Oregon/Bundy Case-Proof that they are INNOCENT.. MUST LISTEN-MOTION TO D...

##########################################
Hello everybody this price 13 .
Fox and i'm here with Miss be Stacy somebody that I have met as a recent since this organ situation that we have all covered and looked at for a long period of time and we are coming to the ending stage that we have some very very important information to share with you i hope that you guys have the eyes to see it and the ears to hear it and misty stacey has done a lot of work she has a a an area of focus that is specific and perfect for looking at this type of material and as of $YEAR i believe it's tomorrow when this information is going to be delivered to the court that it is going to start to manage manifest itself as to how important it is.
We wanted to get this information out to you guys as early as possible so this beast AC or stacy is $OPERAND percent go with her real name she's spent most of the day pouring through this and organizing it for us to understand and i am going to learn a lot right now i highly encourage you guys to stick around and to share this material and we're going we're going to need to learn new way to focus on not propagating more of the same behaviors and actions that lead to more of the same so we can't continue to let things get out of control to a point to where we correct them we are dealing with something that is not anything to anybody finds comfortable so state miss be Stacy how are you okay just call me spacing sorry about that that's alright so I you can introduce the material in a second but i would but maybe it would be valuable for you to share what it is they your focus or what you enjoy doing your area of every expertise is one of the areas that i like to research yes yes okay since said 2012 I've been focused on researching the land issue here in the 11 western states a lot of people in the eastern states don't have this issue so they're not familiar with it but I've done extensive research on the issue prior even prior to the standoff at the bunny ranch so whenever this incident happened in oregon in january of this year you know of course that was going to follow it because ammon bundy was talking about the land issues up there in Oregon and it focused mainly on federal agency you know harassing and prosecuting the Hammond family so the emotion that i found today.
Valley Forge network posted on their Google+ a emergency motion that was filed by a man Bundy's attorneys it was filed yesterday in the court right right and that's how this is an emergency before you get started just want to say one more thing ok ok is that I don't think I put enough emphasis or even said that this really has the potential to change this country into something non-violently that we were all that it was intended to be so that's why this is important that's why i highly encourage you guys to watch this entire program and share it i think when you guys if you guys do participate in this you will see happy what is that I saw I think that this video that I'm about to do in this state me and Stacey or operating on to do for you guys is I can be the most important video that i have ever done and I can i really can't put enough emphasis on that i am actually i feel blessed to be a part of it and I know miss Stacy sorry I said it again.
Stacey Stacey Stacey Stacey alright it's ok most likely feels the same way to so yeah again and I and I address this issue and may nine on may nine posted an update to the case where a man Bundy's attorney had sent an email out letting us know that they were challenging the court on subject matter jurisdiction that was very important for me and i think is the longest video i made it was like an hour long because it cannot be assumed that courts or even federal agencies automatically have jurisdiction even if they claim to own the land but they actually have to prove it and the case that was that was done yesterday and the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit court has upheld this also so amman Bundy's argument in may for the court to prove subject matter jurisdiction the court dismissed it that work just what they can't the the court in Oregon judge what's-her-name brown judge Brown yes you know she pretty much just kind of that they just been ignoring this issue right yeah we should do it she keeps dismissing it that's right she keeps ignoring it and now the the ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court yesterday has brought this up again it cannot be assumed it has to be proven and so it is it okay if I introduce what's that is what that is that it was introduced to the Ninth Circuit Court hello hello.
Yeah is it okay if i make people familiar with what what what was that occur.
Or did you want to reference that the mirror after you were not sure if you want to go for it ok and then you you can please correct me if I'm wrong so I we have a case that is similar to the case that these gentlemen up here in Oregon are going through the valley ER refuge standoff where they went and on the position of the Constitution and actually . let Stacy could talk about have more because she's a lot more in tune with exactly what is that they wanted but this is a.
Constitutional case having to do with land rights and the role of the federal government and what the role of the state is and that's what this this case that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was looking at had something to do with people that were growing marijuana on a national forest or on federal was perceived to be federal land no no no okay no the federal government's laws forbid the growing distribution and manufacturing of marijuana ok so are their states that have legalized it now so you have people that are starting businesses specifically to do those things and the federal government is going in prosecuting these people under federal wall and has not proven that they're not in compliance with state law which allows them to do these things and the Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that there has to be a hearing before the federal government can continue to prosecute these people there's certain things that they have to do.
Okay so the main thing that they have to do is they have to have a hearing to make sure that these businesses are in compliance with state regulations if they're not then the Department of Justice can pursue criminal actions against them because they're in violation of federal court but they haven't proven that yet so these people's right to due process is being violated and I believe this is what a man is stating first and foremost that you know the constitutional issues of the ownership and regulation of the federal government has to be addressed first is it constitutional where do they get their authority to do this because we have not been able to find what gives them is the authority so the Ninth Circuit Court has upheld this and once we get into this emergency motion that his lawyer filed yesterday.
Everybody will be able to understand it better but this is just a general overview thank you you're welcome so do you want to go ahead and address the emergency motion no I'm you can go ahead i think um ok discovered yesterday okay yesterday the attorneys for the defendant ammon bundy paloma an emergency motion one to enjoy the prosecution and to dismiss with prejudice and other relief and the court is familiar with the issues raised concerning the federal subject matter jurisdiction and adverse possession at last Friday's hearing which was September nine the court said to the underside council somewhat exasperatedly that you don't give up do you it was a moment of levity at the end of a trying week and council didn't conclude anything further from it that counsel did not realize that a few hours earlier the government of the document reportedly supporting the request for judicial notice regarding ownership of them all your National Wildlife Refuge those documents filed at almost the last moment before the defendant mm Bundy was to stand trial raised several urgent legal issues contradicting and disproving the government's prior statements regarding the subject matter jurisdiction and necessitating the relief sought here in.
The declaration also helps demonstrate how the evidence that the government intends to introduce a trial was one seized without due process and raise significant issues which must be resolved before any trial enough on the underlying charges me that's a major thing these things have to be addressed before they go forward with these charges against these men for the reason asserted mr. Bundy moves to immediately and join the government's prosecution to dismiss this matter with prejudice to restore mr. Bundy and the citizens for constitutional freedom to the land and property they possess prior to the government's unlawful actions dispossessing them of the land and property to suppress all evidence obtained by the government from the occupation side after mr. Bundy was arrested on january twenty six and four other relief set forth the motion is brought percent pursuant to federal regulation Criminal Procedure 12 b 2 and the other Authority set forth below and attach declaration of dr. Angus macintosh and the Ninth Circuit's recent decision versus McIntosh of 2016 from the nice Ninth Circuit Court which upheld the defendant's right to challenge prior to trial criminal prosecution on the separation of powers and federalism principles included by injunction and eggs when the executive branch's acting and direct violation of an express and clear restriction cast by congressional legislation right okay does everybody get that I'm stop by using character creation you okay dr. Angus mcintosh I didn't update on august twenty 4 2016 when i attended the pre-trial hearing letting everyone know that Shana Cox had called dr. McIntosh is an expert to testify he did so via telephone in court but the prosecutor objected and afterwards the judge judge Brown said she will allow the 10 morning before the jury centered later its new shoes with raised hey Stacy I'm breaking up a little bit so can you back up maybe two sentences sorry ok so that's okay.
Dr. Macintosh was called by shana cox as an expert witness and he did testified the telephone in court that morning objected to mommy and judge Brown said she would not allow the testimony before the jury consider it later if new issues were raised and this past weekend the new issue was raised because of it.
This new ruling by the ninth circuit appellate court oh uh dr. Angus McIntosh is an expert on the matter of federal land ownership who has a who has jurisdiction over certain lands even if the government owns it or if they're just a proprietor of it so you can you can view that update which is a a 24-16 update on my website.
Graham yeah I met in that that that'll be very relevant the second right that's correct yeah you know and the second issue claiming the executive branch's afternoon in direct violation clear restrictions pass by congressional congressional legislation and the Attorney lays that out in this emergency motion so we'll be getting to that shortly i don't want to give it away yet but yeah it's really good is so awesome guys please stick around this is this is a like I said most important for ever done and I have I think I'm almost 500 videos now so that should tell you something and he even says this to the timing of this motion is based on good cause as the government only disclose this information on September nine.
Notwithstanding the importance of the issue from the onset of this case to say nothing of the dependence reap.
Challenges to the issue of jurisdiction and ownership and the courts prior rulings which as it turns out were an error do and we step in part to the government's failure to provide the information previously so the trial is set forth for tomorrow morning defended seek this Court's immediate attention and if necessary in order stating the commencement of trial proceedings in order to address and resolve the matter and it's signed by marcus mumford which is attorney for him and bundy so uh ok so in this motion the Declaration followed by the government on Friday September 9 2016 stated that one purchase the refuge headquarters property from the eastern oregon land and livestock company title passing via an instrument reported on februari 21st 1935 this was partial one and two they purchased properly property immediately north of the headquarters from paul c and roots stewart title passed via warranty deed dated november $MONTH twenty-seventh 1940 labeled partial to use this information is contrary to the assumption the court made in june third order denying mr. Bundy's first junctional motion they claimed that it was part of the public domain at that time the court assume that the entire refuge was part of the public domain when Oregon was admitted to the Union and that no part of it had ever been disposed of in terms by any grant of the united states including that because there is not any evidence in the record that the United States ever relinquish title to the land that compromise the mall the court concluded that the property Clause grants the United States regulatory jurisdiction over that refuge that the wrong the court denied defendant's first judicial motion because it was disputed that the federal government owned the land.
What does not mean that the first the first emotion was the motion.
Well according to the state that that land had always been the federal government's but yeah but it's not true that land used to be in private hands and was purchased by the federal government and when it was purchased is very important because in the past in june $YEAR the state relied on the fact which is an error the fact that it had always permanence land is not true.
Okay so yeah so to summarize the court denied ammons first judicial motion because it was undisputed that federal government owned the land there could be no dispute that it could exercise its power over it and therefore this Court had jurisdiction over the charge defenses that allegedly took place on a refuge implicit in the courts june third order was the fact that a different conclusion may be warranted of Congress had never relinquish title to the property that made up the refuge or ever relinquished its regulatory jurisdiction over the refuge and whatever the reason for the delay that's exactly what the government's declaration now shows so yes you're so back in June ok yaso back in June back in june $YEAR the court was saying you know that land has always belonged to the federal government therefore it has sole discretion to regular you know to to regulate it and now they're finding out it has not always been in the possession of the federal government they didn't always hold a title to it and they may hold the title to it now but it doesn't mean they have a right to regulated because the government has given that right to the States and we'll show this in these documents that it was explicit it was explicit in a 1935 act written by Congress that even the land that the government bought that several and criminal jurisdiction would be retained by the state's there we go there we go okay yeah in that in okay that that is HUGE that is like really big.
Ok alright guys don't get excited.
Yeah first it contradicts the courts earlier assumption that the property and issued have ever been disposed of in terms of grant of the United States it also contradicts the.
Government's trial brief filed june-july 29 which characterized the entire hundred and seventy hundred eighty seven plus acres of the refuge's having been established by President Roosevelt in 1908 because that's a lie.
Didn't happen to the government that is what that I present in court that's what they that's what they were stating is as being in fact the government's trial brief that was filed on july 29 said that and that and that was in response to with Ammon Bundy had proposed when he was not sure what is called he can test something right in court.
Oh yeah he was disputing this subject matter jurisdiction that's correct and this and that was their response ok sorry I'm just trying to make it yeah that's how my brain works alright yeah well the brief for the trial before the trial began a the prosecutor filed the you know a brief on july 29 and characterized the fact they said that the hundred and.
Eighty-seven plus acres of the refuge you know were established by President Roosevelt and nineteen oh wait now that's true for some of the land but we've already shown you that there's two partials that were actually in the hands of private owners and were purchased with certain monies appropriated by Congress and specific policies go along with accepting and purchasing property with that money so we'll get into that further here but the government's declaration now makes clear that the land where the refuge headquarters is located was never part of the nineteen oh wait.
Set aside discussion in the state of Oregon the fact that the government was able to reacquire partial one and two in February of 1935 in November 1940 confirms the courts error of relying on the state of Oregon to deny mr. Bunny's first motion as explained in that case and confirmed by governments declaration the 1908 portion of the refuge was only 80 1786 acres as opposed to its current acreage now that totals more than a hundred eighty seven acres so the state of Oregon 295 us at five.
Accordingly contrary to what this Court suggested in the june third order the courts state of Oregon ruling did not quiet title to the land at issue in this case with the benefit of hindsight one can see how the government knew that the court had aired on this point that did nothing about it it is opposition to mr. Bundy's first judicial motion including a footnote that noted the land where the refuge headquarters are located was acquired in 1935 pursuant to statue 4822 of 1933 and yet the government waited until the very eve of the trial to provide any further information on this very contested . wow so yeah they just ok well that's right yeah so they had to have known i mean they had to have known a minus and this is a point I'll get to later also amman knew that this this property had been acquired in 1935 pursuant to 48 statue 22 of 1933 right and you know oh yeah yeah and in my early determinations but from what I saw I thought that was not a good strategic location apparently he knew something more than I did yeah and then plays out and as the update that i discussed on may nine I mean I knew the situation here in Nevada talking he was out there and he was talking to the press and talking to the people i could hear what he was saying and it was very much in line with what I had learned about the purchase or gained or possession of land through treaties I knew there was a difference so a lot of people don't know it but we'll get to it further on because this emergency motion lays it all out very clearly beautifully that yeah the new information regarding partials wanted to also contradicts the assumption that the court made in tonight mr. Bundy second judicial motion recall the motion was based in part on the courts june third order what where it held that Congress may administer federal lands anyway it chooses yeah that mr. Bundy argued extending that same logic the court must recognize that Congress expressly limited the government's power over federal land when it authorized mr. Bundy and any individual group or corporation authorized a whole title to land and he believes he has a valid claim under color of title to attempt to claim for adverse possession against federal own land under the color of title Act c43 USC 1068.
So what he's saying is is the court said hey Congress can administer this federal federal and anyway it chooses and mr. Bundy is going yeah but congress also wrote a law for adverse possession and you guys are ignoring that ok yeah so in opposition the government argued that mr. Bundy's adverse possession theory was fatally flawed because he doesn't apply it doesn't apply to federal government.
Yes and then using yeah right and then using the keyword theory when addressing him stating effect.
Yeah that's right as mr. Bundy showed the only cases cited by the government in support was us vs Papa's which is pap pas 814 federal a second district 13 42 of the Ninth Circuit Court the cases in 1987 Wisconsin Valley improvement company s which is a Seventh Circuit Court ruling in 2009 and the United States versus heito raid building company which was the first circuit court ruling in 1988-89 and they were all entirely in a in opposite involving the quiet title act on Friday September nine the court denied that motion concluding that mr. Bundy had failed to show how the color and title Act vested the port of jurisdiction significantly the port did so based on the record presented can can you explain that part.
Well yeah the so from what i gather here the government argued that his theory was flawed and the only Kate and as mr. Bundy showed the only cases cited by government in support was the US vs papas is it looks like to me that they were relying on in there telling they're saying that his theory was flawed because it didn't apply to the federal government right and then the only case that they could cite was and how is that case like how I my understanding.
Okay well let me just let me just finish this paragraph okay are you look at you understand okay less less than four hours later the government follows request for judicial notice from which with the assistance of dr. Angus macintosh and others over the weekend mr. Bunny has now been able to find the record of congressional action that the court found lacking in his second motion significantly as dr. Macintosh helps explain and the attached declaration on jun 29 1936 congress enacted legislation to do to divest federal jurisdictions over partial one and two and now we're going to be quoting act the acquisition by the United States of any real property here for two or after required for any resettlement project or rule rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the resettlement administration pursuant to the emergency relief appropriation act in 1935 shall not be held to deprive any state or political subdivision of its civil and criminal jurisdiction and over such property or to impair the civil rights under local law of the tenants are inhabitants of such property their jurisdiction has been taken away and so far as much jurisdiction has been taken away from any such state or subdivision or that any rights have been impaired jurisdiction over the property is hereby succeeded back to such state or subdivision.
So this this Act of 1935 which is called the emergency relief appropriation Act of 1935 is saying that the states will either be reverted back to where will retain civil and criminal jurisdiction not the federal government but the states so it's all becoming clear that with the attacks were saying right the entire time was a hundred percent correct and what amman stated in his first motion that he was challenging subject matter jurisdiction he's actually correct the property was purchased the first purchase was in 1935 the second partial was purchased in 1940 from these funds and they own the they may own that property but it doesn't mean they have jurisdiction because according to the Act the jurisdiction for civil and criminal jurisdiction over such property were to compare the civil rights under local law of the tenants are inhabitants on the property are retained by the states so the government's declaration filed on Friday confirms the akwa the applicability of the 1936 act as it show.
Why are partial one in February of 1935 and acquired partial partial to in November 1940 and this helps explain why the government parties agreed in US vs otley which was decided in 1942 that the Oregon law controls so the question presented regarding the competing claims of ownership you can also see the case Adams vs us that case was done in 1943 and it applies to Land's government to opine that the government lacks even partial or concurrent jurisdiction to enforce federal criminal laws and less until it complies with the law providing for the same ultimately otley concluded that it was air for the district court 22 not emergency motion to enjoin prosecution to dismiss hold on a minute ultimately ottley concluded that it was error for the district court to not recognize the claims of adverse possession the district court erred in making no finding with regard to the character of adverse possession and the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further consideration as to adverse clayman's that's amazing yeah that sounds very clear to me go ahead.
Yeah please explain it yeah yeah they can't they can't just dismiss or ignore ammons claims of adverse possession which is exactly what they did there's a process that the federal government has to go through to prove that they actually have a right to that land and to manage that land there's a man possessed that land other people occupied it with him and he had an adverse claim and he was challenging the government's right to ownership there was a process they that the government should have gone through which would have landed in court and they could have battled it out in port but the government didn't do that the government what happened is Obama says hey you know this is local law enforcement matter and then all the sudden you see federal employees in there with these contracted security firm eating local law enforcement but local law enforcement did not take the lead role in it ok that's and in the end what you end up seeing is that they get ambushed on their way to this meeting in another county and federal officials like they said they did not shoot and we know that they did because their own video shows it you know but they had no jurisdiction there right and so so a man Bundy being on the refuge and asserting his position there is is his right it is a right its civil right that he has to challenge the claim that the federal government owns the land and also has the right to manage it.
It's actually a part of the legal process it's actually that that it's his right it once it's a requirement isn't it a requirement.
Yeah and they can't ignore that right they can't and David Innes document you know the court goes through or I'm sorry ammon bundy his lawyer quotes cases where you have to recognize you can't proceed with these indictments you have to stop and address the constitutional issue blade a person's rights which is especially is is a you know even are recognized by Congress who is laid out these rights even though the government owns this land you have a right to an adverse claim on that land you have a right to challenge it right that's what it's saying yes and it's so this is what so to back up all the way from where we started to now this is all come out or in rubber stamped by the Knights circuit court of appeals as of recent that's right in case number 15 minute always just always existed.
Yeah it's always existed that Ninth Circuit Court just confirmed it the other day doe right to make it you know what against that's right and if if people remember also you know on the update i did on Augie 25th 2016 the pre-trial hearing I let everybody know that Shana Cox had put the judge on notice that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had it had accepted her case and that proceeding any further and the case would be on the judges on the cord and the judge commented she goes I don't know what you're talking about and then they moved on with other matters for the day well on sep tember 12 after the Ninth Circuit Court ruled on this now I'm starting to understand because a man Bundy's attorney filed this emergency motion based on the ninth circuit court's decision and the case number for that night circuit court cases 15 dash ten eleven 74 people to go look at themselves it's a very interesting case so but basically what it's telling the federal prosecutors is you know until you prove this.
You can't go for the forth with these indictments you have to prove these people are not in regulations before you can go through with federal prosecution you know so so you what you understand the material did a were looking at right now presenting so I'm i can as I'm trying to express Maya what I'm learning right now if I jumping forward just stop me.
Okay okay go ahead um so trying to get this straight in my head so it basically the federal government shouldn't be on any of these lands asserting their authority at all and less and last unless there's a what is it the wasn't guys were saying out there the in the Constitution has to be the batteries or the or the there are certain properties and installations that they can have and owned in the states right that they have that they have to be act div they have to be operating it can't just be honest right yeah exactly.
Thank you yeah yeah if the if these lands were being X if they were actually owned by the federal government and they were using them and this states had agreed to succeed jurisdiction of those the federal government would have all rights whatsoever that land but the opposite has happened.
Ok the money that was that these lands were purchased with was appropriated under the Relief Act of 1935 and in that same act it states that the federal government seeds back to the state jurisdiction of criminal criminal and civil matters so even if the federal government does own that land it doesn't mean they have jurisdiction over wow yeah that's right this raises an issue as a if they don't have jurisdiction why are there federal employees on that land they don't have jurisdiction they don't have jurisdiction to be there and this is my personal opinion the I mean the court is going to have to stop proceeding for with this trial and they're going to have to address this issue but my personal opinion on the matter is is that there can be no federal charges because it's expressly written by Congress that they don't have the power to bring these criminal charges all labels state does right yes so so the significance of what you're presenting right here is that these guys are carrying around a pocket constitution right and I from that around and everybody you know all these we have so much opposition but this had been reinforced throughout since the Constitution on the you know 39-36 I believe you said or is that the land ownership your it doesn't really matter this has been real herb this has been reaffirmed by Congress and now by the Ninth Circuit Court I'm since then so it's not in all other chances go ahead sorry that's correct yeah other cases confirm it too and in the footnotes of Ammon Bundy 'he's first motion where he challenged subject matter jurisdiction he put it he put other cases in the footnotes to and they dismissed all of that up until now now now the state of you know now prosecutors are finally addressing it and they're making the corrections to the facts that were on file and saying hey you know.
Ok so we're in error they knew they were in error but they didn't come out right and say it until the eve of the trial what so the information to the information too close Don disclosed on Friday had further allowed mr. buddy and his counsel to confirm with research why the issues presented in this case the Hammonds case and the refuge generally have generated so much controversy additional information we can't raise congressional action through to 1946 where Congress expressly directed that that property acquired under these federal programs including structures such as the building where the occupation occurred be liquidated and disposed of long ago and if you look at that's right if you look at 60 statute 1062.
Accordingly the court can now see that not only was the attempt by mr. Bundy and others to insert an adverse possession claim over the property of the refuge not prohibited by federal law it was invited as Congress had expressly directed at the property be liquidated openly as it were to new entry and other possessory claims.
Invited invited it was invited and one might say that this case presents an instance of the executive branch squatting on the refuge land for decades in defiance of congressional action wow . so he actually States eggs the exact statement that they made about these guys out there that's for wanting squad waters yes right last night and it end it it seems to be defined very clearly that's right and the executive branch this was a you know President Obama was accused of implementing some of the Affordable Care Act but another not other parts of the Affordable Care Act he kept putting them off and Congress threw a fit over this because it is his duty to inform you know to implement those laws to execute the law of the land and he was refusing to execute the laws written by Congress and actually Congress didn't write that legislation that didn't even know what was in it until they passed it but nonetheless they signed it.
The executive branch signed he didn't veto it was his duty to execute the law as it was written and he didn't do it well apparently he's not the first person that refused to execute a law because this act was passed in 1935 for them to dispose of these lands and they still haven't done it for managing that land their living on that land you know it's amazing and you find more property there's they're buying more property to do.
Ok so so sorry.
They characterize the executive branch's squatters in light of the history one can better appreciate birth why the occupation was so emotional for the residents of Harney County supporting mr. Bundy's actions and why President Obama initially characterized it as a if you want to see that you can go to Wolfen Berman FBI takes lead on investigation armed takeover washington post article january $YEAR 4 2016 it's available at the Washington Post com there's article there where you can see that obama did say hey this is a local law enforcement matter so now this brings up why there were federal officials they're FBI HRT and these corporate mercenaries why were they there if it was local law enforcement matter and they were there.
That's right and they were there and you have a video on your website i have one on mine that identifies them in their street / military garb but it's unidentified we don't know what local agency or federal agency there from that they refused to identify themselves as of any local agency or police agency here for many County that's right and they're just said they're here.
Yeah good then yeah the guy the guy as specifically says we're here to support local law enforcement.
We're here to support the sheriff's office sheriff's efforts.
Yeah yeah and yeah there you go and then we also have the fire marshal remember that oh I remember that when he comes out and he says these guys were out there at the Armory looking for deer or deer the middle of the night.
Yeah okay yeah looking for gear yeah so yeah so yeah this is actually it's a huge dish it's a huge issue you know but if you if you look at if you look at the issue and light of what is being now admitted in this emergency motion you can see that higher up officials knew this information because obama is stating its a local law enforcement matter one and ammon continues you can tell he knows it because he continues to go to the sheriff and say hey you know we want to talk to you what's going on why are there federal agencies here blah blah and the sheriff ignores it the sheriff wouldn't come out to the refuge and deal directly with a man for a long time but when he did finally come out he says we will give you safe passage who is we.
Yeah good question yeah he's the last constitutional position there in that County he's the sheriff so who is the we why wasn't it i will give you safe passage and that's because Governor Brown was making these calls remember she held a press release and she sent these letters to President Obama she sent letters to that a judge nasty grasty remember that yes yeah she she's saying that there's a this occupation has to end this is why the governor was making these calls because it was not up to President Obama to make them he didn't have the authority Congress didn't give him authority to make these calls it was a state matter right but some of the orders came from Loretta little red alleged right and in the background or whatever but she's she wasn't authorized to make any calls in this matter is right.
Yeah according according to congressional a act that was passed in 1935 it's a local matter criminal and civil matters are local matters so why this you know i don't understand why they're facing federal charges but nonetheless for the people that said they didn't agree with what Ammon was doing but you know and where it was calling it a honey pot and all that kind of stuff they were ignorant to the history of that that wildlife refuge Ammon was not ignorant to it but everybody else watching this go down didn't.
No they didn't know they didn't know and so what they did was they focused on the.
Personalities and him hard overall that these people were doing wrong but the.
Constitutional issue that was raised over and over again by amman by Ryan by lavoy finicum they were right and everybody else was wrong and federal officials higher up and state officials knew it was a local matter federal did not have jurisdiction they didn't so the significance of this new information challenging the ownership and federal jurisdiction at this point the court might ask what does it all mean.
We expect the government will fall back on the almost circular position asserted previously that notwithstanding the issue raised by mr. Bundy regarding the ownership with a refuge this Court has jurisdiction for 18 us code 3231 because this case involves federal criminal charges.
Well in denying mr. Bundy second judicial motion the court seems to take a similar view pointing out that mr. Bundy fell to cite any authority at the color of title Act deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the criminal matter in which a grand jury issued subpoena indictments and that act does not divest the district court of the united states of original jurisdiction over fences against the wall the state under 18 USC 3231 and this court's jurisdiction under article 3 section 2 of the US Constitution and limited space remaining mr. Bundy Willet address four points in this response.
Ok.
The court shit yes because it's gonna be good right here for ya the court should dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that's the first point of the first counts 1 and 2 of the indictment reference by the court assumes the legitimacy of the federal government ownership of the refuge land referring to defendants alleged conspiracy to prevent federal officers from discharging the duties of their office at the refuge by among other things refusing to leave the refuge and allowing federal officers to return to their official duties and possessing guns in a federal facility.
Well the government alleges that mr. Bundy and the other defendants acted illegally in occupying refuge because they had no business being on the refuge property in the first instance even applying the court September ninth order this new information helps show why ownership present subject matter jurisdiction issue and applying oddly the answer to that question as it concerns mr. Bunny's rights to ascertain a claim for adverse possession at the refuge will turn on oregon wall 127 f . 2d at 93 especially in light of congressional action in 1936 that waved application of federal jurisdiction on the issue 49 statute 2035 at a minimum the government has not carried its burden to prove jurisdiction in this in this matter see us vs ally Ninth Circuit Court of 2001 well apparently if apparently if at the Ninth Circuit Court can be cited so much then it it's legitimate.
It's not some court or other offshoot that it is in question this is a legitimate legitimate court it would it's an actual it's an appellate court right so what is that.
That's correct right and so when they make a decision.
About something it is unless somebody opposes it Supreme Court right.
Yes but somebody had yeah we actually say no I have a case no I'm saying no and then but they got to be able to actually have an argument that's right yeah and they're their argument isn't is not holding its not holding up.
It is same as their their arguments against pete santilli which I claimed from the beginning that that these charges would never hold up i mean it to me it's common sense but what I realized to other people it's not common sense because they haven't done the research on this specific matter but you know I have been I am listening to pete santilli show for so wrong i know that he can be blunt and out there and his personality he's not everybody's cup of tea but it doesn't make his message invalid pete santilli is on . a lot of times you may not like the way he says it but it doesn't make what he says invalid right and it said yeah it's actually more important to stand on the principle of the Constitution to is to on the personality that's right principles principles over personalities every time right we should have to be sure that that's right well uh the emergency.
Oh I would address one more thing first.
Ok sure going so it appears at this point that we have arguments by the federal government that are being blown out of the water once at the top one at a time that's what it yeah that's right appears to be to me that I haven't that he's presenting what their position is for their a claim and then he's laying it down in multiple ways is to how they're nowhere near corrector having the authority to to claim something that's correct so what's going on is the federal government they purchased that refuge out there.
I mean at most the proprietor of that land so it's just like if I would go purchase land or whatever you know and then somebody comes and squats on it and has been there and they say I have a claim against that land you settle it in court ok but the federal government didn't do that they settled it with guns and with killing someone and then through these guys you know in these hole in these cells and they've been in there for eight months ok the regular home owner or property owner doesn't have the power to do that so the federal government cannot skirt the laws of Congress and do what they want to do they have to these federal agencies have to comply with congressional laws . so yes yes so okay i'm sorry i have to say it and in my am i am i'm dumb dummy proof it for Matt Matt situation here okay oh wow ok yeah so it's pretty much it.
It's basic it should be basic knowledge from the Constitution that when you have these words determine the adverse adverse possession right that that's supposed to be confronted by a civil situation and a quarter time that's it.
Okay I get it got it that's correct and so this emergency motion goes on and says given this new information which i think is proof of a man's legal status stance when he was out there at the refuge it would be error to assume that any of the crimes here arise under the law of the united states the district courts of the united states have original.
Jurisdiction exclusive of the courts of the states of all offenses against laws of the United States that's what 18 USC 3231 says which means jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses.
Cognitive all under the authority of the United States but we know from you know the previous reading of this emergency motion that they gave that up.
They gave up jurisdiction and it's retained by the state's the state's haven't explicitly succeeded it back to them ok so the Supreme Court has long limited the district court's jurisdiction to particular land crimes are this cognitive level when committed within or on any land reserved required for the exclusive use of the United States you hear me.
Well I don't know what that means what does that mean that's what I was telling you earlier okay well on the United ok so let me prove it so it's under the jurisdiction of the United States if the land is acquired for exclusive use of the United States but these lands that these guys are on the refuge it's not exclusive use for States they were saying that that's private property and the community members were coming and going from that land it wasn't just used by the United States got yeah okay yeah it wasn't required for the States either and under the exclusive jurisdiction thereof or anyplace purchased or otherwise acquired by the united states by consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the creation of a fort magazine Arsenal dockyard or other needful buildings Criminal Code section 272 18 us code 451 third 18 USC a that's an.
Administrative code 451 subsection 3 the last Clause covers cases were exclusive jurisdiction is acquired by the united states.
Pursuant to article 1 section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution you can see the case bowen vs Johnston the 1931 case even then ownership does not equate with jurisdiction it says there is no question that the United States has the constitutional power to acquire the land in question and that it did acquire it whether or not the national government acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the land or whether the state reserved it as it could jurisdiction over crimes they're committed dependent upon the terms of the consent for succession given by the legislature . right yeah so it shows.
That's right it shows it's critical to resolve the issue of before subjecting mr. Bundy to trial.
The upshot is that the United States does not have.
Jurisdiction over all lands owned by the federal government within the states because in the absence of states consent or a succession of jurisdiction and since nineteen forty in the absence of explicit acceptance of jurisdiction by the federal government the federal government's possession is simply that of an ordinary proprietor Davis concluded that the district court had jurisdiction it sharply admonished it for not holding the government to its burden of proof.
Hold on today they seriously just say that that they did that they just push off.
Responsibility on somebody else that's right and basically it it goes along with what's happening in the Oregon Court right now to it can't be assumed you can't just assume that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction you need to prove it and it says here that it must not allow the government here to similarly give short drift jurisdiction it's a very important issue you've got to first establish you have jurisdiction before you can reside preside over case.
Ok or even file charges against these guys you're following federal charges against them but history has shown through congressional legislation they they were never given the power to do that by Congress next issue is the court should immediately.
Yeah that the court should immediately enjoying the prosecution the Ninth Circuit's enjoy him.
Ok it'll explain it in here you can read or let you have to listen to the Ninth Circuit recently handed down a ruling that encourages courts to enforce federalism and separation of powers constraints in the Constitution to protect individual liberty where the government and the executive in particular acts and excess of its lawful powers mcintosh 2016 and he's also quoting bond versus the United States case of 2011 the court sitting in equity cannot ignore the judgment of Congress deliberately expressed in legislation and when Congress has enacted and legislative restriction federal criminal defendants make seek to enjoying the executive branch's contravening action so in some specific congressional action can raise significant issues of federalism or separation of powers which must be enforced to protect defendants liberties so I'm i can equate this back to you know you had federal agencies and unnamed men corporate agencies there assisting local law enforcement ok when federal agencies did not have jurisdiction there that's a that's a clear break of separation of powers.
Ok the state needs to take care of its own business but I believe my personal opinion and all this is that continuity of everybody's trying to a mesh all these local governments the state the federal government where the lines of jurisdiction is blurred and I think this is as a certain case also with what we saw out there in Oregon that the lines of jurisdiction or blurred and everybody assumes that the federal government has jurisdiction that what we're actually looking at tells us something different and people don't understand what's going on right i believe i believe the sheriff I believe Governor Brown i believe this judge sitting in on this case and ammon bundy and Obama and anybody else that was higher up in the federal government I believe they knew that that Sheriff had the authority that with the governor brown you know making these decisions i believe that so why federal officials were there i don't know i don't know they were there to assert their authority and to see what they can get away with in 212 much they could yeah they didn't have any authority.
Well not bull it but just like that uh this document is saying you have to play what's the term that they use in this document where you have to first hold the land take the land in hold your ground.
Yeah you're talking about the adverse possession.
Yes i know that's not the same thing but it's the same principle is that this this is sheriff right here was obviously not the you know he wasn't exactly going to take is a rightful place for authority yeah ammon bundy and these guys were exerting their right by claiming adverse possession on the land now the landowner retaliated by sticking their goons on these people but the sad part about it is is a lot of these goons were federal employees and you know the federal government didn't have any jurisdiction to do that so it is a major issue what I can see coming ahead is the fact that these men have been sitting in prison for so long when the courts never even had jurisdiction over this issue i could see civil suits coming up because of this show that yet they would have to be okay mr. Bundy raised adverse possession and a specific congressional authorization underlying his rights 43 USC 1068 to date the government has essentially ignored the issue sometimes with a red herring response questioning whether he could have ever been successful and perfecting title under 1068 but this new information proves that mr. Bundy was staking a perfectly legal dissension and Alistair of the government in january $MONTH 2016 a person's legal conduct for adverse possession and political speech is not subject to criminal prosecution see broken curve or the 0 rd en que IR chgr 410 kercher vs Hayes hayyei is to punish a person because he's done with the mall plainly allowed him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort and for an agent of the state to pursue a course of action to penalize a person's reliance on its legal rights is Captain Lee unconstitutional here the government admits that the dissension announcing occurred but it wants to put mr. bunny on trial for these legal actions to allow such a prosecution would violate long-standing right swear by one party claiming color a title can hold maintain an exercise rights because this just keeps getting better.
Yeah it does the game seeks to short the government seeks to short by limiting any consideration of adverse possession to mr. Bundy state of mind defense while we appreciate the court's ruling allowing mr. Bundy that much this new information has allowed us now to find that present.
That present additional congressional authority showing why these questions of federal orange that must be resolved before he is subject to criminal prosecution see miranda vs. city of Cornelius 2005 from the Ninth Circuit Court due process requires that a party affected by government action be given the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner in short congressional action going back to nineteen thirty-six have limited federal jurisdiction over the property at issue vesting important rights of federalism and separation of powers in citizens like mr. Bundy who now stands up against the overreach of the executive branch in an injunction like that imposed by in McIntosh is appropriate.
So if the prosecute occasionally this.
Yeah if the prosecution precedes the court must give the defendant the opportunity to assert of constitutional rights before standing trial and they keep ignoring his right i mean you know he has a even before they even showed up in organ you know he petition he had a grievance petition it was ignored.
He went and talked to the sheriff you know it was ignored instead I believe that you know that my personal belief i don't have proof in this but I think federal employee in federal officers were behind the scenes coaxing the sheriff to do certain things to try to get these guys to commit acts to you know criminal acts that they could prosecute them on but a man stood his ground and did what he knew to do and he continued to ask the sheriff sheriff visited the refuge are you going to address our claims in the gut and the sheriff used to do it so all of this stuff has to be addressed before he you know federal the federal court can pursue any charges against him.
Right right and the end it so that didn't go ahead.
Are you gonna do it what do you wear us we got to start reading them up.
Yeah i'm just about done no new information the new information concerning ownership raises additional issues under the Fourth Amendment the fifth and the Fifth Amendment as set forth above mr. Bundy and his colleagues acquired property rights by their actions see Robinson 16 us at 224 adverse possession constitute sufficient title against every person and legally entitled an adverse possessor to stand upon his mirror naked possession until a better title was shown in a court of law.
Possession although it be merely a nekkid possession or acquired by wrong as by dissension is also a title and continues in the meantime till some act be done by the rightful owner to divest the possession of women is not done that yet.
So as a seizure of property of credit Fourth Amendment when there's some meaningful interference with an.
Individual's possessory interest in that property see united states versus Jacobson of 466 us 1984 case so when there's other cases given here to but because the government government did not take appropriate civil action to divest mr. Bundy's and others asserted rights in the refuge prior to seizing mr. Bunny's property and/or destroying those acquired property rights by force it did not comply with the.
Constitutional and the defendants must have the opportunity to present these issues to the court before standing trial.
There you go yeah and and it says as we have repeatedly made clear the government may not take property like a thief in rather it must announced its intentions and give the property owner a chance to argue against the taking.
That's in Clement V city of wind l5 18 as Ninth Circuit Court case of 2008 determine their that they used was it naked naked possession.
Yeah I like possession possession i like that i like to turn my lock because what it says to me is is that it's simple it's bear.
Well it's you place your feet is that the guy getting the gist of it you're you're taking possession and it's a it's clear i don't know maybe you can maybe I'm saying you're wrong yeah that you remember towards the end of that after him and then were arrested David and and the other occupiers were still at the refuge and David and then build themselves some shelter and wanted one of the officials on the phone that was talking to David said something about him illegally fortifying.
Their tents do you remember that yes you do.
Yeah and he said that that was illegal for him to fortify the surroundings but what's so funny is that and all the charges that David is facing you know fortifying his surroundings on that refuge is not one of them and I always wondered why that is also error and many people had said this before that at the most these people were trespassing on federal land I've even made that statement yeah but why are they not facing any trust okay good good sorry I cut you off a pic that's ok ok so you made it continue yes yeah okay my my personal belief is that that that was bullshit what they were telling him over the phone I don't believe what he was doing was illegal because federal law did not apply there . so and according to this emergency motion even if the government generally believed that mr. Bundy and the citizens for a constitutional freedom were in wrongful possession an occupation of that refuge the Constitution still required prior formal notice and compliance with reasonable due process before seizing divesting or destroying that adversely possessed property interest the right to prior notice and hearing is central to the Constitution's command of due process see us vs james daniel good real property 510 us 4353 of 1993 are precedents established a general rule that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government deprives them of property.
This applies to all real property in general not simply to residences so the government may not finally destroy a property interest without giving the punitive owner and opportunity to present his claim of entitlement here the government never gave formal demand or notice never obtained a warrant to seize the property interest tell by Bundy and the citizens the absence of consent or a warrant such a seizure can be justified only if they need probable cause standard and if they are unaccompanied by the government's unlawful trespass as defendant has previously argued in the prior briefing referencing and incorporated herein the established reasonable process for the government to challenge adverse possession is civil ejectment or some other formal civil court process the government's to partial from these long-standing property law principles when in dispossessing mr. Bundy are seizing his property at the refuge further compounds the in permissibility of the government's actions because it creates an unacceptable risk of error so that that error has resulted in the government shooting deaths of one potential defendant the pre-trial incarceration of many others and yet no direct attention has resolved the ultimate property right question.
So even though you know even in this hearing even in this motion they're saying you know the government's done everything else other than address the issue and they have to address the issue would ya what it appears that they're doing kicking and screaming like a little kid.
It seems that way but you know the government is acted this way for so long that i believe it's what the people expect you know I think there's a lot of people that were afraid to go out there just stand with the Amman and these Patriots because why they didn't have any knowledge of legislative history of these lands to they really don't understand the principles in the US Constitution you know so I I don't understand as Patriots how you can be Patriots if you don't understand the document and the system of government you're supposed to be supporting and defending the Constitution and the government and all this kind of stuff but you don't even understand system of government you're supposed to have for the principles of the Constitution and here it comes this man this you know simple rancher standing on his rides and everybody's calling this thing a honeypot everybody's know just saying oh it's a false flag it's a honey pot it's this it's that and the truth of the matter is is you can go back and look at these YouTube videos and who was doing that and now you can understand that these people are the ones that were ignorant they didn't know the truth so they couldn't tell it to you that's why they focused on the personalities out there the final matter raised there's a you know one paragraph left here a part d on the last page it says the court should stay proceedings pending the resolution of these issues the court should stay trial pending a resolution of these important issues and the Ninth Circuit Court held in McIntosh this Court cannot ignore the judgment of Congress deliberately expressed in legislation and federal criminal defendants may seek to enjoy a prosecution that contradicts that restriction mcintosh 2016 at five this right to seek injunctive relief must be resolved prior to the trial it's gotta be.
Let's see what else vacating and remanding trial court decision to submit the relevant factual questions to the jury in a federal prosecution promising to revisit the defendants motion to dismiss or for injunctive relief in joining prosecution after the trial mcintosh hell thats defendants were at least entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether their conduct was entitled to prosecution based upon congressionally imposed limits related executive discretion so the court does not grant mr. Bunny's motion he should be accorded time to obtain review of the ninth circuit and I believe this is what Shana Cox was saying on the $DAY $MONTH 2015 that pretrial hearing yes so because of this emergency motion to enjoying it came on the heels of this ninth circuit court case which is saying the same thing the name and Bundy's been saying all along you know when this raises another issue too is you know if the federal jurisdiction is an issue which it is then what what allowed what authority did the BLM have to press charges against the Hammonds how were they prosecuted in a federal you know court and serving time under federal wall you know the three strikes you're out or the mandatory sentencing while it would apply to the Hammonds if they're not under federal if it was never under federal jurisdiction.
So that's pretty much all i have you have any questions or I know I don't have any questions but I have a lot of statements and I think we do have some more stuff to cover um up again my my final comment and all of this is that the events in Oregon stemmed around one man's knowledge that salmon and he was knowledgeable about what was written in these legal documents that are a and the legislation historical background pertaining to the land in the West specifically the mall your refuge.
Although a man understood i think he fell to educate those that stood with him about what he knew they failed see the bigger picture and as a result many men have taken plea deals failing to realize that the federal government has no business and dieting them for standing up for the rights or challenging their assumptions they that they owned or could regulate these lands and others took at some point I believe that they saw this was an issue and attempted to educate others in the community and the surrounding communities and that's when unknown and unauthorized corporate armed security staged an ambush and kill avoid finicum and arrested the others the education has to continue their for the prosecution has to let these people go to continue their claim of the refuge until such time as the federal government follows their own laws and addresses is adverse possession import and proves that they have a right to manage these lands because they haven't proven it so far . absolutely all I have yeah and then I wanted to go ahead and state that a how we got here at this point is through the process of ignorance and apathy and allowing things over time or vast periods of time to become normalized for conditioned in a.
And we need to I think we need to it behooves us all to start to pay attention and recognized with our Authority is what rights we have because i think some of the material that stacy is presenting here actually all of it 100 percent of it is basically telling us that we have as much of a right to be anywhere as the federal government does in fact everything issue is reading it became more clear to me that we were we were on equal ground we walked into a courtroom as to who had her the right to that land in fact it was the government's obligation to prove that we did not not the other way around.
And so moving moving forward moving forward is this information right here although presented over a very long video is packed full of information that tells you how powerful you are and that a that a we can put we can pretty much assert your authority when and where we want and it never has to end in the in a harmful way like it ended for the boy finicum and his family was there is never do for the rest of our lives that's right yeah so I wanted to basically I i really have come to a different understanding at this point as to what happened there how it all heard the people that did not support what happened because of theories and what was going on in the background of possible secret organizations the recalled don't like the Freemasons or whatever i think that at this point it's irrelevant and here's why is that is that the ultimate goal of the ultimate the principle yes sorry is altered principle behind the position that they had up there is something that we should all have been behind because here's the deal is that this is not something that is some trap or honey pot at this point the reason why we are where we are and why a weather from this point forward because it puts the government on notice they have to get rid of this land now uranium one Hillary Clinton all of these people they can't continue the way they were doing things in fact now they have to tell us they have to tell us what they're doing and where the money went and who they sold the property to this animals we have we have to grab this Authority and freaking run with it they have been scared they have been scared of this and all the events that we've been looking at for the last couple weeks or as long as this knife Court of Appeals has been looking at this case is all been wrapped around in my opinion what's going on right here the stock market going down Pete Santilli being released that was no accident that was meant to remove him from organ for when these guys get released so they could not be covered by somebody live streaming ok i had thinking I think what you're saying is the timing of peeps antilles release i don't think it's a coincidence.
It is absolutely because yeah I think all along that they knew they couldn't a pen these charges on Pete I don't think they would have stuck and I think they knew it also especially when Tom Cohen his attorney raise the issue on august $MONTH twenty-fifth about the strictest juris that was applied bring the government's case against this communist party that you can't you know and diet and prosecute someone just because they're part of the Communist Party you have to prove be honest I mean more than just beyond a shadow of a doubt you need to get them on recording saying that specific person wants to overthrow the and how they're gonna do it when they're gonna do it and if it you don't have these strict words coming out of their mouth and you can't prosecute him and I know that the prosecution was not happy with Tom Cohen bringing up that issue but the federal government cannot just slap all of these charges on these men and women and assume you know just continue to throw him out there to see which one stick this is a waste of taxpayers money to prosecute these people that were actually acting lawful under their own federal laws under congressional legislation these people were acting lawfully government coming came in here and use their higher guns and killed one of these protesters for totally understand if a lot of these people end up following civil suits against the federal government when it's all said and done but for i would like to share something of my own personal experience because you know this research I've done has been going on for a very long time and my biggest obstacle to realizing the truth was continent of dissonance my biggest obstacle was myself it was it's not the federal government it's not this person or that person or this or that it's me you know i held certain beliefs and what I was researching was contrary to what i believed and my brain did not know how to file this information i mean i've researched this stuff now for four years four years people and I have to read things over and over and over again because my brain still wants to reject a lot of this information so i would ask that just because you know some of the information are all the information that was given tonight under works a lot but if it doesn't jive with what you believe.
Perhaps you should question your believes rather than the information on giving you you know do your own due diligence do your own homework.
You're welcome to go to my YouTube page and look at these updates I've done on the Bundy case so you guys can see I mean there's nothing in here in this document tonight.
That's not on videos already on my youtube page you know so i think that's about all i have to say you know I i can be my biggest obstacle when it comes to research right well ended in the even in everyday life I mean you're basically talking about us a simple human process and I think this I'm really happy that you brought that up because that's exactly what's been occurring we do it to ourselves we do it to others and this ultimately a this situation that we're in and with our own personal relationship with ourselves and with the government it is because of a lack of personal responsibility or looking for information outside of ourselves.
I just absolutely i just want to do too i want to thank you stacy because you have personally affected me in my life and guided me towards some things and you actually can't let me do it naturally which is nice you know you just basically stated facts and let me find my own conclusions and I never I don't think I've ever learned anything by someone telling me I've had to go into my own reading my own digging my own research you know the Bible talks about seek and you will find right and for me it's the seeking I mean the answer is out there but for me worth researching things that were contrary to what i believed i didn't research stuff that i thought was true i researched the opposite of what I'm what was true and i consider the other side of the argument and I came to realize that much of my beliefs were wrong.
And it's so funny because when I let go of these believes i end up having to go through a huge grieving process because now I had this big gaping hole in my belief system you know and I feel that now with truth facts are subject to change but the truth is the truth and i'm telling you i'm not.
Anti-government what I am anti is the system that's currently in place where there's a lack of accountability and the people are silent they're not actively getting involved they're not actively you know questioning what these government officials are doing lying trust is not a good thing to have you know and we have a right to speak up and speak out so well thanks for thanks for letting me share to share this tonight and I really appreciate it.
Yeah I i went to flat my guns for a couple more seconds to share the head.
Yeah that's going to drive this home is that this is a this whole message here is a unifying message even though we use words like ignorance or apathy for how we got into this position it doesn't mean that we can correct it you know just just like amman he understood the information but the people that went with him i believe because they took plea deals did not fully understand the situation or they would not have so cool and that was that is not fully his responsibility because they have responsibilities to themselves to have looked something outside him he should have been taking their own due diligence like you said and doing their studying but the point is is that you that we have to expand that into everyone because we're all responsible and I just want to make sure that this message right here doesn't get lost in further secret society yeah you pushing pushing the blame on to secret societies or affiliations and everything like that onto ammon bundy or these people to further prob probably gate propagate the division is a is going to only get us more of the same and that that process right they're not paying attention the principal not not caring about principal at all what's the end result in result is this ok we are going to have hard times ahead especially whether we ignore this presentation this material right here we're gonna have hard times ahead whether we confront it or we don't.
So regardless of anybody involved so all right that's it that's all you got.
So okay thanks not appreciating yeah yeah.


##########################################