “I think I can get my client home for Christmas.”

 

“Not only did Mr. Myhre in my opinion not want to know or seek out evidence favorable to the accused, he and my supervisor discouraged the reporting of such issues,” Wooten wrote.

 

Wooten said he had held Myhre in the highest regard, but believes his judgment is “clouded” by personal bias and a “desire to win the case at all costs.”

 

Wooten, now working as a bureau agent in Idaho, sent the memo to an associate deputy U.S. attorney general who serves as the U.S. Department of Justice’s national criminal discovery coordinator. He obtained the lawyer’s contact information during a training by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boise, Idaho.

 

“I have tried to resolve these issues through my chain of command but I have failed,” he wrote in the memo.

 

But he felt it was “his obligation” to report his findings, describing his memo as a “last resort.”

 

He didn’t return phone calls or messages Thursday night.

 

Cliven Bundy’s lawyer Bret O. Whipple declined any comment on the memo, and would only describe the new information received as “quite a development,” one he hadn’t seen in his 20-plus years of legal work.

 

“In my mind, I think the case should be dismissed by next Tuesday,” Whipple said. “I think I can get my client home for Christmas.”

 

— Maxine Bernstein

@maxoregonian

_______________________

Will Bundy Prosecution MISCONDUCT be Given Pass by Judge Navarro?

John R. Houk

© December 16, 2017

____________________

Memo alleges government misconduct in Bunkerville standoff case

 

Copyright © 2017 Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc.

____________________

BLM investigator alleges misconduct by feds in Bundy ranch standoff

 

© 2017 Oregon Live LLC. All rights reserved (About Us).


The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Oregon Live LLC. [Blog Editor: Yup, I didn’t get permission ergo if requested the Oregon Live cross post will be removed. Borough at your own risk.]

 

The Murder of America’s Sons and Daughters


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, even after confessing to the murder of Kate Steinle, was found not guilty on November 30, 2017. If the Left is looking for an indictment of wrong doing, they need to look in the mirror, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and Left-Wing unjust judiciaries.

 

Justin Smith writes with the obvious sense of injustice resulting to Zarate’s verdict. When there is no justice, what is an end result? Vigilantism?

JRH 12/4/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

The Murder of America’s Sons and Daughters

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/2/2017 9:33 PM

 

A San Francisco jury engaged in a gross, outrageous miscarriage and travesty of justice and denied Kate Steinle and her family justice, on November 30th, when they delivered a “not guilty” verdict to her murderer, Garcia Zarate, an illegal alien from Mexico. The integrity of the law was destroyed by this jury nullification, which abandoned facts, reason and the truth, and these jurors sent a clear message to America that a criminal illegal alien’s life was more important than Kate Steinle’s life and those of America’s own sons and daughters.

 

Partly to blame, the Court itself exhibited just how broken our system really is. The five previous deportations of Zarate and his seven previous felonies were left out of the case, even though Ms. Steinle’s murder and Zarate’s illegal alien status had sparked a national debate on the country’s illegal alien problem.

 

However, on the barest facts of the case, the jury should have easily been able to arrive to a “guilty” verdict on involuntary manslaughter, at the very least, unless they held the typical liberal anti-“white privilege”, pro-sanctuary city Democratic Party line of most of the area’s populace. This jury was a cross-section of an area that is thirty-percent foreign born and seemingly 100 percent ignorant of U.S. law, or simply predisposed to dismiss America’s age old shared principles and common national sentiment.

 

Any reasonable person, who has a cogent thought process, would have immediately seen through Zarate’s lies and continuously changing story. If he’d been shooting at a sea lion, as asserted, with the gun he supposedly “found”, the bullet would have been travelling away from Ms. Steinle and the crowded section of Pier 14. If he’d simply stepped on the gun, a weapon the quality of the Sig Sauer P239 would not have discharged on its own, as asserted, nor would it have fired without the trigger being purposely pulled by him, since the Sig would have had anywhere between 4.4 and 10 pounds of trigger pull, depending on its original owner’s preference.

 

A check of the firearm by the Bureau of Land Management in April 2015, three months before the shooting, found it was in perfect working order, which was noted by Assistant District Attorney Diana Garcia. Explaining further, the DA stated: “It’s not the kind of gun that’s going to go off by accident. He knew all along what he was doing.”

 

It’s undisputed that the gun was in Zarate’s possession, and witnesses saw him spinning on a bar chair pointing the gun down the pier. Zarate’s own statement is basically a confession, through his own claim the shooting was an accident, even though he fired towards multitudes of people on the pier that day, without any due caution and circumspection. At the very minimum, this fits the precise definition of “involuntary manslaughter”.

 

It’s also undisputed that Zarate should not have been in America in the first place. If the Sheriff’s Department had turned Zarate over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, as required by federal law, instead of simply releasing him back to San Francisco’s streets, Kate Steinle would be alive today.

 

How could this jury not convict Garcia Zarate, especially with the understanding that Kate Steinle could have been one of their own daughters, and as they witnessed her family’s pain?

 

Jim Steinle said: “We’re just shocked — saddened and shocked … There’s no other way you can coin it. Justice was rendered, but it was not served.”

 

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was quick to say, “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”

 

One should note, FBI statistics show 67,642 murders in the U.S, from 2005 through 2008 and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office attributes 25,064 of these murders to criminal illegal aliens, which means, by extrapolating the stats, that 3.5 percent of this population in America committed twenty-two percent to thirty-seven percent of all murders in the nation.

 

Ninety-five percent of approximately 1500 outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. About 67 percent of LA’s 17,000 outstanding felony warrants are for illegal aliens, and 4.5 million pounds of cocaine worth $72 billion are smuggled across the southern border every year.

 

Kate Steinle was thirty-two years old at the time of her death, blonde and beautiful and already successful in her career. She was also an adventurer and had already traveled overseas to Barcelona, Dubai and South Africa. Just days before her death, Kate had written, “Whatever is good for your soul — do that.”

 

Kate, her father and a family friend were enjoying an outing and taking pictures of birds, boats and each other on Pier 14, in the Embarcadero district, on July 1st 2015, when Zarate’s bullet struck her back and pierced her aorta. As she lay dying in her father’s arms, she gasped her last words, “Dad, help me, help me.”

 

Kate’s vibrant life was taken far too soon, but Zarate gets to rise each day and continue his life to whatever miserable end finally finds him, after he completes a two to three year sentence on the felony weapons charge. He will be returned to Mexico upon release, and that’s not justice.

 

America must force our leaders to fully enforce existing immigration law aimed at halting illegal immigration. No longer should the nation bear any tax burden either for sanctuary cities, that ignore these laws. Detain and deport anyone entering America illegally, regardless of their criminal or innocent intentions, and imprison repeat offenders for enough years to send a message to others and deter them from entering illegally. Build the wall and secure our borders, because Kate Steinle and other Americans murdered by illegal aliens deserve no less.

 

And perhaps, America needs a victim veto set in U.S law, for instances of jury nullification and a defendant’s obvious guilt, so the victim’s family can say: “Judge, I can’t live with this miscarriage of justice. This man murdered my daughter. I cannot possibly let this go unanswered. Let the judge make the final ruling.”

 

As the father of two daughters, in the absence of a punishment that fit the crime, a sense of being avenged and then to witness the criminal go free, without paying any real price, my own outrage would be such, if I were in Jim Steinle’s position, that I would make it a point to kill Zarate upon his release, because a criminal, especially a killer, must face a day of reckoning and receive his due.

 

The death penalty, life or twenty-five years in prison without parole could never redress the harm Zarate’s actions brought to the Steinle Family, but to let him go without finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter is an intolerable moral violation. If the principles of the U.S. Constitution applied equally to protect victims, as much as the accused, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to deny the victims any real semblance of justice, that accompanies the rightful punishment of those who have done them or their families harm. And, as in this case, justice denied is no justice.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

RYAN BUNDY’S OPENING STATEMENT IS SOMETHING EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO HEAR!


Ryan Bundy, left, walks out of federal court with his wife Angela Bundy, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017, in Las Vegas. Ryan Bundy, along with his father Cliven Bundy, brother Ammon Bundy, and co-defendant Ryan Payne, are accused of leading an armed standoff in 2014 against government agents in a cattle grazing dispute. (AP Photo/John Locher)

 

On November 24, 2017 Tim Brown writing for Freedom Outpost covered the opening statement of Ryan Bundy in his trial for not allowing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to seize the Bundy family cattle herd under the disputed charge of not paying grazing fees. Brown’s article is fairly exhaustive meaning long.

 

Lawrence Cloverfield took Brown’s post and abbreviated to the most outstanding portions of Ryan Bundy’s opening statement and posted at Steadfast and Loyal on November 28. Cloverfield adds a video that begins with Ryan being released from jail for the first time in two years on bail. NOTE that Ryan has been incarcerated since his arrest in Oregon over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff where Ryan and standoff leader Ammon Bundy were both found NOT GUILTY.

 

In case you are wondering how Ryan gave a trial opening statement rather than his attorney, Ryan Bundy is acting his own defense. Conventional wisdom has it that when one represents one’s own self has a fool for a client. And yet, reading the opening statement you will be quite impressed. Indeed, it is my humble opinion that the Ryan Bundy opening statement might go down as one of the great speeches against a U.S. government exploiting citizens rather than protecting the guaranteed Constitutional Rights in the Bill of Rights (1st ten amendments).

 

JRH 11/30/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

RYAN BUNDY’S OPENING STATEMENT IS SOMETHING EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO HEAR!

 

By LAWRENCE CLOVERFIELD

NOVEMBER 28, 2017

Steadfast and Loyal

 

Ryan Bundy Youtube Screenshot

 

THE HUGE BUNDY TRAIL [sic] BEGAN JUST TWO WEEKS AGO AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE GLAZED OVER THE WORDS OF RYAN BUNDY. IT’S BROUGHT THOSE FEW WHO ARE IN THE KNOW TO TEARS AND MAKES YOU REALIZE THAT BUNDY LOVES HIS FAMILY, AND HIS COUNTRY.

 

Ryan Bundy, acting as his own attorney, told the court that the federal government — not his family — broke the law.

 

Opening arguments in the Bundy trial finally began on Nov. 14, after being postponed when a federal judge said she wanted evidentiary issues resolved beforehand.

 

Federal prosecutors are trying Cliven Bundy, along with his sons and others for their role in a “massive armed assault” conspiracy targeting federal agents in a landmark case that’s become known as Bunkerville.

 

Without further ado (I’ll be grabbing bits and pieces of it but will provide a link to the entire thing for your reading pleasure):

 

“My family has been on that land 141 years, my pioneer ancestors settled there in 1877 – there was nothing there. They carved out a living… they brought a horse and wagon and some provisions… this case, the government mentioned is “not about rights”, but it is – those rights do mean something – rights are created through beneficial use.”

 

“When my ancestors arrived, undoubtedly the horse would need a drink, so they led him to the water and that is beneficial use. The horse and perhaps a cow that had been led behind the wagon need to eat some brush in the hills, that is beneficial use. That established rights. The water rights are real! So real, the State of Nevada has a water rights registry including livestock watering rights.”

 

“A law was created to protect those rights. The water rights that my father owns were first registered in 1891 by the State of Nevada – the State of Nevada is important, a sovereign state, its own unit, which entered the union in 1864. It entered equal to the original states, it is its own entity and state laws are important.”

 

“My family and I are charged with some grievous things and they are not true and evidence will show they are not; force, manipulation, extortion, violent—my family is not a violent family and I am not a violent man. For 20+ years we turned to local law enforcement. Rights are real property. The fact is that we create government to protect rights.”

 

“To have rights you must claim, use and defend… man only has rights he is willing to claim, use and defend. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Rights you own. Privilege is afforded. Like renting or owning a house. Government asserts there are no rights, only privileges and unless we pay, we can’t be there. The State of Nevada says differently. These are my father’s rights. Everything we have comes from the land. That is wealth, not the dollar bill. The things we use all come from the land. Who controls the land, controls the wealth.”

 

“We create government to preserve and serve us. These are some of the beliefs of my family. That we have said we will do whatever it takes to defend is not a threat, it is a statement. Being right here before you today is part of doing whatever it takes. The Founding Fathers pledged whatever it would take… their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to defend rights. With the evidence you will see that is what we were doing; there was no conspiracy to impede, to harm… but, to protect our heritage that our pioneer ancestors established. We were attacked, surrounded by what appeared to be mercenaries, snipers pointed directly at me. You will hear a report from a sniper that he was keeping watch of me in my van, with my wife and two of my daughters with me.”

 

“Our ranch – children are always welcome – it is a place to play, play in the river, the pond, chase or hunt rabbits, burn your toes in the hot sand in summer—always free. Never before did we feel like someone was always watching. In early spring of 2014 we felt like someone was always watching… the dogs were watching the hills, when you are always with a dog you get to know what they are saying with their bark… you can tell by their bark what they are seeing… surveillance cameras on one hill, but the dog looking at another and growling… (tearfully) This is not what America is supposed to be. Supposed to be a land of liberty. The Founding Fathers fought and bled so we wouldn’t have to and now we find ourselves in a similar situation.”

 

“They say this issue is over grazing fees… it’s terrible, terrible, he must be a freeloader – it’s only rhetoric – I’ll tell you why – You don’t pay rent when you own your home! We own those rights! Not the land, I know we don’t own the land, but access…you and others have rights on that land. We own water and grazing rights. We don’t pay rent for something we own.”

 

“What is this about? The court orders. They say my father had an opportunity in the courts. The court wouldn’t consider states rights. They have forgotten they are servants of the people. We the people are the sovereign and ultimately, we the people are the government formed to meet needs that are better met by a group than by individuals. We are not slaves. We need to remember that. I think that’s forgotten. The definition of freedom is lost in America. When we have to have a license or ask permission to do everything, we are subjects.”

 

[…]

 

“I love my family. I love them. I love this land. I love freedom. I am from the State of Nevada. I’m a true Nevadan. I mentioned before that Nevada became a state on Oct. 31st and we always got out of school on that day… I always thought we got out because it was my birthday. I’m a true Nevadan. I believe you are, too, and love freedom as much as I do. Freedom’s not being lost overseas – it’s lost right here at home in our back yards, our front yards. Until we are willing to do whatever it takes, liberty will be, is being lost. We are not anti-government! Government has its proper place and duties to perform. I want government to do its job. Nothing more. Nothing less. When government does more or less than its job, it becomes the criminal. When government damages our rights, it becomes the criminal. When someone harms or damages another’s life, liberty or property that is the definition of a criminal. Extortion, violence, pointing guns – everything we are charged with, they were doing and thousands of people came running – the world knew about this – China, Ireland (they sent us a flag), New Zealand and other countries – why? Because America stood for freedom and has for years and the world is interested in seeing how America (emotional) will deal with freedom. The world wants to know. The American people said, “yes, we will stand for freedom. Government, you’ve gone too far and we will put a stop to it.””

 

“Evidence will show my father and my brothers are innocent men. We need you to put on that paper that we are not guilty. You are the twelve to represent us, peers, equals, people…we the People.”

 

“Guns…lots of guns…scary…camo…freedom of speech…also, the right to bear arms, the second amendment…a militia was necessary. What is a militia? It is defined in the law. U.S. Code defines militia: “all able bodied men 17-45 years of age”. How many of you are a member of the militia? State of Nevada extended that and includes men up to the age of 64. How many of you now are a member of the Nevada militia? There is the organized militia, the National Guard and the unorganized militia – everyone else. Why did the Founding Fathers include the second amendment? Was it for duck hunting? No…no! Militia is mentioned six times in the Constitution. Such a small document and few things are mentioned more than the militia; the central government of this union and yet media or whatever wants to put a bad face on militia. Why did militia come to Bundy Ranch? To peacefully assemble, redress of grievances. No one was harmed except Davey, Ammon and Margaret. You will not see in evidence that we ever harmed anyone! They attack and we turned the other cheek. We were peaceful—insistent? Yes! And, Yes! Demanding. These men, these people did not come to seek an opportunity to point guns at the government. Hundreds, even thousands of people we didn’t know. That’s exemplary. These people came to do good. To protect me, to save my life. I had a sniper pointing at me, 200 armed men surrounding my home, my family (tearfully) Ryan Payne has been portrayed as a bad man. Evidence will show otherwise. He saved my life. He saved my life. Others came. I didn’t even meet most of them until I was in jail with them, may have seen them in passing, but I didn’t know them until jail. I honor and thank them now! I thank all who came. We only have rights we are willing to fight for. You’ll see evidence that I was nearly always with the sheriff or a deputy – always in communication with them – I was side-by-side with Lombardo.”

 

“Thank you for coming, for being here. I will still do whatever it takes. This is not a threat, it is determination. I love my freedom. Listen to the still small voice to discern between truth and error. The indictment and grand jury testimony is full of lies. Truth has been blocked in previous trials. Listen closely – we will try to get you the truth. The truth will set me free and I’m counting on you to help me see that.”

 

“I invite you to our ranch. I recognize your right to use the land. We want you to come and enjoy it. I thank you for this time. Please find me not guilty and these other men not guilty. Stand up for freedom. Thank you.”

 

VIDEO: Ryan Bundy Released At Start of Bunkerville Standoff Trial

 

[Posted by End Times News Report

Published on Nov 14, 2017

 

On the eve of the Bunkerville Standoff Trial, defendant Ryan Bundy was released from jail after nearly 2 years of incarceration – despite still not having been found guilty of any crime.

 

For those will undoubtedly ask, part of Ryan’s face was paralyzed in a car accident as a child.

 

Video footage of Ryan Bundy’s release courtesy of John Lamb/Kelli Stewart.

 

Crowd funding makes my investigations possible!

 

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/endtimesnewsreport

 

PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/EndTimesNewsReport

 

Bitcoin: 1JRJ4Zv6SH67WjYA4FSVQfQVwcsc2rFtiX

 

Letters or donations can be sent to:

 

Jake Morphonios

PO Box 1333

Kernersville, NC 27285

 

READ THE REST]

 

(H/T Tim Brown)

______________________

Copyright © SteadfastAndLoyal.com, All Rights Reserved.

 

In the Chain of Human Events


Save The Peace Cross

 

Intro to ‘In the Chain of Human Events

John R. Houk

Intro date: 11/20/17

By Justin O. Smith

 

Justin Smith writes about Secular Humanist atheists winning a 4th Circuit Appellate Court case against Veterans that demanded the Peace Cross in Bladensburg, MD be removed from public property because it is just too Christian for those subscribing to what is essentially a Humanist religion that denies the existence of God Almighty the Creator.

 

Here are a couple of Secular Humanist quotes that the 4th Circuit essentially embraced:

 

“There is no place in the Humanist worldview for either immortality or God in the valid meanings of those terms. Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.” (Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1982) p. 145.)

 

“The classroom must and will become an area of conflict between the old and the new— the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian idea of ‘Love thy Neighbor’ will finally be achieved.” (John J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, January/February 1983, 26.)

 

Both of these quotes are found on the PDF: WORLDVIEW-SECULAR HUMANISM FACT SHEET; Summit Ministries; © 2016 – 2 pgs.)

 

SEE ALSO:

 

Conservapedia: Humanism

 

Conservapedia: Secular humanism

 

JRH 11/20/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

In the Chain of Human Events

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/18/2017 7:36 PM

 

To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders fields” — Lt Colonel John McCrae / Second Battle of Ypres

 

The forty foot tall Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, at the intersection of Maryland Route 450 and US Alternative Route 1 and just five miles from the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Court’s cross-hairs, is the object of the American Civil Liberties Union’s and atheists’ hatred, along with their hatred for many other inherently Christian Latin crosses in America, and it is also the source of incoherent confusion for too many federal judges. If the American people do not battle most fiercely to reverse the 4th Circuit Court’s recent ruling on October 18th, that found the Peace Cross presence on public land to be unconstitutional, these anti-American groups will boldly continue their purge of anything in the public square that remotely resembles religion; and, liberty and freedom cannot long survive, unless Americans once and for all definitively crush these advocates of a public arena free from God.

 

Started in 1918 and completed in 1925 using contributions from private donors and the American Legion, the Peace Cross honors 49 men from Prince George’s County, who died in WWI. It was erected on July 13th, 1925, and it has stood as a memorial and a gathering place for the community for 92 years, inscribed with the words VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE and DEVOTION.

 

A two-to-one vote by a three judge panel overturned the Maryland District Court’s previous 2015 decision, that the use of a cross as a military symbol of courage, sacrifice and remembrance, does not mean the state sponsors a particular religion. The plaintiffs, American Humanist Association (AHA), alleged that the cross unconstitutionally endorsed Christianity, and the Court determined the memorial “excessively entangles the government in religion”, as they justified their decision through the fallacious notion of “separation of church and state”.

 

Chief Justice Roger Gregory wrote the dissent [***Blog Editor: Entire Dissent Below] and noted that the Establishment Clause does not require “purging” religion from the public square, but requires only governmental “neutrality” on religion. He added, “In my view, the court’s ruling confuses maintenance of a highway median and a monument in a state park with excessive religious entanglement.”

 

The First Amendment [Faith-Freedom.com & Wallbuilders] compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena, and although it forbids the establishment of a state religion, it doesn’t forbid the sponsorship of religion. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, then government acting to remove religion from the public square would have seemed to our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to our founding principles.

 

Even should the Peace Cross be solely a Christian symbol and not also a war memorial, the argument offered by the AHA is quite a stretch. Establishing a state religion is a deliberate act by the government, as in the manner the world witnessed the USSR implement militant atheism. It doesn’t happen through scattered memorials, that were erected by private groups long ago to remember the fallen.

 

However, the courts have not been consistent on this issue. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the five foot cross erected in 1934 on Sunrise Rock, in the Mojave National Reserve, and also honoring Veterans, did not violate the Constitution; but in 2012, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court’s notion that the 43 foot tall Mount Soledad Memorial Cross, in La Jolla, California, was a violation of the First Amendment.

 

The Bladensburg Peace Cross, listed in the National Registry of Historical Places, is one of the few WWI monuments in the United States. It was erected during a time when the Cross was a commonly understood symbol of suffering, sacrifice and hope.

 

When exactly did the Peace Cross begin to violate the Constitution? Never.

 

In 92 years, the Cross remained unchanged, but America’s judges became intolerant activists after the 1947 Everson case. Leftist activist judges at all levels of the judiciary, who wallow in a sewer of anti-Americanism, have advanced the flawed premises of the anti-Christian bigots from groups like the AHA, and they have violated the Constitution in impermissible fashion, by interfering with the free exercise rights of people, who simply sought to acknowledge their Christian heritage and honor their war dead.

 

The First Liberty Institute and other defenders of the Peace Cross fear, that if the 4th Circuit refuses their request for the full court to reconsider the case, a dangerous precedent will be set. This will endanger other national treasures, such as the 24 foot Cross of Sacrifice, which was a gift from Canada that has stood in Arlington Cemetery for 90 years. The Argonne Cross, also at Arlington, marks the graves of more than two thousand Americans, whose remains were interred in 1920 from battlefield cemeteries in Europe.

 

The American Humanist Association has also sued the city of Pensacola, Florida over a cross that has stood in Bayview Park for 75 years, built on the eve of WWII. Pensacola Mayor Ashton Hayward describes the cross as “an integral part of my town’s fabric, a symbol to our local citizens — religious and nonreligious — of our proud history of coming together during hard times.” This case is on its way to the 11th Circuit Court.

 

Immediately after the October 18th ruling against the Peace Cross, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan wrote a letter to his attorney general directing him to support a legal challenge against the ruling. In part it read: “The conclusion that this memorial honoring Veterans violates the (Constitution’s) Establishment Clause offends common sense, is an affront to all Veterans, and should not be allowed to stand. I believe very strongly, that this cherished community memorial does not violate the Constitution. Your office will be Maryland’s legal voice in this important litigation.

 

While it may seem like a win each time a legal team saves one of these crosses, by illustrating its importance as a war memorial and settling for a land transfer, as performed by Congressman Duncan Hunter in the Mount Soledad Cross case, rejecting the distinct religious value the Cross has traditionally held in Christianity is not the proper direction. Our soldiers died protecting the rights that are defining characteristics of our democratic Republic and, specifically, our First Amendment. And with our religious liberties central to this issue, Congress must provide clarity to an establishment jurisprudence in shambles.

 

The idea that the public display of a Christian cross on public land should be forbidden is deeply anti-American. Our country’s topography is indelibly marked by crosses, so where does this all end for the AHA and militant atheists in their unhinged agenda to remove any semblance of religious symbolism from the public sphere?

 

Where will the atheists ever draw the line?

 

Regardless of who likes it or not, America was founded by a people, who were 98 percent Christian well into the 19th Century, and they intended America to be a Christian nation tolerant of all other religions. The first calls for America’s independence, in 1769, were issued by a group of young writers from Yale College, who were fiercely Christian, led by John Trumbull and Timothy Dwight.

 

John Quincy Adams, the sixth U.S. president, wrote: “In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human governance upon the first precepts of Christianity.”

 

George Washington declared: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

 

This attack on the Peace Cross is also an attack on America and an attempt to undermine the idea of America, predicated on each individual’s inherent right that lies deep within our heart and soul to have individual recourse to a power greater than the state. This is a war against our Christian faith and our shared memories that we must win, if we wish to prevent America’s descent toward the darkest days of antiquity and preserve for America’s Children the Heritage of Liberty our Founding Fathers left for us.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

*** Chief Judge Roger Gregory dissent begin page 34 of PDF

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2597

 

AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION; STEVEN LOWE; FRED EDWORDS; BISHOP MCNEILL, — Plaintiffs – Appellants,

 

v.

 

MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, — Defendant – Appellee,

 

THE AMERICAN LEGION; THE AMERICAN LEGION DEPARTMENT OF MARYLAND; THE AMERICAN LEGION COLMAR MANOR POST 131, — Intervenors/Defendants – Appellees,

 

=================

 

[Blog Editor: Chief Judge Roger Gregory dissent begin page 34 of PDF]

 

GREGORY, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

 

I agree with the majority’s holding that Appellants have standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to bring this action for a violation of the Establishment Clause. But I disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the display and maintenance of the war memorial in this case violates the Establishment Clause. I therefore respectfully dissent in part.

 

I.

 

The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. To properly understand and apply the Establishment Clause, it must be viewed “in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress.” Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 14–15 (1947). The early colonization of America was a time marked with religious persecution. Immigrating settlers fled religious suppression in Europe only to be met with similar treatment in America. “[M]en and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated.” Id. at 10. Those regarded as nonconformists were required “to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.” Id.

 

The Establishment Clause was intended to combat the practice of “compel[ling individuals] to support and attend government favored churches.” Id. at 8; accord Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 402 (4th Cir. 2005). The Clause’s historical setting reveals that “[i]ts first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962). The realization of its goal meant that the government must “‘neither engage in nor compel religious practices,’ that it must ‘effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion,’ and that it must ‘work deterrence of no religious belief.’” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 698 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (plurality opinion) (quoting Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring)).

 

But the Clause does not require the government “to purge from the public sphere” any reference to religion. Id. at 699. “Such absolutism is not only inconsistent with our national traditions, but would also tend to promote the kind of social conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.” Id. (citations omitted). While neutrality may be the “touchstone” of the Establishment Clause, it more so serves as a “sense of direction” than a determinative test. McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 454 U.S. 844 (2005). We cannot view neutrality as some sort of “brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious.” Schempp, 374 U.S. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, in reviewing the challenged war memorial, this Court must seek general rather than absolute neutrality. We do so by engaging in the three-factor analysis delineated in Lemon v. Kurtzman (the “Lemon test”), which requires that the memorial have a secular purpose; have a principal or primary effect that neither advances, inhibits, nor endorses religion; and not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971). The memorial “must satisfy each of the Lemon test’s three criteria” to pass constitutional muster. Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Davidson Cty., 407 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 367 (4th Cir. 2003)).

 

A.

 

I will briefly reiterate the operative facts. In Bladensburg, Maryland, in a median at the intersection of Maryland Route 450 and U.S. Route 1, stands a war memorial consisting of a forty-foot-tall concrete Latin cross (the “Memorial”). The Memorial and the median are currently owned by Appellee Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the “Commission”). Intervenor-Appellee American Legion’s symbol is displayed in the middle of the cross on both faces. The cross sits on a base and includes a plaque that lists the names of the forty-nine Prince George’s County residents who died in World War I. J.A. 1891. The plaque also states, “THIS MEMORIAL CROSS DEDICATED TO THE HEROES OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY MARYLAND WHO LOST THEIR LIVES IN THE GREAT WAR FOR THE LIBERTY OF THE WORLD,” and includes a quotation from President Woodrow Wilson. Id. Also, each face of the base is inscribed with one of four words: “VALOR,” “ENDURANCE,” “COURAGE,” and “DEVOTION.” J.A. 1963.

 

In 1918, a group of private citizens led the charge to construct and finance the Memorial. The donors signed a pledge stating that they, “trusting in God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe,” pledged their faith in the forty-nine war dead, whose spirits guided them “through life in the way of godliness, justice, and liberty.” J.A. 1168. The group also circulated a fundraising flyer stating,

 

Here, those who come to the Nation’s Capital to view the wonders of its architecture and the sacred places where their laws are made and administered may, before this Cross, rededicate[] themselves to the principles of their fathers and renew the fires of patriotism and loyalty to the nation which prompted these young men to rally to the defense of the right. And here the friends and loved ones of those who were in the great conflict will pass daily over a highway memorializing their boys who made the supreme sacrifice.

 

J.A. 2303.

 

A groundbreaking ceremony was held for the Memorial and for Maryland Route 450 (then known as the National Defense Highway) in late 1919. Several local officials spoke about the fallen soldiers and how both the Memorial and highway would commemorate their bravery and sacrifice. But the private group ultimately failed to raise enough money to construct the Memorial and abandoned the project. The local post of the American Legion, a congressionally chartered veterans service organization, then took up the task and completed the Memorial on July 25, 1925. That day, the post held a ceremony which included multiple speeches regarding the Memorial’s representation of the men who died fighting for this country and an invocation and benediction delivered by local clergymen.

 

Over time, additional monuments honoring veterans were built near the Memorial (known as the “Veterans Memorial Park”). Because the Memorial sits in the middle of a median and is separated by a busy highway intersection, the closest additional monument is about 200 feet away. Since the Memorial’s completion, numerous events have been hosted there to celebrate Memorial Day, Veterans Day, the Fourth of July, and the remembrance of September 11th. These ceremonies usually include an invocation and benediction, but the record demonstrates that only three Sunday religious services were held at the Memorial—all of which occurred in August 1931. J.A. 347.

 

Due to increasing traffic on the highway surrounding it, the Commission acquired the Memorial and the median where it is located from the American Legion in March 1961. Since that time, the Commission has spent approximately $117,000 to maintain and repair the Memorial. In 2008, it set aside an additional $100,000 for renovations, of which only $5,000 has been spent as of 2015. J.A. 562–65. On February 25, 2014, more than fifty years after the Memorial passed into state ownership, Appellants initiated this suit against the Commission under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

B.

 

By concluding that the Memorial violates the Establishment Clause, the majority employed the Lemon test “with due consideration given to the factors outlined in Van Orden.” Maj. Op. at 16. In Van Orden, a plurality of the Supreme Court determined that the Lemon test was not useful when evaluating a “passive monument.” 545 U.S. at 686. Instead, the Court’s analysis was “driven both by the nature of the monument and by our Nation’s history.” Id. As the majority recognizes, Justice Breyer’s concurrence is the controlling opinion in Van Orden. Maj. Op. at 14. Justice Breyer states that the Court’s Establishment Clause tests, such as Lemon, cannot readily explain the Clause’s tolerance of religious activities in “borderline cases,” as there is “no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.” Van Orden, 454 U.S. at 699– 700 (Breyer, J., concurring). “If the relation between government and religion is one of separation, but not of mutual hostility and suspicion, one will inevitably find difficult borderline cases.” Id. at 700. Instead of applying Lemon to the challenged Ten Commandments display, Justice Breyer exercised his “legal judgment” and evaluated the context of the display and how the undeniably religious text of the Commandments was used. Id. at 700–04. His concurrence, however, also noted that Lemon provides a “useful guidepost[]—and might well lead to the same result”—for “no exact formula can dictate a resolution to such fact-intensive cases.” Id. at 700.

 

Relying on Lemon, and drawing guidance from Van Orden, the majority determined that the Commission articulated a legitimate secular purpose for displaying the Memorial. Nevertheless, the majority concluded that the Memorial failed Lemon’s second and third factors, finding that a reasonable observer would conclude that the Memorial has the primary effect of endorsing religion and the Commission’s maintenance of the Memorial constitutes excessive entanglement with religion. In my view, the majority misapplies Lemon and Van Orden to the extent that it subordinates the Memorial’s secular history and elements while focusing on the obvious religious nature of Latin crosses themselves; constructs a reasonable observer who ignores certain elements of the Memorial and reaches unreasonable conclusions; and confuses maintenance of a highway median and monument in a state park with excessive religious entanglement.

 

III.

 

Because Appellants do not challenge the district court’s finding that the Commission has demonstrated a secular purpose for displaying and maintaining the Memorial (the first Lemon factor), I will discuss in turn the majority’s evaluation of the second and third Lemon factors—whether the Memorial has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and whether the government is excessively entangled with religion.

 

A.

 

Under Lemon’s second factor, we must determine “whether a particular display, with religious content, would cause a reasonable observer to fairly understand it in its particular setting as impermissibly advancing or endorsing religion.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 271. This reasonable observer inquiry “requires the hypothetical construct of an objective observer who knows all of the pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding the [display] and its placement.” Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 721 (2010) (plurality opinion). We should not ask “whether there is any person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether some people may be offended by the display, or whether some reasonable person might think the State endorses religion.” Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 780 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, we must determine “whether . . . the display’s principal or primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion; or, put differently, whether an informed, reasonable observer would view the display as an endorsement of religion.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 272.

 

It is undeniable that the Latin cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity.” Maj. Op. at 18. But we must be careful not to “focus exclusively on the religious component” of a display, as that “would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 271 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680 (1984)). Indeed, the Supreme Court “has consistently concluded that displays with religious content—but also with a legitimate secular use—may be permissible under the Establishment Clause.” Id. (citing Cty. of Allegheny v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 579 (1989)). A reasonable observer would be aware that the cross is “not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs,” for it is “often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.” Buono, 559 U.S. at 721.

 

Despite the religious nature of the Latin cross, a reasonable observer must also adequately consider the Memorial’s physical setting, history, and usage. The Memorial was created to commemorate the forty-nine soldiers who lost their lives in World War I, as explicitly stated on the plaque attached to its base. See J.A. 1891 (“THIS MEMORIAL CROSS DEDICATED TO THE HEROES OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY MARYLAND WHO LOST THEIR LIVES IN THE GREAT WAR FOR THE LIBERTY OF THE WORLD.”). The plaque also includes a quotation from President Woodrow Wilson stating, “The right is more precious than peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.” Id. Each face of the cross includes the American Legion seal and each face of the base is inscribed with one of four words: “VALOR,” “ENDURANCE,” “COURAGE,” and “DEVOTION.” J.A. 1963. The Memorial has functioned as a war memorial for its entire history, and it sits among other secular monuments in Veterans Memorial Park, though it is separated from the other monuments by intersecting highways.

 

The majority concludes that the size of the Latin cross making up the Memorial overwhelms these secular elements. In the majority’s view, the Memorial is unconstitutional based predominantly on the size of the cross, and neither its secular features nor history could overcome the presumption. But such a conclusion is contrary to our constitutional directive. We must fairly weigh the appearance, context, and factual background of the challenged display when deciding the constitutional question. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 679–80; Cty. of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 598–600. Although a reasonable observer would properly notice the Memorial’s large size, she would also take into account the plaque, the American Legion symbol, the four-word inscription, its ninety-year history as a war memorial, and its presence within a vast state park dedicated to veterans of other wars. Would the majority’s version of a reasonable observer be satisfied and better equipped to evaluate the Memorial’s history and context if the cross were smaller? Perhaps if it were the same size as the other monuments in the park? Though Establishment Clause cases require a fact-intensive analysis, we must bear in mind our responsibility to provide the government and public with notice of actions that violate the Constitution. What guiding principle can be gleaned from the majority’s focus on the cross’s size? Understandably, the majority’s decision would lead to per se findings that all large crosses are unconstitutional despite any amount of secular history and context, in contravention of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

 

The majority also makes much of the Memorial’s isolation from the other monuments in Veterans Memorial Park, as it sits in the median of a now busy highway, making it difficult to access. But a reasonable observer would note that the Memorial was placed there as part of the concurrent creation of the National Defense Highway to commemorate the soldiers of World War I, not as a means of endorsing religion. And, though Veterans Memorial Park does not include any other religious symbols as memorials, there is no evidence that the state formally foreclosed the possibility of erecting any other religious symbol. Also, the reasonable observer would note that the Memorial’s physical setting does not lend itself to any religious worship. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 702 (stating that religious display’s location in large park containing other monuments suggested “little or nothing sacred,” as it illustrated residents’ historical ideals and “did not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity”).

 

Additionally, due to the Memorial’s location, the majority explains that a reasonable observer would not be able to easily examine the Memorial’s secular elements. Maj. Op. at 23. This is because the Memorial “is located in a high-traffic area and passers-by would likely be unable to read the plaque,” which is small and badly weathered. Id. at 23. However, the reasonable observer’s knowledge is not “limited to the information gleaned simply from viewing the challenged display.” Pinette, 515 U.S. at 780–81 (O’Connor, J., concurring). That the average person in the community may have difficulty viewing all of the secular elements of the Memorial while stuck in traffic or driving at high speeds is of no consequence, for the reasonable observer “is not to be identified with any ordinary individual, . . . but is rather a personification of a community ideal of reasonable behavior” who is “deemed aware of the history and context of the community and forum in which the religious display appears.” Id. at 779–80 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, the reasonable observer’s ability to consider these secular elements is by no means diminished.

 

Further, quoting Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1116 n.18 (9th Cir. 2011), the majority states that the large size and isolation of the Memorial “evokes a message of aggrandizement and universalization of religion, and not the message of individual memorialization and remembrance that is presented by a field of gravestones.” Maj. Op. at 22. In Trunk, the Ninth Circuit considered a forty-three-foot free-standing cross and veterans memorial erected in a state park. 629 F.3d at 1101. The court evaluated the history of the Latin cross generally, its use as a war memorial, the history of the particular war memorial at issue, and its physical setting. Id. at 1102–05, 1110–24. The cross in Trunk had no secular elements; instead, it was unadorned and without any physical indication that it was a war memorial until after litigation was initiated to remove it. Id. at 1101–02; see also Smith v. Cty. of Albemarle, 895 F.2d 953, 958 (4th Cir. 1990) (concluding that crèche, unassociated with any secular symbols, prominently displayed in front of government building, and unaccompanied by any other religious or nonreligious displays, conveyed message of governmental endorsement of religion). The court concluded that a reasonable observer would perceive the presence of the cross as the federal government’s endorsement of Christianity, due in part to its long history of serving as a site of religious observance, with no indication of any secular purpose for almost three decades. Id. at 1125.

 

But here, the Memorial has always served as a war memorial, has been adorned with secular elements for its entire history, and sits among other memorials in Veterans Memorial Park. The Memorial’s predominant use has been for Veterans Day and Memorial Day celebrations, although three religious services were conducted at the Memorial nearly ninety years ago. Also, the invocations and benedictions performed at the annual veterans celebrations are not enough to cause a reasonable observer to perceive the Memorial as an endorsement of Christianity in light of its overwhelmingly secular history and context. Further, guidance from Van Orden provides that the Memorial’s ninety-year existence and fifty-year government ownership without litigation is a strong indication that the reasonable observer perceived its secular message. See 545 U.S. at 702–03 (stating that challenged monument’s presence on government property for forty years provided determinative factor that it conveyed predominately secular message). The Memorial stands at a busy intersection, yet this case is the first time the Memorial has been challenged as unconstitutional. Those fifty years strongly suggest “that few individuals, whatever their system of beliefs, are likely to have understood the [Memorial] as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort . . . primarily to promote religion over nonreligion,” or to “engage in,” “compel,” or deter any religious practice or beliefs. Id. at 702 (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 305 (Goldberg, J., concurring)); see also Buono, 559 U.S. at 716 (“Time also has played its role. [After] nearly seven decades[,] . . . the cross and the cause it commemorated had become entwined in the public consciousness.”). This significant passage of time must factor into the Court’s analysis and “help[] us understand that as a practical matter of degree [the Memorial] is unlikely to prove divisive.” Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 702.

 

With the foregoing facts, circumstances, and principles in mind, I conclude that a reasonable observer would understand that the Memorial, while displaying a religious symbol, is a war memorial built to celebrate the forty-nine Prince George’s County residents who gave their lives in battle. Such an observer would not understand the effect of the Commission’s display of the Memorial—with such a commemorative past and set among other memorials in a large state park—to be a divisive message promoting Christianity over any other religion or nonreligion. A cross near a busy intersection “need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society. Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework.” Buono, 559 U.S. at 718–19 (citations omitted). We must be careful not to push the Establishment Clause beyond its purpose in search of complete neutrality. “[U]ntutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands,” but of extreme commitment to the secular, “or even active, hostility to the religious.” Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 699 (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring)). Finding that a reasonable observer would perceive the Memorial as an endorsement of Christianity would require that we pursue a level of neutrality beyond our constitutional mandate. I therefore conclude that the Memorial does not violate the second factor of the Lemon test.

 

B.

 

The Lemon test’s final factor asks whether the challenged display has created an “excessive entanglement” between government and religion. Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 272– 73. “The kind of excessive entanglement of government and religion precluded by Lemon is characterized by ‘comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance.’” Id. at 273 (quoting Lemon, 403 U.S. at 619). This inquiry is one of “kind and degree,” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 684, “and because some interaction between church and state is inevitable, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the ‘[e]ntanglement must be “excessive” before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause,’” Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259, 268 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 233 (1997)).

 

The majority concludes that the Memorial fosters excessive entanglement because of the Commission’s ownership and maintenance of the Memorial. But the Commission’s maintenance of the Memorial and the land surrounding it could hardly be considered the sort of state surveillance that Lemon intends to prohibit. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 615–20 (concluding that challenged action excessively entangled state with religion by requiring state to supplement salaries for teachers in parochial schools); see also Mellen, 327 F.3d at 375 (determining that public university’s supper prayer violated Lemon’s third prong because school officials “composed, mandated, and monitored a daily prayer”). Rather, the Commission is merely maintaining a monument within a state park and a median in between intersecting highways that must be well lit for public safety reasons. There is no evidence that the Commission consults with any churches or religious organizations to determine who may access the Memorial for events. Nor is there evidence that the Commission is required to be involved in any church-related activities to maintain the Memorial.

 

Further, the majority observes that “any use of public funds to promote religious doctrines violates the Establishment Clause.” Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 623 (1988) (O’Connor, J., concurring). But, in Agostini, the Supreme Court held that a federally funded program that paid public school teachers to teach disadvantaged children in parochial schools did not cause an excessive entanglement between church and state. 521 U.S. at 234–35. Likewise, the Commission’s use of $122,000 over the course of fifty-plus years for lighting and upkeep is not a promotion of any religious doctrine, as the Memorial is a historical monument honoring veterans.

 

I therefore conclude that the Memorial does not violate the third factor of the Lemon test.

 

*         *         *                              

 

This Memorial stands in witness to the VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE, and DEVOTION of the forty-nine residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland “who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.” I cannot agree that a monument so conceived and dedicated and that bears such witness violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Mueller Indictments- Manafort, Gates & Papadopoulos


John R. Houk

October 31, 2017

 

This is a cross post of Western Journalism and WND about the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates as well as an apparent plea deal for George Papadopoulos squeezed for lying about his interaction with Russians that perhaps Papadopoulos should have registered as a foreign agent. The Papadopoulos plea deal is a bit sketchy because he was a volunteer with a bit of uncertainty if acting on his own volition or was coached by someone to contact Russians.

 

Before posting this morning, I was watching Fox and Friends inattentively. A gal was interviewed in which I didn’t catch her profession. However, I saw her again on my DVR recorded premiered show called Fox News at Night with Shannon Bream. On Bream’s news show I discovered her name is Sidney Powell a former Prosecutor and author of Licensed to Lie. She criticized the wording of the indictment as being weak citing laws and statutes that she believes have a sketchy application. Powell also criticized Mueller’s lead prosecutor Andrew Weissmann for sketch prosecutorial practices. Here is a quote about Weissman similar to what Powell said on Fox and Friends:

 

“Andrew Weissmann, the prosecutor tapped by Mueller to help lead the investigation, has also received criticism. Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor recently wrote about Weissman in a piece titled, ‘Judging by Mueller’s staffing choices, he may not be very interested in justice.’” (Gowdy slams Mueller team over leaks about charges in Trump-Russia probe; By Joseph Weber; Fox News; 10/30/17)

 

But I did find another person – J. Christian Adams –  who had a similar criticism of the weak indictment put together by Mueller and Dem-oriented Special Prosecutor team:

 

VIDEO: J. Christian Adams: Mueller’s charges are a ‘weak debut’

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Oct 30, 2017

 

New questions surrounding the future of the Russia probe; reaction on ‘The Story.’

 

I need to note that when I Googled the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick (Richard) Gates, the Google search results went primarily to Leftist news sites and the Left oriented Mainstream Media (MSM). The headlines of those searches indicate disgusting glee that the indictments against Manafort and Gates will soon bring down President Donald Trump. This Fake News glee was related even though the loosely worded indictments are focused on Manafort/Gates business dealing with Russia before Barack Obama was even President.

 

How in the world is that Trump/Russia collusion in the November 2016 election?

 

Fire Mueller! Get a different Special Prosecutor. Begin looking at Crooked Hillary and husband, Dem leadership – particularly involved in Crooked Hillary’s campaign, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch and I have no doubt – into former President Barack Hussein Obama. For what? The real Russian Collusion for starters.

 

JRH 10/31/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Paul Manafort Surrenders to Feds as Subject of First Indictment In Mueller’s Russia Probe

 

By Jack Davis 

October 30, 2017 6:32am

Western Journalism

 

Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for President Donald Trump who left the Trump campaign under a cloud amid allegations of improper dealings involving the consulting business he had previously operated, turned himself in to the FBI on Monday, according to multiple reports.

 

Manafort and longtime associate Rick Gates, who joined and left the Trump campaign at the same time as Manafort, were indicted as part of the investigation headed by special counsel Robert Mueller.

 

Mueller was appointed to head up a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that there had been collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

Manafort and Gates were indicted on 12 charges, including “conspiracy against the United States,” “conspiracy to launder money” and “false statements.”

 

Manafort/Gates Indictment Document

 

 

The New York Times reported Manafort “had been under investigation for violations of federal tax law, money laundering and whether he appropriately disclosed his foreign lobbying.”

 

NBC News Tweet

 

Washington Examiner Tweet

 

Chris Hayes Tweet

 

Manafort arrived at the FBI’s field office in Washington on Monday morning. Gates turned himself in shortly afterward.

 

Manafort’s home was raided by the FBI in July, and a number of documents were seized at that time.

 

Manafort, who piloted Trump’s campaign between June and August 2016, has been under investigation by the FBI and Justice Department for his relationship with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

 

At the time of Manafort’s departure from the Trump campaign, The Associated Press reported that from 2012 to 2014, Manafort and Gates had been involved in a lobbying effort to increase American support for a pro-Russian Ukrainian government and did not disclose that they were working for a foreign government as required under federal law.

 

Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, Manafort retroactively registered in June with the Justice Department for the work he did during that time, for which he was paid more than $17 million.

 

“Paul’s work ended well before he joined Candidate Trump’s campaign,” spokesman Jason Maloni said in a statement at the time, according to Politico. “Paul was not simultaneously working as a foreign agent while he was working for Trump.”

 

White House attorney Ty Cobb has said Trump has no fears that Manafort might trade damaging testimony against Trump for a lighter sentence in some sort of deal.

 

“The president has no concerns in terms of any impact, as to what happens to them, on his campaign or on the White House,” Cobb said.

 

Trump has said that his campaign never colluded with Russia.

 

++++++

MANAFORT INDICTED, CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER PLEADS GUILTY IN RUSSIA PROBE

Former Trump chairman charged with conspiring to defraud U.S. in dealings with Ukraine

 

10/30/17 7:13 AM – Updated: 10/30/2017 4:13 PM

WND

 

Fox Video on WND

 

WASHINGTON – Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate surrendered to federal authorities Monday on felony charges of conspiracy against the United States and other charges in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian influence on the 2016 election.

 

Meanwhile, a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump, George Papadopoulos, entered a guilty plea in the investigation, admitting he lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russians.

 

The indictment swept up Manafort’s onetime business partner and protégé Rick Gates, but it makes no allegations about the 2016 election. Both pleaded not guilty.

 

It alleges 12 counts, including conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money, being an unregistered foreign agent, misleading statements and failing to file reports of foreign bank accounts. The charges relate to overseas business operations.

 

Read the full indictment here.

 

Watch Manafort walking into FBI headquarters with his attorney: [Blog Editor: You’ll have to go WND to watch. I can’t find the embed or the Fox News link.]

 

Papadopoulos, whose Oct. 5 guilty plea was unsealed Monday, admitted lying to FBI agents about the nature of his interactions with “foreign nationals” offering “dirt” on Clinton who allegedly were attempting to line up a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

According to Mueller’s filing, Papadopoulos met with a female Russian national on March 24, 2016, shortly after learning he had become a campaign adviser. Papadopoulos believed the Russian had connections with the Russian government and could arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign. The next month, he met with a professor in London who said operatives in Moscow had “thousands” of Hillary Clinton’s emails. The filing, however, does not specify whether the reference was to the emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee’s computers.

 

Responding to reporters at the White House press briefing Monday, press secretary Sarah Sanders said Papadopoulos didn’t have an influential role in the campaign, describing him as a volunteer on an advisory council that met one time during the year.

 

“Any actions he took would have been on his own,” Sanders said.

 

In a tweet Monday morning, Trump emphasized the Manafort indictment had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

 

“Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign,” Trump tweeted. ‘But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????”

 

“Also, there is NO COLLUSION!” he said.

 

Mueller was appointed to investigate claims of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign after the Democrats’ 2016 election loss, but now there are allegations against Democrats.

 

Last week, the Washington Post reported Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the research for the largely fabricated anti-Trump dossier. Late Wednesday, a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission charging Clinton’s campaign and the DNC violated campaign finance law by failing to disclose payments for the dossier. Also last week, a source claimed that the Podesta Group, run by John Podesta’s brother Tony, is a target of Mueller’s investigation. And The Hill reported that before a government panel in which Hillary Clinton was a member approved the sale of a company controlling 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves, the FBI was sitting on evidence Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to expand Moscow’s nuclear business in the U.S.

 

In addition, a congressional inquiry led by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is focusing on how aides to President Obama “unmasked” individuals caught up in government surveillance.

 

Manafort has denied wrongdoing. Many of the charges date back as far as 2006.

 

Understand what makes a liberal tick. “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Dr. Lyle Rossiter explains it all.

 

Among the allegations is that Manafort moved $75 million to offshore accounts without declaring the income for taxation purposes. He then allegedly used $18 million to “fund a lavish lifestyle,” as the London Daily Mail described it.

 

FBI agents staged an early morning raid on Manafort’s home last summer, confiscating records.

 

According to the New York Times, Gates’ name appears on documents linked to companies that Manafort’s firm established in Cyprus to receive payments from his clients in Eastern Europe.

 

President Trump’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, assured reporters last week Manafort does not have damaging information about the president to offer prosecutors.

 

“The president has no concerns in terms of any impact, as to what happens to them, on his campaign or on the White House,” Cobb said.

 

Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and developed a strategy that convinced delegates not to break with Trump in favor of establishment candidates. Trump then appointed the veteran Republican strategist as chairman and chief strategist of his campaign.

 

Months later, Trump fired Manafort after learning his chairman received more than $12 million in undisclosed payments from former Ukrainian president Victor F. Yanukovych, who he spent years working for as a political consultant.

 

The case advanced amid claims Russian President Vladimir Putin colluded with Trump campaign officials to rig the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton.

 

Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department in May to lead the investigation into Trump campaign officials’ relationships with Russian operatives. But the focus now actually may be turning to the Democrats.

 

President Trump contends the “real Russia story” is the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets to a Russian company under Clinton’s watch.

 

Critics also have pointed to Mueller’s relationship with fired FBI chief James Comey and the fact that he stacked his team of investigators with lawyers who had openly supported Hillary Clinton in the election. The Mail reported it was unclear if Mueller still has a strategy to “squeeze” Manafort” for information about the 2016 election “and Russian’s possible interference with it.”

 

The allegations concern actions that all predate the Trump campaign, and Trump’s name doesn’t appear in the 31-page indictment by Mueller, who in the document makes no allegations of collusion with Russia.

 

The case has been assigned to Judge Amy Jackson, an Obama appointee.

 

Understand what makes a liberal tick. “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Dr. Lyle Rossiter explains it all.

 

++++++

READ ALSO:

 

NO CHARGES OF TRUMP COLLUSION: Here’s What You Need To Know About The Manafort Indictment; By BEN SHAPIRO; Daily Wire; 10/30/17

__________________

Mueller Indictments- Manafort, Gates & Papadopoulos

John R. Houk

© October 31, 2017

_______________

Paul Manafort Surrenders to Feds as Subject of First Indictment In Mueller’s Russia Probe

 

Copyright ©2017 Liftable Media Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About Western Journalism

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping readers with truth. Every day, WesternJournalism.com publishes conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters.

 

As Americans — and indeed, readers around the world — continue to lose trust in traditional newspapers and broadcast networks and their claims of objectivity and impartiality, Western Journalism is rapidly filling the gap as a trusted source of news and information. Western Journalism is staffed by an experienced team of editors, journalists and media experts who both recognize the stories that matter to everyday readers and provide a truthful and unfiltered view of current events.

 

Nearly 10 million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, putting the site securely among the Top 200 most-visited websites in the United States, according to global traffic analysis by Alexa. Western Journalism continues to break new records in engagement and trust in a rapidly shifting media landscape.

 

Western Journalism is committed to its founding principles: truth, honesty, integrity and accountability. These values are demonstrated through accurate, insightful reporting of information and events happening around the world.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S., according to Quantcast.

___________________

MANAFORT INDICTED, CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER PLEADS GUILTY IN RUSSIA PROBE

 

© Copyright 1997-2017. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

About WND

 

WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

 

“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”

 

Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.

 

Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.

 

WND has  READ THE REST