Oregon standoff: Case of possible misconduct by FBI in LaVoy Finicum shooting now before grand jury

Oregon standoff: Case of possible misconduct by FBI in LaVoy Finicum shooting now before grand jury

The federal investigation into an FBI agent's apparent firing of gunshots at Robert "LaVoy" Finicum and the alleged FBI tampering with evidence at the scene has gone to a grand jury.

So this is good news. Of course, grand jury hearings are secret, and it's not over yet, so we do not yet have a decision either way.

But this is perhaps more important, and is not good news:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Gorder Jr. revealed the grand jury hearing in court papers Thursday explaining the government's desire to keep its memorandum about the inspector general's investigation into the FBI's handling of the Jan. 26 shooting out of the hands of defense lawyers.

"The Declaration provides details of an ongoing investigation by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, and concerns matters occurring before the grand jury protected from disclosure,'' Gorder wrote to the court. "The Declaration more fully describes to the Court alone the nature of the material which is the subject of defendants' motion to compel and which the government contends should be denied from discovery.''

This means -- in plain English minus the legalese and weasel words -- that the feds are trying to withhold evidence from defense attorneys that may and could exonerate the Bundys and other protesters at the refuge in Oregon and at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. I'm not sure how it could help the defendants; I'm not sure even the defense attorneys know yet, though they probably have some inklings. But the efforts of the feds to keep that information secret shows that THEY KNOW!

As of now, the judge has told the feds "no." That they may submit the information under seal, but it must be available for examination by defense attorneys -- and rightly so!

Late Wednesday, Brown said she'd allow prosecutors to file the memo under seal, but ruled it must be shared with defense lawyers. She said, however, that she would allow the government to make further argument why it shouldn't be shared with the defense.

That led to Gorder's expanded legal brief, noting the federal investigation is before a grand jury. Grand juries typically review investigations to determine whether to return criminal indictments.

As of now, four defendants have agreed to a plea bargain with the feds, and another one is expected to soon. I expected this, because (1) I knew that most of these people could not afford to fight the full power and resources of the federal government in court (and of course the fed bullies knew this also), and (2) because I know the feds can't afford to let the people -- and the whole world -- know just how crooked and corrupt they really are.

And this effort to deny these defendants evidence in complete defiance and opposition to the letter and spirit of the rules of discovery is total and complete confirmation of that. When you have nothing to hide, you don't try to hide anything.

POSSIBLE misconduct?

Lol. No really. L friggin OL.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
POSSIBLE misconduct?

Lol. No really. L friggin OL.

My thoughts precisely!

But there are those -- here on ATS and elsewhere -- who can and will defend their murderous behavior

a reply to: Boadicea

Let's just hope it doesn't turn into another Lon Horiuchi, charges dropped situation.

a reply to: Excallibacca

Grrrrrr...... From your keyboard to God's ears...

I've tried to comment further, but it makes me so angry I cannot even write anything that makes sense! Grrrrr....

So for those who don't know who Lon Horiuchi is, I dug up a couple old ATS threads:

Lon Horiuchi, Government Killer

Travesty at Ruby Ridge, Idaho

The tragedy of Ruby Ridge: It was 19 years ago today...

a reply to: Boadicea

This means -- in plain English minus the legalese and weasel words -- that the feds are trying to withhold evidence from defense attorneys that may and could exonerate the Bundys and other protesters at the refuge in Oregon and at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.

Um. No.
It is about the shooting of Finicum, nothing to do with the Bundys.

It is about the statements of an agent over the number of shots fired. We've known about this for a while now, haven't we?
www.oregonlive.com...

a reply to: Phage

Um. No.
It is about the shooting of Finicum, nothing to do with the Bundys.

Um. No.

It's all one and the same. The feds know it as evidenced by charging all defendants together. The defense lawyers know it as evidenced by their motions. And the judge knows it as evidenced by her ruling:

Defense lawyers in the Oregon standoff case have asked the judge to compel the government to turn over the investigative records regarding the FBI's alleged misconduct.

Late Wednesday, [Judge] Brown said she'd allow prosecutors to file the memo under seal, but ruled it must be shared with defense lawyers.

a reply to: Boadicea

Defense lawyers in the Oregon standoff case have asked the judge to compel the government to turn over the investigative records regarding the FBI's alleged misconduct.

Yes. The alleged misconduct involved with the shooting. Your own title says that.

Defense lawyers have argued that prosecutors must share any evidence that could benefit the defense, including any material that could damage the credibility of a prosecution witness. Federal prosecutors counter that they won't call law enforcement officers involved in the investigation as witnesses in the case, according to court records.

www.oregonlive.com...

Witnesses who will not be used in the case against the Bundys. Irrelevant.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Phage

Um. No.
It is about the shooting of Finicum, nothing to do with the Bundys.

Um. No.

It's all one and the same. The feds know it as evidenced by charging all defendants together. The defense lawyers know it as evidenced by their motions. And the judge knows it as evidenced by her ruling:

Defense lawyers in the Oregon standoff case have asked the judge to compel the government to turn over the investigative records regarding the FBI's alleged misconduct.

Late Wednesday, [Judge] Brown said she'd allow prosecutors to file the memo under seal, but ruled it must be shared with defense lawyers.

Won't effect thr Bundles at all the question is did the FBI agentry lie about the number of shots and who fired them. If thr grand jury decides there is cause to believe that the FBI agent lied then the next step would be dismissal or suspension. The arty general could decide to prosecute but very unlikely given the circumstances. But if they do it would be perjury charges meaning he'll plead guilty and get probation.

a reply to: Phage

The law enforcement action which resulted in the death of Lavoy Finicum is part and parcel of the case against the Oregon Protesters. Therefore the defendants have every right to the information they are demanding under the rules of Discovery.

Defense lawyers in the Oregon standoff case have asked the judge to compel the government to turn over the investigative records regarding the FBI's alleged misconduct.

Defense lawyers have argued that prosecutors must share any evidence that could benefit the defense, including any material that could damage the credibility of a prosecution witness

The article does not say it, but I will: The feds must share not only information that could "damage the credibility of a prosecution witness," but any information that would damage the credibility of those who participated in any/all federal action against them.

If that wasn't a problem for the feds, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to hide the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But thanks for making their case for them.

a reply to: dragonridr

Won't effect thr Bundles at all the question is did the FBI agentry lie about the number of shots and who fired them. If thr grand jury decides there is cause to believe that the FBI agent lied then the next step would be dismissal or suspension.

If one or more FBI agents lied about those shots in any way -- including lies of omission -- then their credibility and integrity is damaged and everything they said and did is suspect.... including all actions taken against the Bundys and the other defendants.

a reply to: Boadicea

Therefore the defendants have every right to the information they are demanding under the rules of Discovery.

The defense is getting what they asked for. They successfully argued for it.

The article does not say it, but I will: The feds must share not only information that could "damage the credibility of a prosecution witness," but any information that would damage the credibility of those who participated in any/all federal action against them.

Guilt by association? The Grand Jury is about the agents involved with the shooting of Finicum. Agents who the prosecution will not be calling as witnesses anyway. They don't need them.

If that wasn't a problem for the feds, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to hide the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Sure, any truth which may have something to do with the case against the Bundites. But not anything that doesn't.

a reply to: Boadicea

If one or more FBI agents lied about those shots in any way -- including lies of omission -- then their credibility and integrity is damaged and everything they said and did is suspect.... including all actions taken against the Bundys and the other defendants.

The prosecution has already said they won't be using those agents as witnesses. They will not be testifying.

a reply to: Phage

Doesn't matter if they don't intend to call him as a witness.

If he and/or any other FBI agents lied about those shots in any way -- including lies of omission -- then their credibility and integrity is shot (pun intended) and everything they said and did is suspect.... including any and all actions taken against the Bundys and the other defendants in either the Bundyville or Oregon standoff and throughout this case.

If their guys did nothing wrong, they would be hiding nothing.

a reply to: Boadicea

If their guys did nothing wrong, they would be hiding nothing.

Ah. Guilty until proven innocent as well as guilt by association then.

a reply to: Phage

Yup. Exactly. When it comes to government actions against the people, damn right! They have to prove themselves and everything they say and do; until they do, everything they say and do is suspect.

a reply to: Boadicea
The government is made up of citizens.

And in this case the government has convened a Grand Jury to investigate allegations that an FBI agent acted improperly in reporting how many shots were fired whether there was tampering of evidence. The purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine if these things occurred.

It's called due process. What is it you suggest?

a reply to: Phage

It's called due process.

Yes, it is... and due process for the Bundys et al demands that the government hand over all information they have, including information which would discredit any and all agents involved in their persecution of the Bundys et all.

And those agents, of course, would also have a right to due process when/if criminal charges are brought against them.

a reply to: Boadicea

including information which would discredit any and all agents involved in their persecution of the Bundys et all.

Persecution? The FBI persecuted the Bundites?
Arrest = persecution?

Have the Bundites filed a civil case over this persecution?

a reply to: Phage

Persecution? The FBI persecuted the Bundites?

Yes.

Arrest = persecution?

In this case, just one small part of it.