Wednesday, July 5, 2017

My Dad, Mike Coffman

Michael Scott Coffman’s memorial service will be held at Crosspoint Church, 1476 Broadway, Bangor, ME at 1pm Saturday, July 8th. A reception will be held at the church immediately following.

Mike Coffman was a loving husband, father, and brother. I I asked his sister, Joann, about interesting stories from his past. She said, “Nope,” too fast. After all, they raised each other in Anaheim and Fullerton, California. They had a very close bond I only realized recently, after my dad took ill.

I think that she’d lie for him in a heartbeat if he wanted her to. Now that he’s gone, of course, I expect all sorts of stuff to come out. There is a statute of limitations to such things,and I’m hoping for juicy gossip. For instance, my dad claimed he never smoked a cigarette. This could be true--it was certainly consistent with how he raised us. He also never smoked marijuana until very very recently. This is a bit disappointing, as I wonder what he did during the ‘60’s. (Hint: I think he was a Republican then, too). I hope Joann has an additional stories--forbidden ones-- from my dad.

Some of these stories have already come out. A few days before he died, my mom found eight faded pictures of girls from high school in his nightstand. On the backs were writing “Love you,” and “miss you” and other affectionate notes.

“I haven’t seen those in decades,” my dad said. My sister Tamera wonders why he had them at all. I wonder why he didn’t show me how to date eight girls while in high school.

My dad got a bachelor of science from Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, just a hop, skip and jump away from the Grand Canyon.

He met Mom at school in Arizona. She was pretty then-I've seen pictures. She’s pretty now, I’m sure, but she’s my mom, and I can’t tell. Eww. My dad was quite the hunk at 20. I can only remember him as a worried middle aged man chasing me as I ran headlong into trouble. I’m surprised he had a full head of hair when he died. Neither I nor chemo could ruin his hair.

He and my mom, Suz, often hiked into the Grand Canyon. Just a few days ago, Mom reminded me (for the eighth time) how I should take my girlfriend on a hike to Havasupai Falls. Mom and Dad often spoke of the West with a hushed, reverent tone: Havasupai, Lake Tahoe, Big Sur, Glacier National Park. They loved Maine, of course. We have Mt. Desert Island, blue ocean, sharp rocks, and a jagged coast. And mosquitoes as big as most birds. There is a lot to love about Maine, and I think they loved the Mosquitoes most of all. They don’t have them out West.

He married my mom while they were both very young, 20 and 19, I was told. His mom had to sign for him, he was so young. Why my mom didn’t need a signature is beyond me, but that was in the paleolithic era, where such things weren’t needed for women. On November 2nd, 1963, he wrote his dad from NAU, Flagstaff:

"I suppose you know that I have pinned a girl up here. In case you haven’t heard the lowdown, she is a Freshman from Palo Alto Calif. And is majoring in Physical Elementary Education. She is coming home for Thanksgiving so you’ll be able to meet her. As far as I know she is the girl that I’m going to marry. That won’t be for at least 2 more years though.

I won’t say any more about her as you’ll see her in a couple of weeks except that she is a real nice girl.

I’ll get to studying now. See you at Thanksgiving.

Mike"

It’s so cute--he said “pinning.” People still did that back then. He was wrong about the date of the marriage--he waited only until July that next year. He was wrong about her major, crossing off the Physical and writing Elementary. I guess he was right about everything else. She was a nice girl, and turned into a wonderful mother.

My dad got PhD in Ecosystems Management (read “Forestry”) from University of Idaho, Moscow. He knew his trees. And his tree roots. He told the story of digging in an Arizona forest counting roots, when he heard the buzz of a rattlesnake, just above his head by the edge of the trench. He crawled out from the other end of the trench. Many people don’t know, but forestry is a dangerous business. Think of the sacrifices of people like my father the next time you wipe yourself.

After school, he became a professor of Forestry at Michigan Technological University in Houghton Michigan. He loved to teach. He was born to teach. Why he chose to teach in the Great White North is a bit of a mystery. Houghton is farther north than most Canadians (this is true). We lived across the canal in Hancock in a small, prebuilt house that leaked in the winter on warm days. “In the winter” in Hancock meant from October through early June. “Warm winter days” occurred on or about January 15 and June 1st (this seemed like it was true).

We ended up in Bangor, Maine, which for many parts of the US would be considered rural, but for my father and most Mainers, it is Big City. Hancock had no stoplights or fast food. Bangor has at least two of each. In Hancock, “Coming Soon to a Theater Near You,” was a lie, since it took at least 6 months before a movie would arrive.

My dad wrote books and articles on the threat of all the following:

Radical Environmentalism (in general)
The myth of man-made global warming (in specific)
Radical Islam
The Progressive Agenda (“Radical” would have been redundant in his readers’ minds)
Broken America
The Global Government

I’d recommend buying these books on Amazon, or better yet from my mom. She’s a widow now. Even better, just donate and don’t get the books.

He was also a popular author and columnist for Range Magazine, a publication I believe is devoted to the above, as well as the wonders of living in the West. He was so well known as an conservative environmentalist, he has an IMDb page, in part because he appeared on the Daily Show in 2013. He and I have opposite views on the politics and agree on the glory that is the West. We couldn’t debate the politics. We had a truce that included him turning off Fox News when I visited, and me turning off NPR when he visited. Fortunately, he never found out how much I liked Samantha Bee or John Oliver.

He traveled a lot when he was a forester, and when he consulted later. I travel a lot, too. He had a certain way in meetings. I could see this when I attended some of his deacon’s or elders meetings. He spoke a certain way, with assurance and authority. Dad was quick to teach. He loved teaching, and did so in meetings, at conferences, at church, everywhere. I got my love of teaching from him. My sister must have, too, because she actually teaches and gets paid for it.

He was a passionate Christian and a spiritual man. If there is anything in this obituary that describes dad, it is this. He, as I mentioned before, not only attended church, but helped lead them as an elder and deacon. He led at least five or six different churches in the various cities he lived in. So many people have learned from him. Most of the readers of this obit know him from his spiritual journey. His spiritual journey included his stand against environmental activism and big government, so I’m including the rest of you in that group, too. Everything he did in life was connected to his discipleship of Christ.

Many of my memories from childhood was him teaching Sunday school. He didn’t teach children’s Sunday school, but adult Sunday school. This is not surprising, since his subject matter was quite brainy. He’d do research for days and days for a single one-hour lesson. His rooms are libraries filled with reference books. I have memories of Dad in his study pouring over his Bible or reference books early in the morning or late at night. I learned about the patriarchs of the old testament, the gospel of the new, Greek words, Hebrew words, the occasional Aramaic word. My childhood was more rigorous than most pastors’ seminary. My dad didn’t stop with direct Bible knowledge. My dad liked to round out his teaching with entire sections on marriage, personalities, even business. I learned about personality types based on the Myers Briggs and the temperament theory based on the Jungian view of personality types. Yes, this was Sunday school taught by my dad.

He was what I’d call a C.S. Lewis Christian, that is a scholar, a christian, and a teacher, in equal parts. Perhaps not as much a philosopher as CS Lewis, nor did he like fantasy or philology. I mean, who loves philology?

Dad (and Mom) raised Tamera and I to be loving and giving people. He was an example to many of you as well. Dad never stopped giving himself, even when he was ill.

Dad’s departure left a gap in all our lives. Tamera and I lost our father, our patriarch, our rock. Mom lost her husband and life-mate of 53+ years. Joann lost her brother, the only one left who remembered her when she was young. Dad left a hole in our hearts, one that is not easily filled. It’s hard not to use Biblical terms here, and I don’t mean to imply Dad was God or anything. That would be mom, of course. OK, Ok, Mom’s more like the Holy Spirit, whispering what we should do in our ear (“Put your dishes in the dishwasher!!!”). Dad was the paragon of fathers. He was reliable, steady, a compass rose to the map of the whole world. A world that included rattlesnakes, Havasupai Falls, Biblical studies, compulsive research, Fox News (when I was away), and teaching teaching teaching about anything and everything.

Dad, you made a difference in this world. We will miss you.

Jon Coffman

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Keep Looking Up

As a scientist and writer, I have been fighting the global agenda that would destroy America as we know it for decades. As a researcher in the American paper industry, I ran a multi-million dollar research project on the effects of acid rain. When the results came in that it was basically a non-issue, I was told to quash my results or find a new job. That was when my eyes were opened to the fact that it was politics driving the science and not the other way around.

In 1994, myself and a few other individuals stopped the cloture vote to move forward to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty which would have destroyed property rights in our country, thereby destroying free enterprise, the American way of life, and ultimately Freedom itself.
That is the goal of the Globalists. It is not “saving the planet,” it’s not even redistribution of wealth ultimately. It is Control. Global control of everyone and everything. Together with my wife and all who have worked with us, both as colleagues and as fellow warriors in the fight for freedom, we have labored to inform citizens and policy makers, and to stop this agenda.

To all of you who read this, I say this, Don’t give up. Keep fighting. Keep working. Keep doing whatever it is that God has called you to do.

For me the fight is over. After a 2 ½ year battle with cancer, I am going Home. My time here is almost over. I thought I had more to do, but God is saying otherwise.

Thank you to all who have fought and are continuing to fight for freedom.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. 1 Cor. 15:58

Keep looking up,

Mike Coffman

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

United States of America v Ammon Bundy

I worked with Dr. Angus McIntosh, who conducted a brilliant analysis on legislative, case law and Supreme Court decisions that affect this ongoing trial. This blog summarizes the White Paper we wrote (read White Paper) that was entered into evidence in the trial. While this blog is long, what we found will shock most readers and hopefully will eventually establish major new precedents in federal v private land ownership in the West.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

United States of America v Ammon Bundy

Ninth District Court Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

During the pre-trial hearing on June 3, 2016, Ammon Bundy claimed the federal government had no jurisdiction in the Malheur NationalWildlife Refuge (MNWR) because they gave patented title of the land to homesteaders. In response, the federal government boldly lied that they had held ownership of the property since Oregon became a state, giving them jurisdictional right to bring law enforcement and criminal charges against Bundy, et al. At that time Bundy had no hard evidence to refute the federal government’s claim and the district court ruled that “there is not any evidence in the record that the United States ever relinquished title to the lands that comprise the MNWR.” The District Court thereby claimed it had jurisdiction and a trial was scheduled.

Although much of MNWR was homesteaded which received land patents, not all the land was homesteaded and patented. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the non-patented land as a non-occupied Indian Reservation that had strong regulations protecting migratory birds. This eventually became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. During the next thirty years several families apparently squatted on the unsurveyed refuge land and claimed ownership by adverse possession. Adverse possession occurs when an individual or a group occupies property allegedly belonging to others, claiming that the property belongs to the occupying group or individual. Most readers will probably believe that this must be illegal. But it is not, as discussed below.

Adverse Possession

The Bundy trial is not the first time the federal government claimed ownership of all the land within what is now the refuge. In 1940 the federal government claimed in District Court of the Ninth District that all the land belonged to them which led to the United States v Otley (1942) trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, the federal government claimed it owned all of the lake beds up to the meander lines and all unsurveyed lands. Therefore, the homesteaders (or subsequent owners) had no right to graze or hay the land between the meander line and the current, but highly variable, lake level as they had done for over 30 years.

Contrary to the claims of the federal government, United States v Otley (1942), found that much of the land surrounding and including the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters was originally deeded to families under the various Homestead Acts and the Desert Land Act as land patents—potentially the strongest form of ownership. There were numerous Acts of Congress granting the homesteaders varying amounts of land to settle. Generally the size of the grant was increased with each Act from 160 acres in the late 19^thcentury to 640 acres in the mid-20^th century so the homesteaders had enough land to support their families.

Since the lake bed was nearly flat and the lake shallow, the declining lake level each summer exposed a lot of land that was used by the homesteaders for grazing and haying, as allowed by their land patents. To the disappointment of the federal government, Roosevelt’s executive order creating the reservation also included the words “subject to valid existing rights,” of the homesteaders. The lower Ninth District Court upheld the existing rights of the homesteaders, but did not uphold those lands acquired under adverse possession. The federal government appealed the decision to Appellate Court.

In United States v Otley (1942) the Ninth District Court of Appeals found: “The Supreme Court holds that a meandered water boundary of a non-navigable lake shown on the plat referred to in the patent made the shore of the lake the true upland boundary, and that the patent conveyed the title to the center of the lake.” (Emphasis added) (citing Hardin v. Jordan and many more) Since the patentees owned the lakebed, they had every right to graze and hay the land between high water in the spring and low water in the fall, or to the center of the lake if the lake dried up completely—which apparently has never happened.

Most importantly, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District found in United States v Otley (1942) that since the squatters on the unsurveyed land had occupied the land for more than 10 years (the number of years required to obtain title in Oregon under adverse possession), the lands claimed by adverse possession have “valid existing rights” and therefore “are entitled to have their title quieted against both such patentees and the plaintiff.” In addition the Court found “The district court erred in making no finding with regard to the character of the adverse possession, and the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further consideration as to these adverse claimants.” In other words, the Court found that the claim of adverse possession is a valid and existing right which is also true in the United States v Ammon Bundy case in 2016.

43 U.S.C. § 1068; 43 CFR 2541.1 states that “[a]ny individual, group, or corporation authorized to hold title to land ... and who believes he has a valid claim under color of title” to attempt a claim for adverse possession against federally-owned land under the Color of Title Act.” Furthermore, according to Ammon Bundy’s attorneys in pretrial evidence, “Cases examining the doctrine of adverse possession recognize that, as soon as Defendants effectuated an “ouster” of the government, their “naked possession” in the land – even if “acquired by wrong, as by disseisin,” constituted “a title” to that property, which would continue “‘till some act be done by the rightful owner to devest the possession.’” Robinson v. Campbell, 16 U.S. 212, 224 (1818) (emphasis added) (quoting 2 Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England 196).

In other words, even if Bundy was wrong in his claim of adverse possession, he had every right to possess the refuge headquarters until the federal government challenged Bundy in civil court showing they had a legal deed to the land. Since Bundy had not possessed the land for ten years, he would have no legal authority to continue his possession and would have had to abandon his claim to adverse possession. As described in my previous blog, that is not what the federal government did. Instead of going to civil court they chose an armed response that led to LaVoy Finicum’s death.

The land claimed to have been purchased during the 1935 to 1940 period by the United States from the prior owners (inclusive of Section 35 and the Refuge Headquarters) was acquired for “resettlement” or construction of conservation projects only. It was part of over 7,000 acres of land and 150,000 acre/ft. of water rights. It was included into the local Grazing District and adjudicated into Grazing Allotments in the 1940s. It was grazed and hayed as part of local “ranch units” for the next 40 years until the ranchers were purposely flooded out in the 1980s. They were forced to leave without compensation for their allotments, forage crops, improvements, stock-water rights, or the value of the land for grazing.

Once those allotments were made they could not be reduced or changed (Sellas v Kirk, supra). Assuming the 1940s purchase of the land was legitimately done under 48 Stat 22, then the owners of those Allotments abandoned private property when they left in the 1980s. The surface limited fee Grazing Allotment being a completely separate estate from the United States mineral estate, those Allotments were then available for adverse possession. See (Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer, supra; Watt v Western Nuclear, supra). Since the United States cannot acquire property by adverse possession (Leo Sheep Co. v United States, 440 US 668 (1979)), then the surface fee Grazing Allotment could only be acquired for inclusion in the Refuge by condemnation with consent of the State Legislature (United States v New Mexico, supra).

Resettlement Acts Specifically Deny Federal Government Jurisdiction

There is also a reason why the federal government did not want to go to civil court. In our White Paper Angus McIntosh and I found that beginning with the Act of March 3, 1933 (48 Stat 22), Congress enacted a series of statutes to buy failing, or abandoned farms (typically 160, or 320 acre homesteads), and then ‘resettle’ them in “farm management units of a size sufficient for the support of a family” (Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (BJFTA) July 22, 1937, 50 Stat 522)… This was all in response to the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. This was an era of failing and abandoned farms, bankrupt counties due to no tax revenue, high unemployment, and failing banks due to defaulted farm and ranch loans.”

Congress wanted to make it clear there was no intention to acquire any jurisdiction over the land. So, it enacted the “Act to Waive Exclusive Jurisdiction” of June 29, 1936 (49 Stat 2035):

“That the acquisition by the United States of any real property heretofore or hereafter acquired for any resettlement project or any rural-rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes heretofore or hereafter constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the Resettlement Administration pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1935, or any other law, shall not be held to deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over such property, or to impair the civil rights under the local law of the tenants or inhabitants on such property; and insofar as any such jurisdiction has been taken away from any such State or subdivision, or any such rights have been impaired, jurisdiction over any such property is hereby ceded back to such State or subdivision.”

While there is other legislation and/or court decisions that parallels this Congressional action, the 1936 (49 Stat 2035) expressly forbids the federal government from assuming criminal or civil jurisdiction or impairing the civil rights of any individual or private group on any so-called federal land that was designated for resettlement. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and much of the surrounding private land fall under this “resettlement” category. Therefore, the federal government and the Ninth District Court have no jurisdiction—at all. They had no jurisdictional authority to set up roadblocks on Highway 395 and subsequently kill LaVoy Finicum and have no authority to bring criminal charges against the occupiers of the Malheur Refuge, and certainly had no subject matter jurisdiction to try the defendants in federal district court.

The Trial

In spite of the clear language of 49 Stat 2035, Judge Anna Brown in the Ninth District Court has chosen to ignore it and has denied the defense from saying anything about federal jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District also denied it, stating “Whether defendants have suffered any prejudice as a result of dual prosecutions can be reviewed on direct appeal from a conviction. Numerous court cases have established that if the court’s subject jurisdiction is challenged, it must be heard first before a criminal trial can proceed.[1] The reason for this is obvious. Why put a defendant through months of judicial hell and enormous costs if the district court has no judicial jurisdiction in the first place? Bundy and the other seven defendants can only address the federal criminal charges, even if the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

Separately, Judge Brown denied the defense any testimony about the Finicum killing, or Bundy’s legal use of adverse possession. While denying the defense from saying anything about the Finicum killing, Judge Brown has also allowed federal attorneys to say anything they want about the killing of Finicum thereby biasing the information the jury hears. That bias was amplified almost on a daily basis. (See Todd Macfarlane day by day recap of the trial at rangefire.us.com)

The judge allowed almost all of the government’s objections and very few of the defenses’. Writing for Redoubt News, Sheri Dovale revealed, “She [the judge] was so wrapped up in helping the prosecution” that she blurted out, “‘Objection Sustained!’ When she realized that no one had made an objection, she then said, ‘Oh, there was no objection, but I am going to sustain it anyway. I am not going to let the witness speculate.’”

At another time Judge Brown suddenly and unilaterally changed the jury instructions in a way that further obstructed the defense. When defense attorney Mumford challenged her saying the “court is taking sides against the defense,” Judge Brown completely ignored his argument and did not even bother to address it. The trial has become so bizarre that observers are beginning to believe that Judge Brown seems to be asking for a mistrial.

[1] United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); De La Maza v. United States, 215 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1954); United States v. Hall, 20 F.3d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); and others.

Finally, the land allegedly purchased by the federal government for the refuge headquarters in 1936 and 1940 could only be done if Oregon’s State Legislature approved of the purchase under Article 1, §8, cls 17 of the United States Constitution which states: “to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings...”. There is no record in evidence that Oregon ever gave this consent. Therefore, the alleged “purchase” is likely not legal and the federal government does not actually own the land upon which the refuge headquarters is located, nor any other land that was part of the various resettlement Congressional actions.

It is interesting that the federal prosecution only took six days to lay out their case. In their opening statement they said that they would provide witnesses having signed sworn affidavits that they saw criminal activity being conducted by the occupiers of the refuge headquarters. That would have taken days if not weeks. However, the prosecution never put these witnesses on the stand to testify, strongly suggesting that the prosecution was afraid of cross examination. Their case seems very weak.

It is almost a certainty that the case will be appealed to the Ninth District Appeals Court regardless of the outcome of the current trial. According to attorney Todd McFarland, who is closely following the case: “The appeal can include anything the defendants attempted to address at trial. If they raised and attempted to address those issues, but the judge made legal rulings excluding that subject matter, etc., those rulings are part of what is challenged on appeal.”

Therefore, the evidence against federal jurisdiction and Bundy’s legal use of adverse possession is allowed in the Appeals Court and could be very damaging to the federal government’s claim of absolute power over much of the land in the West. The federal government can’t let that happen and is taking every action, including lying, to force the case to a favorable outcome for them so they can keep their power. As they have done in the past, expect the federal government to use every legal action they can to delay the proceedings and bankrupt the defendants.

Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

United States of America v Ammon Bundy

I worked with Dr. Angus McIntosh, who conducted a brilliant analysis on legislative, case law and Supreme Court decisions that affect this ongoing trial. This blog summarizes the White Paper (read White Paper) that was entered into evidence in the trial. While this blog is long, what we found will shock most readers and should eventually establish major new precedents in federal v private land ownership in the West.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

United States of America v Ammon Bundy

Ninth District Court Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

This trial is not the first time the federal government claimed ownership of all the land within what is now the refuge. In 1940 the federal government claimed in District Court of the Ninth District that all the land belonged to them which led to the United States v Otley (1942) trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, the federal government claimed it owned all of the lake beds up to the meander lines and all unsurveyed lands. Therefore, the homesteaders (or subsequent owners) had no right to graze or hay the land between the meander line and the current, but highly variable, lake level as they had done for over 30 years.

The land claimed to have been purchased during this period by the United States from the prior owners (inclusive of Section 35 and the Refuge Headquarters) was acquired for “resettlement” or construction of conservation projects only. It was part of over 7,000 acres of land and 150,000 acre/ft. of water rights. It was included into the local Grazing District and adjudicated into Grazing Allotments in the 1940s. It was grazed and hayed as part of local “ranch units” for the next 40 years until the ranchers were purposely flooded out in the 1980s. They were forced to leave without compensation for their allotments, forage crops, improvements, stock-water rights, or the value of the land for grazing.

Congress wanted to make it clear there was no intention to acquire any jurisdiction over the land. So, it enacted the “Act to Waive Exclusive Jurisdiction” of June 29, 1936 (49 Stat 2035):

While there are dozens of other legislation and/or court decisions that parallels this Congressional action, the 1936 (49 Stat 2035) expressly forbids the federal government from assuming criminal or civil jurisdiction or impairing the civil rights of any individual or private group on any so-called federal land that was designated for resettlement. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and much of the surrounding private land fall under this “resettlement” category. Therefore, the federal government and the Ninth District Court have no jurisdiction—at all. They had no jurisdictional authority to set up roadblocks on Highway 395 and subsequently kill LaVoy Finicum and have no authority to bring criminal charges against the occupiers of the Malheur Refuge, and certainly had no subject matter jurisdiction to try the defendants in federal district court.

The Trial

In spite of the clear language of 49 Stat 2035, Judge Anna Brown in the Ninth District Court has chosen to ignore it and has denied the defense from saying anything about federal jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District also denied it, stating “Whether defendants have suffered any prejudice as a result of dual prosecutions can be reviewed on direct appeal from a conviction. Numerous court cases have established that if the court’s subject jurisdiction is challenged, it must be heard first before a criminal trial can proceed.[1] Bundy and the other seven defendants can only address the federal criminal charges, even if the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

The judge allowed almost all of the government’s objections and very few of the defenses’. Writing for Redoubt News, Sheri Dovale said, “She became so focused on supporting the government’s objections that once she blurted out, ‘Objection Sustained!’ When she realized that no one had made an objection, she then said, ‘Oh, there was no objection, but I am going to sustain it anyway. I am not going to let the witness speculate.’” The trial has become so bizarre that Judge Brown seems to be asking for a mistrial.

Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Was LaVoy Finicum’s Death Planned by the FBI?

Captured shot of roadblock from released FBI video. It shows Finicum

(green circle) just after being allegedly shot with foam bullet by FBI agent

(red circle) fleeing to hide his or her involvement in order to create the
perception that Finicum was going for his gun instead of involuntarily
reacting to reach for the foam bullet wound. FBI agent in orange circle
shot and killed Finicum seconds later after the foam bullet shooter was
hidden behind one of the blockade vehicles. See forensic video..

It’s been awhile since I have posted on my blog. I have been working on the Democrat AGs’ efforts to deny so-called “climate deniers” of their Constitutional rights by bringing RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges against them. The results will be a feature article in Range magazine in early November. Then I was asked to provide expert testimony in the United States v Ammon Bundy, et al. so-called criminal case in which Bundy and others were alleged to illegally occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County Oregon. During this time LaVoy Finicum was killed by the FBI. I recommend the reader view a thought provoking video revealing forensic evidence that Finicum’s death may have actually been planned by the FBI.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

Background of the Hammond Arrests and Prison Sentencing

After suffering decades on unbelievable abuse by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Dwight (father) and Steven (son) Hammond were charged with terrorism by arson in 2011 under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. The reason: setting a backfire to protect their home and winter range for their cattle from being destroyed by fires started by lightning strikes, and the customary burning of grass to stimulate its growth—a custom going back hundreds of years. In June, 2012, they were convicted. Dwight was sentenced for three months and Steven a year in prison.

After being released, the BLM filed a court case in pure vindictiveness, demanding that these “terrorists” serve the full five years minimum prison terms. The Hammonds are both back in federal prison. (For more on this unbelievable story, click here) Seeing this injustice, Ammon Bundy, LaVoy Finicum and a group of his colleagues traveled to and occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in support of the Hammonds. That’s where I pick up the story that I summarize below.

Summary of the Occupancy Timeline of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

On January 2, 2016 armed individuals took possession of the headquarters Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County Oregon allegedly led by Ammon Bundy. Bundy repeatedly stated that the purpose of the occupation was to help the Hammonds by establishing Adverse Possession of the Refuge. Adverse possession occurs when an individual or a group occupies property allegedly belonging to others, claiming that the property belongs to the occupying group or individual. Most readers will probably believe that this must be illegal. It is not. Literally multiple dozens of court cases affirm that it is legal. More on this in my next blog. (To read a comprehensive discussion of this and other legal arguments of the Bundy case, read the White Paper written by Dr. Angus McIntosh and myself (here)[1] that is now in evidence in the trial.)

Again, dozens of court cases affirmed that all the federal government had to do was to file a claim in civil court and show evidence of their ownership. Once their legal ownership was established, Ammon and crew would have had to abandon their claim of adverse possession and leave the refuge peacefully. That is not what the federal government did, however. Instead, in an apparent effort to establish their absolute authority, they brought in armed federal and hired agents to intimidate and force Bundy’s group into submission. Like Ruby Ridge and Waco, that action resulted in tragedy.

On January 26 Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was shot and killed while allegedly avoiding arrest by the Oregon State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Finicum and others were traveling to attend a public meeting with the sheriff in a neighboring county when roadblocks forced their vehicle off the road into deep snow. This was all videotaped with no sound by the FBI from a helicopter. Law enforcement claims Finicum, who was leaving his car and traversing snow up to his knees with hands up, was charging the FBI and State Police while reaching for a handgun in his jacket. He was then shot three times and killed by an unnamed agent.

A later federal investigation found the shooting was justified. However, unknown by the FBI and State Police at the time, a separate video with sound was being taken inside the crew cab pickup. When the two videos were synchronized, it allowed a separate detailed but anonymous forensic analysis that provides compelling evidence that the FBI actually murdered Finicum. The forensic evidence showed that the FBI and State Police actually set up the roadblock for the sole purpose of forcing Finicum to appear to charge the FBI, thereby justifying their murdering him. This stunning forensic analysis of the videos can be viewed here.[2] Is this forensic analysis correct? It seems to be.

Without the forensic analysis the sequence of events seem to be disjointed, even chaotic. With the step by step forensic evidence it showed a pre-planned, well-coordinated strategy to set up and murder not only LaVoy but everyone in the pickup. What was disjointed before comes into sharp focus in the forensic analysis. After viewing the forensic evidence, former Washington DC prosecuting attorney, Fred Kelly Grant wrote “AS AN OLD, CURMUDEONLY, DISTRUSTING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY I WOULD CHARGE THAT LAVOY FINICUM WAS MURDERED IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITH PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION. (Emphasis original) Grant went on to say “On the basis of the video, as a prosecutor, I would file first degree, premeditated murder charges against officers who shot the deadly shots and at least accomplice before the fact against the officer who fired the foam bullet that caused Finicum to put his hands to the left of his chest.” Fred Kelly Grant is a personal friend of this author’s and I have never heard him exaggerate. The evidence is that compelling.

Following Finicum’s death most of the other occupiers withdrew from the refuge. By January 28 only four occupiers remained. The remaining occupiers peacefully surrendered to authorities on February 11. Over two dozen occupiers have been charged with federal offenses including conspiracy to obstruct federal officers, firearms violations, theft, and depredation of federal property. As of August 15, twelve have pleaded guilty, while others are awaiting trial, including Ammon Bundy. Yet, according to the in-depth analysis by Dr. Angus McIntosh and me, the FBI had no legal jurisdiction to do anything they did, and the U.S. Ninth District Court had no jurisdiction to charge and try the 24 defendants, nine of which are now on trial. More on this in my next blog.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

[1] http://www.americaplundered.com/mcintosh-coffman-paper.html

[2] http://rangefire.us/2016/09/23/startling-thought-provoking-new-analysis-of-lavoy-finicum-shooting/