Evidence Congress Approval Of Using Propaganda On The American People In Bundy Ranch & Beyond -The Smith Mundt Act

FOIA Exposes FBI Using The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 Popularly Known As The Smith Mundt Act In High Profile Cases Like Bundy Ranch To Manipulate Public Opinion, Control The Narrative & Entrap Americans.

 

 

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.

Click the Photo to Watch the Video.

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act
http://www.smithmundt.com/about/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736 
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/fbi-records-shed-light-agencys-impersonation-journalists-and-documen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
https://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
https://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/oregon-standup-trial-coverage.html
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1600.htm
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8iy2VDLiTYXP/
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/16/the-bizarre-story-behind-the-fbis-fake-documentary-about-the-bundy-family/
 
 

Government Prosecutors Refuse To Release Docs On Second Shooter In LaVoy Finicum Murder

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.

Click the Photo to Watch the Video.

 

John Lamb Independent Reporter Severely Injured In Automobile Accident In Montana

John Lamb Needs Our Help!

Prayers and Financial Donations Request

 

John Lamb's Accident and Recovery

Accident involving a Semi on 4/30/18 in Three Forks Montana at approximately noon. 

 

 

Our family has always been about two things: hospitality and working hard. We've never had much, yet that has never stopped us from giving and from keeping our home always open. From strangers to family/friends, our home has always been open. My childhood memories are full of Dad bringing hitchhikers/ friends home and giving them full time work -my dad has always worked for himself. When Dad started helping with prison injustice it was nothing new. Just another way of him stepping out and helping the people around him with more than he had.

I appreciate all the concern people have for Dad. These next months will be hard for us as Dad recovers. Just as Dad has taught us, we older kids are ready to work and give to the family. But everything that you all are giving will help so much with relieving our stress as we pay for medical bills and support our family.

Thank you so much in advance for all your prayers and support.

~ Keturah, oldest daughter of John Lamb

____________________________________________________________

John Lamb, husband to Rebekah and father of eleven, was in a severe car accident involving a semi truck on Monday 4/29/18. He was airlifted to the hospital in critical to severe condition. 

He has sustained many injuries including injured spleen and liver, 11 broken ribs, open fractured right leg, broken/crushed right foot and broken left forearm. He had multiple blood transfusions and plasma transfusions already since arriving at the hospital from blood loss and they put in a arterial line. 

  

John has no major medical coverage and is now unable to work to provide for his family of 13. He will need to focus on healing which is expected to take 9-12 months so we are thankful for anyone able to help them. If you want to donate to help him get through this year of recovery please do so and share this page. It will be managed by his daughters and wife, and all funds will be accessible to them only.

John has a facebook account you can follow here:    https://www.facebook.com/john.lamb.16121 

His wife Rebekah has a facebook account you can follow here:
https://www.facebook.com/little.lambs.902

Above all else, please remember them in your prayers as they get through this time of unknowns and focus on getting John to a state of stability and health. He has a long road ahead of him. 

Thank you.

~ Kelli Stewart
(friend of John Lamb)

 

Read Latest Update

 

Please Donate via GoFundMe.comhttps://www.gofundme.com/johnlamblastfreeman

or

PayPal

https://www.paypal.me/JLambs

 

 

DOJ Myhre & Navarro Scramble Amid DHS Whistle-blower Reports War Against Bundy Ranch

DHS Whistle-blower information re-surfaces amid week long recess declared by Judge Gloria Navarro to allow Steve Myhre and his team to regroup after over 40 violations and firing of Government Investigator.

There is a resurgence of disgust and outrage as an unnamed Department Of Homeland Security Investigator's leaked report resurfaces along with added information that Dan Love Agent In Charge during the Bundy Ranch Standoff along with other government agencies, including the Military, compiled a "hit list" to carry out after the Standoff had ended in April 2014.  It is being reported that there are photographs of this list with other evidence that confirms this and other tactics to be used against the Bundy Family and their supporters.  It all began with a DHS Investigator leaking information of the government tactics and plans to Doug Hagmann to Steve Quayle in an email.

 

http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=877

 

"At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday (Friday, 11 April 2014) based on the following:

1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance". Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters", any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.”

2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support;

3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch;

4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene.

This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.

Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation.

A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.  PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL!"

This information confirms much of what Americans on the ground were reporting on the scene in real time.  This also confirms what many of us have known for a long time, that the stand that took place in Oregon in 2016 was a continuation of this government plot to kill and silence the Americans who took a stand there.  This confirms what I have been saying all along, "LaVoy was assassinated by the government and its operatives/Mercenaries".  Like Shawna Cox reported, "[they] wanted us all dead"!  Information on what other evidence is being leaked to the Defense in the current Nevada trial is still only being put out in somewhat cryptic fashion at this writing, but we are expecting more will be made public soon.  It was reported that Steve Myhre fired an Investigator on his team regarding the Bundy Trial currently underway.  It is assumed that this is one of, now several, DHS Whistleblowers.  We know that these Whistleblowers have approached Defense Attorney's in this case.  This only confirms that "they were at war with us, before we were at war with them".  One thing is for sure, all of these people in government and their operatives need to be held accountable and all still employed within the government must be terminated!

 

Early Reports On New Information

 

Learn More About The Current Trial Of Tier #1 Defendants at this link. 

 

Twitter Feed of @DHSWhistler. 

 

 

Now BLM Whistle-blower Mounts Allegations Of Misconduct.

 

 

Click the Photo to Watch the Video.

 

Links:

http://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/oregon-standup-trial-coverage.html

http://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/judge-gloria-navarrodoj-third-times.html

https://twitter.com/DHSwhistler

http://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/2017/12/blm-whistleblower-larry-wooten-seeks.html

 

 

What Really Happened In Harney County Oregon? Shawna Cox Event

What Really Happened In Harney County?

 

It Took Me 2 1/2 Months

but I finally found the source video!

 

Shawna Cox Speaking Event

September 23, 2017

Geiser Grand Baker City Oregon

  Video Available NOW!

Click Below

If You Missed The Event and Would Like To Be A Fly On The Wall Click To Watch!