Mr. Murdock reported receiving the following information on the December 31, 2018 Federal Reserve Heist as follows:
"This info arrived to me this evening
just a bit ago. I’m still stunned, but the bottom line is we wait once
again!!!! But this is HUGE that the CABAL were caught in the act !! I’ve
checked the wires, there is NOTHING about this anywhere, so they really
have a lid on this one!
I have nothing else at this time except
tears of disappointment as I wanted this so bad for all of you and for
me that I could taste it!
Keep all on the streets in your prayers. In Arizona we have freezing temperatures so who knows what’s going to happen here.
I used to think some of the Cabal
stories I’d read were bull, but this one coming directly to me made me a
believer. Thank GOD they were caught! There would have been [so] many
people going nuts on Wednesday and doing crazy things over money, our
country would have been a prime target for attack and there would be
nothing we could do about it but just watch it fall apart.
I’m praying now and not going to stop
until I hear something new coming out. Sorry this took so long to get
out to you. It look a while to pick my jaw up translating the message
that came in.
God bless you all!"
The following information was relayed by Murdock, and here is how it appeared as he reported it on his blog:
<BREAK>BEGIN INTEL - RV RELEASE HALTED ON PRESIDENTS ORDER<BREAK> <BREAK>THIS EVENING AT 2000 HRS (8PM) WASHINGTON DC TIME 50 CABAL AGENTS WERE ARRESTED<BREAK> <BREAK>THEY WERE IN PROCESS OF AN ELECTRONIC HEIST OF $5 TRILLION US DOLLARS<BREAK> <BREAK>TREASURY AGENTS STOPPED THEM BEFORE THEY COULD EXECUTE THEIR PLAN<BREAK> <BREAK>MORE INFORMATION AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE, THESE AGENTS WERE SLIPPED INTO TREASURY<BREAK> <BREAK>IT APPEARS THEIR PLAN WAS TO PULL THIS MONEY ELECTRONICALLY FROM CIRCULATION<BREAK> <BREAK>SUDDENLY ON WEDNESDAY AT MARKETS CAUSING BANKING SYSTEMS ACROSS THE NATION TO CRASH<BREAK> <BREAK>ALL ATMS AND CREDIT CARDS WOULD CEASE TO FUNCTION, ALL US BANKS WOULD CLOSE, ALL US DOLLARS<BREAK> <BREAK>WOULD BE INSTANTLY WORTHLESS, THE USA WOULD CEASE TO FUNCTION AS A COUNTRY<BREAK> <BREAK>SPECIAL AGENTS WITHIN TREASURY DETECTED ANOMALIES IN SYSTEMS AND INTRODUCED COUNTERMEASURES<BREAK> <BREAK>THAT STOPPED THE HEIST, SHUTDOWN THE TERMINALS BEING USED & CONFUSED THE CABAL AGENTS FOR ENOUGH<BREAK> <BREAK>TIME THAT THEY WERE CAUGHT COMPLETELY OFF-GUARD. FBI SECRET SERVICE & TREASURY AGENTS SWARMED<BREAK> <BREAK>FACILITIES AND ARRESTED ALL. FBI DEPLOYED TO HOMES OF ALL ARRESTED & CAPTURED ADDITIONAL PERSONS<BREAK> <BREAK>ALL BEING HELD WITHOUT BAIL, CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED COUP & SEDITION AGAINST THE REPUBLIC<BREAK> <BREAK>PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ORDERED THE 50 AGENTS SHIPPED TO GITMO TONIGHT & INTERROGATED EXTENSIVELY<BREAK> <BREAK>PRESIDENT HAS DEEMED AT THIS TIME RV MUST BE POSTPONED UNTIL MORE IS KNOWN ABOUT THIS EVENT<BREAK> <BREAK>MNUCHIN WENT TO BAT FOR EVERY CURRENCY HOLDER BUT THE PRESIDENT OVERRODE HIM SAYING THAT TIMING<BREAK> <BREAK>OF THIS INDICATED MORE THAN ATTEMPTED CONTROL OF OUR FINANCE SYSTEM, BUT TRYING TO TOTALLY CRIPPLE IT<BREAK> <BREAK>MARTIAL LAW POTENTIAL HIGH. IF MARTIAL LAW INVOKED, ALL ELECTIONS HALTED, CURFEWS, ALL TRAVEL SUSPENDED<BREAK> <BREAK>CABAL HAVE CONTACTS ACROSS THE NATION & DC, MASSIVE ARREST POSSIBLE WITHIN 24 HOURS<BREAK> <BREAK>MY CONTACTS ARE GOING DARK UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE<BREAK> <BREAK>PRESIDENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO BUNKER FOR SAFETY, VICE PRESIDENT MOVED TO SECRET LOCATION<BREAK> <BREAK>FIRST & SECOND FAMILIES ALL PROTECTED BY MILITARY AT THIS TIME<BREAK> <BREAK>PRAY FOR AMERICA, PRAY FOR THE PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT & THEIR FAMILIES<BREAK> <BREAK>END INTEL<BREAK> <STOP><STOP><STOP> <STOP><STOP><STOP> "
Entry Submitted by Michael Murdock at 11:56 PM EST on December 31, 2018
On October 5, 2018 The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press Released information regarding a FOIA Request they submitted in conjunction with their law suit regarding undercover impersonation of members of the media. The Federal Bureau Of Investigations released a portion of the record requested by the RCFP outlining the agencies guidelines for impersonating members of the news media which reveal that the practice requires high level approval from the Justice Department and the FBI. During the Bundy Ranch Trials it was revealed that a fake documentary crew garnered interviews with several of the Defendants in the three cases where they asked the protestors inflammatory questions about the Bureau Of Land Management who played a pivotal roll in the Stand Off, offering interviewees liquor and candy to excess, ultimately capturing interviews by those they had intoxicated which resulted in what is equivalent to life sentences for two of the defendants. The article released by RCFP references the phony film crew, Longbow Productions and specific others who obtained this high government approval, it states in part:
"Newly public Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents outline for the first time the specifics of the agency's guidelines for impersonating members of the news media in undercover activities and operations. The records detail, among other things, that such activities require high-level approval from within the FBI and Justice Department. The FBI released the guidelines after the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit when the agency failed to respond to a request for records about its impersonation of documentary filmmakers, specifically. Additionally, records recently released in connection with a separate FOIA lawsuit filed by the Reporters Committee show that the FBI has engaged in the impersonation of documentary filmmakers on a number of occasions, though questions remain as to just how frequently the FBI relies on this tactic.
The FBI has engaged in the undercover impersonation of members of the news media for decades, but controversy surrounding the practice was amplified in 2015 after it was revealed that the agency created a fake news article attributed to the Associated Press (AP) during the course of its June 2007 investigation of a student suspected of sending bomb threats to his high school outside Seattle, Washington. The revelation sparked an outcry from the press and public, including inquiries from high-ranking members of Congress who expressed concern that the impersonation of journalists undermines the credibility and independence of those reporting on matters of significant public importance.
In defense of the practice, then-FBI Director James Comey submitted a letter to the editor to The New York Times acknowledging the tactic and stating that the FBI's impersonation of an AP journalist in the Seattle investigation "was proper and appropriate[.]" The controversy also led the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General to investigate the FBI's use of media impersonation in the Seattle investigation. In September 2016, the office issued a formal report noting that the FBI had prepared new guidelines setting forth "approval levels for sensitive circumstances specifically in situations in which [FBI] employees represent, pose, or claim to be members of the news media or a documentary film crew."
The guidelines obtained by the Reporters Committee detail that approval process: The relevant FBI field office must submit an application to the Undercover Review Committee at FBI headquarters and it must be approved by the FBI Deputy Director after consultation with the Deputy Attorney General. The guidelines do not provide any criteria the FBI Deputy Director and/or the Deputy Attorney General must consider when approving these undercover activities.
The guidelines also define an "undercover activity" as any investigative activity involving the use of an assumed identity by an undercover employee, and an "undercover operation" as one that involves a "series of related undercover activities" — defined as five or more substantive contacts by an undercover employee with the individuals under investigation — over a period of time.
Though the FBI has repeatedly disclosed that its agents have impersonated members of the news media to further their investigations, important questions remain about how often this practice is used. Reporters Committee attorneys are currently involved in two matters seeking more information about the FBI's use of media impersonation.
The Reporters Committee scored an important victory late last year when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the FBI had failed to sufficiently search for records responsive to FOIA requests made by the Reporters Committee and the AP. The case is currently on remand to the district court, where the FBI has produced records that make clear that the FBI has engaged in the impersonation of members of the news media — including documentary filmmakers — in criminal investigations on multiple occasions. In released emails, FBI employees question whether the agency's new policies regarding impersonation of members of the news media "apply only to future [undercover operations], or apply retroactively to ongoing [undercover operations] that have already been approved with the documentary film crew scenario?" Similarly, another released email notes the existence of "a number of communications to HQ components and the field in 2016 regarding the use of 'documentary' and similar type scenarios in undercover operations."
Most recently, the Reporters Committee sued the Justice Department and the FBI after the agencies failed to respond to a FOIA request for records related to the FBI's impersonation of documentary filmmakers. The Reporters Committee filed the FOIA request after it was revealed in court that FBI agents posed as filmmakers in order to interview suspects as part of its investigation into a 2014 armed standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and supporters of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, and used "professional credentials, websites and business cards" to lend their fake documentary film company — Longbow Productions — the appearance of authenticity.
In response to part of that FOIA request, the FBI has asserted what is known as a "Glomar" response, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records related to other instances in which it has impersonated documentary filmmakers during the course of its investigations. In support of its argument, in a recent filing the FBI went so far as to argue that disclosing these records "would allow criminals to judge whether they should completely avoid any contacts with documentary film crews, rendering the investigative technique ineffective."
In response, the Reporters Committee argued that this is precisely the reason why disclosure of information regarding FBI media impersonation is so important: this tactic has a chilling effect on journalists and documentary filmmakers, and sources are less likely to speak candidly to members of the news media if they think that the journalist is an agent of the government. Further, the Reporters Committee argues that the FBI cannot issue a Glomar response in this case because its practice of media impersonation is already well-known to the public and the FBI has already officially acknowledged the existence of these records — two standards the court will consider in evaluating whether the FBI's Glomar response to part of the FOIA request was appropriate.
Along with the legal arguments in the case, the Reporters Committee submitted signed affidavits from two documentary filmmakers — David Byars and Abby Ellis — who explained how the FBI's use of media impersonation has made it more difficult for them to do their jobs.
In particular, Ellis believes that "the FBI's impersonation of a documentary film crew could have put [her] in danger," and that "the FBI's use of that tactic continues to jeopardize [her] safety, and the safety of other, real investigative filmmakers."
The FBI has until Oct. 12 to respond to the Reporters Committee’s arguments".
This case is evidence that the program to propagandize the people is WELL underway and does not protect the American People's right to a free press! As Reporters Committee For A Free Press states, this covert program is making it difficult for documentary film makers and reporters alike to obtain access to the people to report "the news" because it has made the American People fearful of entrapment and prosecution. This is only one of many cases, and it is my opinion that not only was it employed in the Bundy Ranch case but also in the Malhuer Refuge event in Burns Oregon, Harney County, in one case in particular with whom I will call the master of ceremonies, although not the only instance.
The American People deserve to have their right to a free press protected, not exploited to their detriment. We must be vigilant to expose these government lies and manipulations whenever, and wherever found.
Todd Engel, Bundy Ranch Defendant, Sentenced Using Government Claims Unrelated To Charges To Which He Was Convicted.
July 19, 2018
Federal Court Las Vegas Nevada
If "speech" is a crime we may all be guilty, depending on who is making the rules. It was a report by Cambridge Analytica that brought Mark Zuckerberg to testify before Congress in which he had to admit he and the team he employs was playing favorites with topics, groups and individuals who met Facebook criterion for progressive/left leaning views, while censoring others who were more conservative. Although Facebook left videos up of individuals, who were committing REAL crimes like the group who kidnapped a mentally disabled individual and hazed them on Facebook Live, people like Diamond and Silk were deemed "unsafe" by Facebook. Now that Social Media is our modern day "town square" government officials of all ranks seek to silence The People from speaking their mind.
Diamond and Silk labeled "Unsafe" by Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook
Judge Gloria Navarro presided in the Sentencing Hearing for Todd Engel (Idaho) for a conviction rendered him in Trial #1 of the Tier #3 (The Gunmen) portion of the Bundy Ranch Trial or the Standup At Bunkerville Nevada 2014 where Engel received a guilty verdict on charges of Obstruction Of Justice and Interstate Travel & Aide To Extortion,neither of which are firearms related, nor do they have enhancements attached. Yet the prosecutors are trying to sidestep the actual trial, and sentence him to serve time for crimes for which he was not convicted.
On October 8, 2017 Todd Engel wrote to supporters outlining the details of his Pre-Sentencing Report explaining how the Probation Office did the Prosecutions bidding in including sentencing guidelines that were not included in the Jury's verdict recommending Engel serve time for crimes he was never guilty of.
The courtroom was packed today with BLM Agents, FBI and Secret Service and supporters were seated on both sides of the gallery. Today the Prosecution Team Consisting of Steven Myhre, Daniel Schiess and Nadia Ahmed who used this very report to garner a sentence for Todd for 14 years! Most of the evidence presented by the Prosecutors in court at sentencing consisted largely of Todd Engel's Facebook posts, some of which were NOT posted by Engel but by others using his account. In Todd's defense, in his own words, he accepted responsibility for them though he pointed out to Judge Navarro nothing he said was of a violent or threatening manner and asserted his inalienable right to the First Amendment. Todd's Attorney, Warren Markowitz stood to defend his client by reminding Judge Navarro that Engel was in constant communication with the Nevada Highway Patrol on the bridge over the wash, did not threaten anyone and pointed his firearm at no one. Markowitz was successful at getting the term "sniper" stricken from the documents, as Engel, along with hundreds of others, traveled to the wash expecting to see the cattle released when surprised to find the Bureau of Land Management and National Parks Service in a military formation with weapons drawn. Engel simply asked NHP if they were aware of this and ultimately ducked behind a jersey barrier for cover, "no weapons pointing" in the words of Dan Love.
The Prosecution used the Facebook post of Cliven Bundy telling the public what was transpiring at his ranch for several days when the BLM accosted Davey Bundy, apprehended him after throwing him to the ground and grinding his face into the gravel on the shoulder of the road and interrogating him at a BLM office then driving him one and a half hours to Las Vegas hoping to find a way to imprison him but kicking him to the curb a day later with only a sack lunch. Cliven told the public about the "First Amendment Area" the BLM had erected with construction fencing off a distant freeway exit far from the Bundy property and pestered people all across the Bunkerville area to go to the area if they had something to say, "the public land was not a place to do it". The public saw video posted by many, of Margaret Houston being approached from the back and body-slammed to the ground by an out of control BLM Agent and Ammon Bundy tased three times as the crowd help fight off the electrified barbs while attack dogs were sicked on the people, but the Prosecution insisted that just by the public "liking" and "sharing" a Facebook post and showing up to support and defend the Bundy's against a clearly tyrannical government with firearms, this, was "threatening" to Law Enforcement, who Schiess told the Judge were a "protected class" and above the law. It was very clear throughout the hearing that the government, including Judge Gloria Navarro, was hell-bent on making Todd Engel an "example" to scare off the hopes of anyone else ever standing up to a tyrannical government. This was evident in the extremely harsh verdict handed down in court today.
It is evermore proof that the government, at all levels, considers The People guilty until proven innocent and, although a jury of your peers does not convict you, they will throw the book at you anyway. Proof of this was exhibited as the Prosecutors brought up EVERY minor offense Todd was ever accused of back to puberty, demonstrating how all your past deeds will come back to haunt you. One of the frustrating things about this hearing was that Daniel Schiess, who never presented ANY evidence in the trial Todd garnered convictions in, nor was he even a part of the Prosecution Team then, was allowed to present evidence not related to the convictions at all. He spoke of "truth, justice and the American way" and was allowed to bring forth the "restitution" bill presented not by evidence, but by using the fictitious "cattle grazing fees" owed to the government plus punitive damages suffered by the BLM and requiring Engel be responsible for paying them back, and if the Prosecution decides to swing it, require the other Defendants who entered into Plea Agreements, to pitch in. This was ultimately rescheduled for September 2018. The Prosecution finally had to admit that it wasn't about spending 2.5 -3.5 million to recover a 1 million dollar BLM cattle rustling operation it was about getting the cattle off the land. Scheiss accused Engel of trying to create another Ruby Ridge or Waco telling the Judge how Engel made demands of the BLM and threatened them "if they didn't back down this would continue". Schiess told the court "we are a nation of laws" and "we solve our disputes in the courtroom" and "Police Officers and Law Enforcement are a privileged class with special protection". Scheiss also told the Judge that Engel should suffer for not telling everyone on Facebook that the information Cliven was telling the public was not correct, despite there being BLM snipers on and around the Bundy Ranch for months prior to the day at the wash. Scheiss also told the Judge that Engel made a visit to his local County Sheriff and told him he was "ready to wage a war with the Federal Government", yet NONE of this was presented as evidence in Todd's trial. Schiess brought up the fact that Engel attended the protest at Sugar Pine Mine, where again, no one was hurt or injured, and how he traveled to Malheur Wildlife Refuge where LaVoy Finicum was assassinated by Oregon State Police and their operatives. Schiess claims "they need a harsh sentence in order to have further respect for the law and law enforcement. In this country we have a society where we resolve our disputes peacefully and we respect the law. Obviously Todd Engel blames the Federal Government of where he is today". Scheiss claimed that "the feds, the BLM and the police where hurt by this experience". He told the Judge that Engel's actions were much worse than Jerry Delumus but closer to Greg Burleson's, who received 87 months and 68 years respectfully. Scheiss said that Engel made threats and that "victims need justice which is a part of the judicial system".
Judge Gloria Navarro Obama Appointee Harry Reid Puppet.
Todd Engel stood to plead his own defense against the PSR and was told by Judge Gloria Navarro that he doesn't have the right to speak that his Attorney should speak for him. Todd told the Judge "I would not be here today if I had not made those posts on Facebook. I posted stuff on Facebook and it's going to put me in prison"! Judge Navarro told Engel he is "still in denial and needs a therapist". She silenced him right away, like she always does, and used this against him in his sentencing since he insisted on defending himself against the charges in the report. Judge Navarro handed down the sentence of 168 months. Todd's Attorney Warren Markowitz stood to defend Todd arguing that there is evidence being presented in this Hearing that was not presented at trial and that the person who wrote the damage report was not a part of the investigation. Markowitz continued telling the court "we are a nation of laws and rules but we are also a nation of rebels. We are a nation who stand and protest against injustice, this is the very core of our founding. The People rise to show the government WHO they work for, and Todd is respectful of the law. He goes to protest because he believes in our country and that the government DOES work for The People".
Todd Engel was escorted out of the courtroom and while exiting said, "freedom isn't free, and this is not over"! Markowitz will appeal the case in which the government is not a victim, there were no shots fired and no one was injured.
If there are any Grand Jury or Trial Jury Members from this case, please listen to this plea for help on behalf of Todd Engel and the other men convicted or entered into plea deals. It is very important that you hear the certified evidence of this case so that may set these innocent men free. Please visit this link.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
After the court hearing Kelli Cooper, sister of Todd Engel, released the following statement:
"Judge Navarro would not let family speak yesterday so I will speak now and forever until this wrong is made right.
Todd was not the one in a law enforcement uniform throwing an unarmed, defenseless woman to the ground.
Todd was not the one in a law enforcement uniform grinding a mans face in the gravel for simply taking pictures by the side of the road.
Todd was not the one in a law enforcement uniform pointing weapons at unarmed women and children.
Todd was not the one in a law enforcement uniform making fun of the protesters physical appearances and picking out which ones they were going to kill first.
Todd was the one on the bridge begging for help from the ones in a law enforcement uniform. The same ones who testified under oath that he was “helpful.”
THE UNIFORM DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN-THE MAN MAKES THE UNIFORM".
Sign the petition for a Presidential Pardon of the the remaining Defendants who entered into Plea Agreements and are serving time in relation to the Bundy Ranch Case. In my opinion, Micah McGuire should be added to this petition.
Update- September 20, 2018 - Here is an outline of restitution owed by Todd Engel according to Judge Gloria Navarro's order.
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Restitution Hearing as to Todd C. Engel held on 9/20/2018 before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Crtrm Administrator: Aaron Blazevich; AUSA: Daniel Schiess with FBI Agent Mike Abercrombie; Def Counsel: Warren Markowitz; Court Reporter/Recorder: Araceli Bareng; Time of Hearing: 9:20 a.m. - 10:01 a.m.; Courtroom: 7D;
"Defendant is present in custody with leg restraints. The Court makes preliminary statements. Mr. Markowitz makes arguments regarding his position on restitution. Mr. Schiess responds. The Court finds that restitution is mandatory in this case. The Court determines that the Defendant's ability to pay restitution will not be taken into consideration in this case. Mr. Markowitz makes arguments regarding the inability of government employee wages and costs to be imposed as restitution. The Court finds that the expenses were necessary to complete or attempt to complete the operation which is at issue in the indictment."
The Court imposes the following amounts of restitution:
BLM Costs:
BLM Labor Costs: $518,955.97.
BLM Contract Costs: $1,025,542.53.
TOTAL BLM Costs: $1,544,498.50.
FBI Costs:
FBI Las Vegas Employee Costs: $62,255.31.
FBI Los Angeles Employee Costs: $18,405.07.
FBI Los Angeles Travel Costs: $11,631.45.
TOTAL FBI Costs: $92,291.83.
TOTAL Amount of Restitution Ordered: $1,636,790.33
"The Court orders and imposes restitution and associated conditions. Amended Judgment to follow. Mr. Markowitz makes an oral motion to stay restitution pending appeal. The Court DENIES the motion. Mr. Markowtiz requests the Defendant be allowed to change his facility designation on the Amended Judgment to FCI Sheridan as Mr. Engel's family is moving closer to this location and Mr. Engel has allergies at the current facility. The Court will amend its recommendation to the US Bureau of Prisons on the Amended Judgment. The Court adjourns. Defendant is remanded to custody.
What's missing is the over $160,000 a year interest on the restitution which would bring it to over 5 million dollars by the time he's released".
I continue to look for the actual document on the above proceedings, I only quote what was reported in several publications.
Update- Todd Engel recently penned a letter dated September 18, 2018 entitled "A Long Train Of Abuses". Read it here.
Update- October 24, 2018 Todd Engel's Attorney Warren Markowitz gives an update on Todd's case.
Update - December 12, 2018
Update - November 21, 2019 The Appeal Brief is filed and available for download at
Docs.FreeToddEngel.com and the government has until the 20th of May to
respond. Expecting the oral arguments for Todd's appeal to be sometime in the 1st quarter of the coming year (2020).
Update - Todd Engel case scheduled for opening arguments May 28, 2020. You can tune in online for proceedings. When I get the link I'll post it. Listen to an update from his Attorney below.
Update - May 28, 2020 Warren Markowitz appeared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals via phone, while the Prosecuting Attorney Adam Flake appeared via internet where he and Judges William A. Fletcher, Jay Scott Bybee and Paul J. Watford all appeared on camera from their offices due to the COVID19 Crisis. Markowitz began by establishing several points he would like the Judges to consider. Number one, that the Standby Counsel, which Judge Gloria Navarro abruptly required to represent Todd during his Nevada trial, was a "Structural Defect" and denied Todd his Sixth Amendment Right to "be confronted with the witnesses against him; the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses", known as the Compulsory Clause. Number two, denial of a New Trial Motion based on the Dismissal by Judge Navarro of the Tier 1 Defendants (Trial #3). Third, a Review and dismissal of the financial obligations for Restitution based on an improper calculation by the government. And finally, this is what Markowitz dedicated his time to while the others had but only a brief mention; denial of Engel's right to direct his trial as he saw fit, via the Sixth Amendment right to represent himself. Markowitz emphasized that the court was in "fear" of a mistrial. He testified that Judge Navarro held a Faretta Hearing which was used to convince Engel "it would be dangerous to move ahead without Counsel." Markowitz told how Judge Navarro told Todd before the Jury that "if [you] ask a question wrong you may have your right to self represent revoked." What brought this on in Todd's Trial was the fact that he brought up the subject of a "Criminal Investigation" in regards to Bureau of Land Management employee Dan Love. Judge Watford brought up this point in the hearing asking Markowitz if Engel was warned about what he was or wasn't allowed to so or say in his own defense? Markowitz was not prepared to answer specifics in regards to this question. Watford pointed to the fact that Engel asked a witness about an "investigation" that didn't exist. You must understand that the "law" is about WORDS and PUNCTUATION! So, the Judge is driving home the fact that Dan Love was not technically under "investigation", but an IOG Report on Love's criminal behavior during the Burning Man Festival. The Investigation began in 2015 where Dan Love threatened fellow employees, among other things. So, Love was technically not facing a Criminal Investigation. Judge Watford asked Markowitz if it was improper to relieve Engel of his right to represent himself the rest of the afternoon? Markowitz responded, "yes." Watford asked, "because?" Markowitz, "the Court was already weighing mistrial and making Engel sit down and installing Standby Counsel." Markowitz also told how the Judge did not inform the Jury of what was taking place and why. "It made Engel look guilty." He also testified to the fact that Standby Counsel made it known that he was there for the Court alone! This resulted in the Structural Error and denied Engel control over his own defense, as Standby was being used as a "filter." Markowitz emphasized that Brady should be considered, but Standby Counsel appointment infringed on Engel's Sixth Amendment Right. U.S. Department of Justice Adam Flake had his turn to defend the governments claim that Judge Navarro was justified in her abrupt censure of Todd Engel in his own defense, sighting that Engel had filed for the OIG Report on Dan Love stating there was an "investigation" over it. Flake acknowledged that fact that USDOJ was not going to call Dan Love, in order to keep him from being questioned by Engel. He noted that "the defense wanted to call Love in an effort to impeach him, because he was the subject of an IOG Investigation." Flake claimed that because Engel used the term "criminal investigation" he should be disqualified from representing himself, also admitting Engel was not told directly that he could not bring up the subject of Love's Investigation. Flake said, " it was out of left field", telling the Court none of the other Defendants would be allowed to call Dan Love either. Judge Bybee engaged in grilling Flake about the fact that Engel was not specifically asked not to ask the witness about Dan Love's "investigation". Judge Bybee told Flake he could find no record in the transcript where Engel was specifically told not to go there saying, "how is this revoking Engel's right to self represent a proportional response under ANY of the cases dealing with Faretta Rights?" Flake responded, " Navarro thought it was clear to Engel he was not to bring up Dan Love's investigation." Bybee continued, "doesn't this type of thing happen, a defendant asking a question they probably shouldn't have asked because the district court had told them not to? Doesn't that type of thing happen all the time?" Flake, laughing and grinning said, "it happens all the time of course, but it is special because of the length of the trial, the amount of litigation specifically on Dan Love." Judge Bybee, "why not turn to the Jury and say, ignore the question? This happens all the time." Flake responded, "I think the court was in its discretion to do so, but I want to emphasize, the courts decision was based on HOW the trial played out." Judge Bybee, "do you know of any case where someones Faretta Rights were suspended rather than taken away? He could have come back and represented himself." Flake, "I don't know of any case like that. If it was an error, it was structural error, it was not harmless, but Navarro felt Engel would not follow her orders, saying, 'I'm not going to risk it'." At this point Judge Fletcher quizzed Flake, "On Risk. What was the threat, if there even was a threat, that if Engel serf-represented, that he would ask further questions, be disruptive or would continue to be a 'threat' or a problem?" Flake responded, "Judge Navarro's observation that he 'will not follow my orders. Engel was proud of his effort to slide something by me'." Judge Fletcher said, "there are not facts to support this case. Were there any more Love type questions that were lurking?" Flake told the judge, "I don't know about any future questions." Flethcer said with emphasis, "the reason I am focusing on this is because your are basing it on RISK, so what's the Risk?" Flake continued to parrot that Judge Navarro was emphatic that Engel would not obey her orders, and then he revealed the fact that Navarro did not want to have to declare a Mistrial, stating, "the Risk is the Mistrial!" Fletcher continued, "Risk of not obeying orders? Risk of [Navarro] declaring a mistrial? I am having trouble with the risk of asking more questions that might result in a mistrial, can you help me on that?" Judge Watford stepped in by saying, "what specifically happened, or what was said, that would have resulted in a mistrial?" Flake responded, "it was WHAT the defense wanted to talk about, and the Judges response. Navarro said, 'no, you cannot bring up Loves IOG'." Judge Watford continued, "how is anyone to know if they ask one improper question it's game over?" Flake gave reference to Illinois v Allen. Watford called Flake on the fact that this was not quite the same situation saying, "if Engel were a BAR Attorney and this happened the Judge would not be happy. The Judge may say, 'we are going to have a Contempt Hearing on this'. It would be very unusual for a Judge in this situation say, 'you are off this case; there is another lawyer who can do this, but you're gone'! It appears to be quite a severe sanction to do this to a lay person saying, 'I'm denying you your Constitutional Right to represent yourself when there's been no prior bad question without warning." Flake, "Judge Navarro felt it was necessary so Engel wouldn't subvert the trial. It was quite obvious at this point that the Prosecution had made Todd's case so, Markowitz concluded with several minutes left on the clock. I have produced a video of the online proceedings if you'd like to watch. It includes a precursor by Eric and Andrea Parker and the United States Nevada Department of Justice Hearing to have Judge Gloria Navarro's Judgement of case dismissed with prejudice overturned. The Engel Case takes up the remainder.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated Todd Engel's Conviction! Judge Bybee wrote the Decision stating, "A jury convicted Appellant Todd Engel of obstruction of
justice and interstate travel in aid of extortion. He contends
that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment during
his trial when the court terminated his right to represent
himself and appointed standby counsel to represent him
instead. We hold that Engel’s conduct was not sufficiently
disruptive to justify termination of his right to selfrepresentation. Because this is a structural error, we vacate
Engel’s conviction and remand for a new trial." Todd's Attorney, Warren Markowitz is eagerly awaiting his release from Prison, where he will be a free man once again in Nevada and may return to his home state of Idaho.
Update - September 9, 2020 Warren Markowitz gives an update on Todd's Release.
BREAKING - September 15, 2020 Todd Engel embraced by family and friends as he was FINALLY released from prison (Lompoc) about an hour ago! Welcome Home Todd!😁
The trooper, a member of the state police SWAT team identified in court
papers only as "Officer 1,'' was involved in at least two unrelated
fatal shootings of civilians before the Finicum encounter, according to
lawyers for FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita.
Ammon Bundy writes June 13, 2018:
If the Police Officer who killed LaVoy also shot at him while his
hands were raised while first exiting the truck, would it reveal that
their intent to kill LaVoy had nothing to do with weather or not he
lowered his hand toward his jacket? Especially if the officer shot 3
bullets at him the first time while his hands were raised?#justiceforlavoy
“Lawyers for an indicted FBI agent suggest in court papers that one of
the state troopers who shot and killed Oregon refuge occupation
spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum may have fired the two earlier shots
at Finicum as he emerged from his truck at a police roadblock.”
He shared the following article from the Oregonian-
Lawyers for an indicted FBI agent suggest in court papers that one of
the state troopers who shot and killed Oregon refuge occupation
spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum may have fired the two earlier shots
at Finicum as he emerged from his truck at a police roadblock.
The government has refused to provide documents to the defense about
those past shootings despite repeated requests, the agent's lawyers
said. Astarita's lawyers are now asking a judge to compel the
prosecution team to release the material.
"Such evidence could potentially reveal a pattern of behavior that
might shed light on what Officer 1 did on January 26, 2016, and why he
may not have been truthful about that conduct in the days and weeks that
followed,'' defense lawyer Tyler Francis wrote in a motion filed this
week in U.S. District Court in Portland.
The motion reveals a theory of Astarita's defense lawyers intended to
cast doubt on the prosecution's contention that the FBI agent fired at
Finicum and then lied about it. One of the bullets hit the roof of
Finicum's truck and the other went astray.
Battle of experts in case of indicted FBI Agent W. Joseph Astarita
Government
reconstruction of shooting scene places Astarita as the blue figure,
and “Officer 1,” or the Oregon State Police SWAT trooper as the orange
figure. Prosecutors said Astarita fired two shots at Finicum as he
emerged from his truck. Defense lawyers question if the trooper fired
those shots. The trooper did fire 3 shots at Finicum’s truck as it was
driving toward the police roadblock and then fired 2 shots striking
Finicum after his truck stopped, got out and walked away from the truck.
The trooper was one of two state police officers who shot and killed
Finicum.
Astaritia's lawyers contend the government "overlooked or
misinterpreted'' several key pieces of evidence, "strongly suggesting
that Officer 1 may have lied about his role in the incident, and that
Officer 1 had a clear motive to do so.''
Astarita, a member of the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team, has
pleaded not guilty to a five-count indictment that charges him with
three counts of making a false statement and two counts of obstruction
of justice. His indictment followed grand jury testimony and analysis by
experts of the bullet trajectory from the shot that hit the roof of
Finicum's truck.
Astarita's lawyers said "Officer 1" was standing near Astarita when
someone fired twice - called "Shots 4 and 5" in court documents -- at
Finicum as he emerged from his truck when police arrested the leaders of
the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
The trooper had fired three shots as Finicum was driving toward the
police roadblock, striking Finicum's truck in the front hood, center
grill and driver's side mirror. The trooper denied firing the next two
shots, "Shots 4 and 5," as Finicum emerged from his truck, but he may
have had a motive for the denial because moments later he fired other
shots that struck and killed Finicum, Astarita's lawyers contend.
Government’s reconstruction of shooting scene
Prosecutors
say FBI Agent W. Joseph Astarita was standing beside the open passenger
door of a white truck across from occupation spokesman Robert “LaVoy”
Finicum’s truck when he fired two shots from his rifle, one striking the
roof of Finicum’s truck. Astarita has denied firing any gunshots.
"If Officer 1 had initiated the use of deadly force by firing Shots 4
& 5 at Finicum just seconds earlier, his self-defense claim would
obviously have been more difficult to establish,'' Francis wrote in the
motion. "Officer 1's denial would be even less credible - substantially
so - if he had a history of using deadly force in similarly questionable
circumstances.''
"Officer 1'' was one of two state troopers who fatally shot Finicum
as he was reaching inside his jacket, police said. Investigators said
Finicum had a loaded handgun in an inner pocket.
Astarita's lawyers first asked for files from the different police
agencies that make up the Tri-County Major Incident Team, which helped
investigate the shooting, in a letter to prosecutors in July 2017. The
defense sent another letter in September, specifically asking that the
government produce "all documents regarding the involvement of (Officer
1) in any prior officer involved shooting.''
By December, the government told Astarita's lawyers that it had
reviewed documents on the trooper's prior officer-involved shootings but
didn't believe they had to be shared under the Brady rule.
The landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland says
prosecutors have a duty to turn over information that might be
favorable to defense attorneys in a case.
Top of LaVoy's truck bullet hole.
Prosecutors don't believe the trooper's prior shootings are relevant in the Astarita case, but Astarita's lawyers disagree.
Prosecutors have argued that no one other than Astarita could have
fired the shots as Finicum emerged from his pickup, and that he was the
only person standing in a stationary, "combat-ready stance'' with a
weapon trained on Finicum's truck when the two critical shots in
question were fired. They've said the state trooper was in motion,
moving around at the time.
Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson, whose office led the shooting
investigation, said that the Oregon state police trooper, or "Officer
1,'' told investigators he fired shots at Finicum's truck as it was
heading toward the roadblock, and then he fired after Finicum had walked
away from his truck and reached into his jacket.
Investigators examined the trooper's rifle magazine, and the evidence was consistent with the trooper's statement, Nelson said.
Yet Astarita's lawyers argue they should be entitled to review records on the trooper's previous shootings.
"Evidence demonstrating that an individual other than the accused had
a motive to lie to the police in statements impacting an investigation
is plainly exculpatory, particularly where that witness also had the
opportunity and means to commit the underlying act in
question,'' Francis wrote in court papers. "Records relating to Officer
1's prior shootings fall squarely into this category.''
Bullet impact on the roof of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum’s truck
Forensic
investigators have dubbed the bullet impact to the roof of Robert
‘LaVoy’ Finicum’s truck as Impact “W.” It’s the bullet strike that FBI
Agent W. Joseph Astarita is accused of firing, but then denying he did.
The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office and state police have declined
to identify the troopers who fatally shot Finicum. The agencies have
turned down repeated public records requests seeking the names, citing
threats against the troopers. Lawyers in the Astarita case have the troopers' names but they're under a court protective order. Nelson said the investigation into the shooting that day is
continuing, with additional interviews, "so we make sure we have an
absolute accounting of what occurred.''
Cones showing bullet trajectory from bullet strike to roof
Prosecutors
say indicted FBI Agent W. Joseph Astarita is the figure in blue, and
the only one who could have fired the shot that hit the roof of
Finicum’s truck.
Defense challenges government’s reconstruction
Astarita’s
lawyer Robert Cary and a defense expert say the aerial video from the
FBI is so blurry and fuzzy, and impossible to rely on to determine where
the agent was standing.
Government’s placement of officers and vehicles at shooting scene
A
government expert’s placement of officers and FBI agents at the scene of
the Jan. 26, 2016 shooting. The blue figure is indicted FBI Agent W.
Joseph Astarita, and the orange figure is an Oregon State Police SWAT
team member.
Government expert Michael Haag’s bullet trajectory analysis
The
green line shows government forensic expert Michael Haag’s bullet
trajectory analysis from the bullet hole on the roof of occupation
spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum’s truck, fired on Jan. 26, 2016. The
green line leads to the area where the bullet was fired from, according
to Haag.
Government’s placement of officers and vehicles at shooting scene
A
government expert’s placement of officers and FBI agents at the scene
of the Jan. 26, 2016 shooting. The blue figure is indicted FBI Agent W.
Joseph Astarita, and the orange figure is an Oregon State Police SWAT
team member.
