Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418 Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 14

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418 Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC. 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503) 224-1104 Fax: (503) 224-9417 Email: [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

) Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-09-BR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN ) SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE vs. ) PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER AND ) FOR RELEASE OF DEFENDANT JASON PATRICK, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

Procedural History

On January 29, 2016, Mr. Patrick made his first appearance on the underlying Complaint herein. The Complaint charge Mr. Patrick with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States From Discharging Their Duties Through the Use of Force, Intimidation, or Threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372. This is a class D felony punishable by a maximum of 6 years of incarceration and a fine not to exceed $250,000.00. According to the federal sentencing guidelines, the Base Offense Level for this crime is 10. USSG 2X1.1, 2A2.4.

A detention hearing was held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman, the same judge who found probable cause to issue the Complaint itself, presided over the detention hearing. After considering the submissions and arguments of the parties Judge Beckerman ordered Mr. Patrick detained as both a flight risk and a danger to the community. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 14

The first part of Judge Beckerman’s detention Order, attached as Exhibit A, found that on the motion of the government that the this case involved an alleged risk to the safety of any other person or the community because it involved a crime described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), as well as a “serious risk” that the defendant would flee.

Judge Beckerman’s Order went on to find that “No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required due to:

- Unknown family/employment/community ties - Unstable/no residence available - Information unverified/unverifiable - Other: Pending case in GA/No ties to District And that “No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of other persons and the community due to:

- Nature of offense - Violent behavior - Prior criminal history - Other: pending case in GA

On February 3, 2016 the defendant was indicted with a single count of Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, the same charge as in the original complaint. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) Mr. Patrick now seeks revocation of Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s January 29, 2016, Order of Detention. Review of a magistrate’s release decision and facts relied thereon is de novo. United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Lopp, 2015 WL 5139367 (N.D.Ca. 9/1/15)

Statutory Framework

The Bail Reform Act codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. provides the statutory framework by which release decisions are to be made in federal criminal courts. In cases such as the defendant’s, a class D felony, the Bail Reform Act creates a presumption that the defendant will be released on his own recognizance or unsecured bond. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). If the Court determines that a recognizance or bond release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 14

defendant or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, the Court shall order the defendant released on conditions. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c). The conditions of such a release must be “the least restrictive” condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of other persons and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(B).

Detention of a defendant facing this charge is appropriate only if after a hearing the Court determines that there are no conditions or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant or the safety of other persons or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). In keeping with the presumption of release, the statute calls for reasonable assurances of appearance and safety: Not for absolute assurances. Since the presumption is one of release the government bears the burden of demonstrating that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and/or the safety of other persons and the community.

The standard of proof for non-appearance and danger are different. The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combinations of conditions can reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant. The government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the no condition or combinations thereof can reasonably assure the safety of others or the community. United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.3d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985).

Factors to be considered in determining the release issue are listed at 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (g). Briefly they are as follows:

1) The nature and circumstances of the offense. 2) The weight of the evidence against the person. 3) The history and characteristics of the person, and 4) The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community if the defendant were released.

1) The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense As an initial matter, the government is wrong, Judge Beckerman’s Order notwithstanding, when it labels this offense a “crime of violence” under the Bail Reform Act. The Bail Reform Act defines “Crime of Violence” in pertinent part as:

(A) An offense that has an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another; (B) Any other offense that is a felony and that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense… 18 U.S.C. § 3156(4)

The crime of Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States does not necessarily contain an element of the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” It would therefore only qualify as a crime of violence under the Bail Reform Act if it fell under 18 U.S.C. § 3156(B) as an offense that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense. The United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States recently struck down as unconstitutionally vague a similarly worded “residual” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). 576 U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d. 569 (2015). Under Johnson, 18 U.S.C. § 3561(B) falls as well.

The government in its initial Complaint goes to great lengths to portray the acts of the charged defendants as an unjustified “armed occupation” of the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge (“MNWR”). While it was certainly an occupation and while many of those participating in events at the Refuge were in fact armed, the government’s narrative is incomplete. The occupation of the MNWR was born of the lawful protest(s) which had preceded it in Burns. It was primarily, almost exclusively a political act that had, allegedly criminal results. The nature of the crime itself is a political one which dramatically differentiates it from the generic criminal activity routinely prosecuted by the courts. This was an action taken based on sincerely and strongly held political beliefs that caused as a secondary effect an alleged violation of federal law. This is not crime for crime’s sake. Nor is its genesis found in the more craven motives often seen in criminal cases: money, power, greed, hatred or sheer sociopathy. This “Armed Occupation” is in reality a political protest – and the “Occupiers” are themselves protesters.

Paragraph 58 of the initial complaint captures succinctly the purpose of this occupation in Mr. Patrick’s own words:

We hope to achieve is restore the constitution and the right of the people of Harney County…access of the land back to proper jurisdiction…Most people are walking around without a weapon.

What Mr. Patrick refers to is nothing new. It is representative of a longstanding and principled (if not legally correct) popular dispute concerning the role of the federal government in the ownership and regulation of public lands in the United States that has its antecedents in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 enacted by the Confederation Congress. The Northwest Ordinance is commonly cited as the first authority for the principle that the federal government takes fee simple ownership of all unsettled and unclaimed lands outside the borders of recognized states.

The essence of the arguments underlying the current controversy that led many of the defendants and those sympathetic to their claims to Burns, Oregon in the late Fall of 2015 is a strict reading of the Constitution of the United States, which in the mind of Mr. Patrick does not authorize federal ownership and jurisdiction over the MNWR (and most other federal land holdings in the West.) His arguments are based on two separate provisions of the United States Constitution: Article I, section 8, clause 17, and Article IV, section 3, clause 2.

Article I, section 8, clause 17 provides the Congress shall have the power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may be, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and 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:

According to many of the MNWR protesters, this provision gives the federal government authority only over lands ceded to or purchased by the consent of state legislatures. Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 6 of 14

The MNWR protesters read this provision of the Constitution to allow federal authority over only land within a “Territory” of the United States. Thus in the view of the MNWR protesters the federal government has no legal claim to the MNWR which was neither purchased or ceded from the State of Oregon, nor located within a Territory of the United States. Simply put the MNWR exists entirely within the State of Oregon. So situated, there is no basis for federal ownership, control or regulation.

This is the conceptual backdrop against which many of the MNWR protesters viewed the prosecution of the Hammond family. To be sure, there are many more complaints concerning the Hammond family’s relationship to the federal government and how they were ultimately prosecuted and sentenced. However, and at risk of oversimplification, it is the very notion that the Hammonds could be prosecuted federally for offenses that occurred on land to which the federal government has no title or right is that is at the heart of not only the protests in Burns which preceded the occupation of the MNWR, but the occupation itself.

Mr. Patrick spoke openly to the press during his time at the MNWR. In a January 7, 2016, Oregonian Article he revealed to the reporter that,

he lost a roofing job with an $80,000 annual salary, benefits and a company truck when he abruptly set out for the standoff. He had already exhausted most of his vacation days for the year attending other so-called Patriot events. "I didn't get to give appropriate notice," he said of his voicemail message he left to alert bosses he wouldn't be coming in to work.

"The Constitution is more important," Patrick said.1

Whether one agrees with Mr. Patrick’s views or the premises underlying them; Whether or not his actions ultimately prove criminal, the point is that Mr. Patrick was present at the MNWR as a result of his deeply held beliefs that the federal government was acting contrary to the U.S. Constitution. He felt and continues to feel he had a moral obligation to the country to make a stand against what he perceived as injustice. This is not traditional criminality. There are

1 http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/with_little_outside_support_mi.html as viewed 2/10/16. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 7 of 14

no attempts to hide his actions from the scrutiny of the public, law enforcement or the courts. His arrest and prosecution were known and highly likely outcomes.

The occupation of the MNWR is nothing if not a classic example of political protest through direct-action civil disobedience. Beginning in October of 2015, as the resentencing of the Hammonds approached, codefendants Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne were already seeking redress of their complaints against the federal government from the local authorities in Harney County. In November Ammon Bundy provided Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward with a public letter outlining what they believed to be a litany of unconstitutional and illegal actions committed by the federal government in their treatment of the Hammond Family and their ranch. This letter and its references are attached hereto as Exhibit B. This letter was followed in December by what Ammon Bundy believed to be a more formal Notice of Redress of Grievances, made publicly available and provided to various local and Oregon State Officials. This Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

What these documents and actions evince are that those individuals who ultimately occupied the MNWR were for months seeking what they thought were appropriate local government channels by and through which their complaints of a federal government gone out of control could be brought. To their mind seeking remedy from the federal government itself was futile and counterproductive. They sincerely believe that the local authorities are the only ones with Constitutional and legal authority to act on their behalf. It was only when it became clear to them that local authorities would not assist them in pressing their claims that the occupation of the MNWR occurred. Paragraph 12 of the Initial Complaint refers to a January 4. 2016 video in which Ammon Bundy expresses his frustration at having spent the last two months petitioning the state and local governments to no avail:

We feel that we have exhausted all prudent measures and have been ignored. And it has been left to us to decide whether we allow these things to go on or whether we make a stand.

The occupation of the MNWR began on January 2, 2016. On January 4, 2016, Ammon Bundy reaffirmed that the occupation was to be a peaceful one and that although they were (obviously) serious about what they were doing, there would be no violence unless “the DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 8 of 14

Government wants to take it there.” (Complaint paragraph 11). For the most part Mr. Bundy proved accurate. Up until the stop and arrest of the first five of the MNWR protesters on state route 395 North of the MWNR January 26th, 2016 that resulted in the shooting death of Lavoy Finicum, the MNWR protesters came and went from the Refuge at will. Private citizens, members of various media organizations and even representatives of state and local governments traveled to and from the refuge to meet with the protesters. Press conferences were held both on and off the refuge. Not a single incident of threats, violence or intimidation were reported during these numerous interactions.

The government’s initial Compliant while rich in rhetoric and tone in branding the “armed occupiers” as intimidating and threatening violence, completely lacks any specific threats of violence made by any of the occupiers contemporaneous to their presence at MNWR – other than statements made by a handful of the occupiers that they would defend themselves from law enforcement if necessary. There are but two paragraphs, paragraphs 16, and 25, in the Complaint that approach threats of violence. Paragraph 16 relates to an incident that occurred on December 18, 2015 in Burns, Oregon between a citizen and two individuals, one of whom is identified as codefendant Jon Ritzheimer, wherein the citizen hears shouting to the effect that she “is BLM.” Mr. Ritzheimer and the other individual left the area in a black pickup truck. The paragraph goes on to relate that in the following weeks up until Christmas Day she observed the black pickup at her residence and place of employment and another tailgating her aggressively. These incidents predated the occupation of the MWNR. There is no evidence that they were in any way sanctioned or condoned by anyone other than Mr. Ritzheimer and his cohort.

Paragraph 25 refers to the alleged fact that on January 2, 2016, an unidentified and unverified “source” informed a Harney County Sheriff’s Deputy, who then informed someone at the BLM that

the group controlled the MNWR and had explosives, night vision goggles and weapons and that if they didn’t get the fight they wanted out there they would bring the fight to town.”

This is nothing more than unreliable and unverifiable multiple level hearsay. Furthermore the statement that they would bring the fight to town is absolutely contradicted by the subsequent and peaceful conduct of the occupation itself.

What few threats of violence appear in the narrative are those that are made in response to what at least some of the occupiers felt at the time was an imminent threat of an armed response to the occupation by federal law enforcement authorities. Ammon Bundy, Jon Ritzheimer and the deceased Lavoy Finicum are reported to have made statements to the effect that they were prepared to defend themselves if federal law enforcement agents entered the refuge in an attempt to seize them. (i.e. paragraph 32 – Jon Ritzheimer, paragraph 41 – Ammon Bundy.)

The Indictment under which the government now proceeds suffers from similar vagaries. After reciting a boiler-plate recitation of the statutory elements of 18 U.S.C. 372 as it applies them to the defendant the Indictment lists seven overt acts allegedly in support of the charge. The first alludes to two defendants travelling to Harney County in October, 2015, to warn the Harney County Sheriff of ‘extreme civil unrest’ if certain, unspecified demands. The next four overt acts describe in general and conclusory terms the protestors arrival and presence on the MNWR. While their presence is described as accomplished by force, no examples of any such force are proffered, save the fact that some of the protesters possessed firearms, and that certain “threats” were made by some to resist their forceful eviction from the MNWR. The last two overt acts allege simply that some protestors encouraged others to participate in their activities and that some had traveled to Harney County with the specific intent to intimidate and coerce the people of Harney County.

Yet, the facts of what did and did not occur were widely and publicly available in the months leading up to and even during the events which transpired at MNWR. Unlike routine criminal endeavors, the alleged conspirators in this case took extraordinary steps to document what was occurring at the refuge, who was present and/or involved and the reasons why the protest was being undertaken. Public calls for support, media press conferences and internet video reporting were all being conducted from the refuge up until the government shut off access after the shooting of Lavoy Finicum. Dozens of individuals came and went from the refuge. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 10 of 14

Finally, one circumstance in Mr. Patrick’s alleged offense that is not mentioned by the government is that on January 27, 2016, Mr. Patrick reached out to counsel in an effort to seek representation as he walked off the refuge to turn himself in to authorities. While the first group of defendant’s made their initial appearances on January 27, 2016 I, and others at my office were in contact with case agents and AUSA’s in an effort to communicate to them that Mr. Patrick wished to peacefully turn himself in. After walking some eight miles out of the MNWR that is precisely what he did. He has been in custody since that time and anything that has happened or been said at the MNWR since his voluntary departure into police custody should not be attributed to him.

2) The Weight of the Evidence Against the Person. In terms of placing Mr. Patrick at the MNWR and participating in the occupation and protest, the government’s proof does appear strong at this juncture. However, as the Bail Reform Act itself reminds us, this is in no way an abrogation of the presumption of innocence. 18 U.S.C. 3142(j). In that vein, the charge is one of Conspiracy and the Indictment (as well as the Complaint before it) is bereft of any evidence on the crucial element of any specific agreement made by Mr. Patrick to specifically accomplish the offense of Impeding a Federal Officer.

3) The History and Characteristics of the Person

Contrary to the findings made by Judge Beckerman in support of her initial detention Order Mr. Patrick does have known family, employment and community ties; He does have stable and verified residences available to him. That he has family, employment and community ties to the Pacific Northwest has been verified by U.S. Pretrial Services, and while not necessarily in the District of Oregon they are all in the Puget Sound are of Washington. Mr. Patrick is a 43 year old divorcee with two, young adult children. He was born in Everett, Washington and lived in the state of Washington until the year 2002. He graduated from the Snohomish County Christian School H.S. in 1990 and shortly thereafter married his high school sweetheart. He still has family and lifelong friends in Washington state. His Mother, Christy Patrick, and his sister Kelli Rippee – both interviewed by Pretrial services and both available to help ensure Mr. Patrick abides by any release conditions (and both present in the court room at his initial appearance) still reside in the area. He has been a professional roofing employee, DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 11 of 14

subcontractor, and the owner of a roofing contracting business since he was 17 years old. In 2002 he moved to Bonaire Georgia to take advantage of a building boom. He owned his own roofing contracting business, “Super Roofers.” Mr. Patrick lost his business and his home in the recent great recession. Since that time he has worked sporadically as able as a roofer. Despite the economic downturn in 2014 he was recognized as a Red Cross Hometown Hero in Dsiaster Relief for his spontaneous efforts to help at least 18 people stranded in a snowstorm between Atlanta and Bonaire Georgia.2 And while he recently lost an $80,000.00 a year job, he is easily employable.

Mr. Patrick also has a verified and stable residence available for him if he is released. His mother has informed Pretrial Services that he is welcome to live with her in Everett, WA. She owns her home free and clear and has told U.S. Pretrial that she is even willing to post a bond on the property if necessary. Ms. Patrick is also willing and able to assist Pretrial Services in any way to ensure that Mr. Patrick complies with the conditions of his release and returns to court. His sister’s home is also a verified potential resource and she is willing also to assist Mr. Patrick in meeting his release obligations.

Mr. Patrick suffers from no substance or alcohol related addictions. He does not have any mental health conditions that would interfere with his ability to comply with this court’s orders. Mr. Patrick’s criminal history is extremely limited. According to the Pretrial Services reports available at the January 29, 2016, hearing he has one prior conviction for a minor driving offense and four prior arrests with no convictions. There is no indication he has ever failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance.

He does have a pending felony criminal case in Houston County Georgia for Terroristic Threat. While the title of the offense is no doubt concerning, the Georgia terroristic threats statute sweeps extraordinarily broadly. It reads in relevant part;

A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of

2 http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/warner-robins/2014/06/25/hometown-heroes/11367037/ As viewed 2/10/2016. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 12 of 14

terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-37 (West)

The underlying police reports from this case read far more like a drunk and disorderly charge than a terroristic threats case. In essence the authorities claim that Mr. Patrick entered into the Warner Robins Municipal Court in an intoxicated state. After allegedly refusing an alcohol test and becoming “loud and belligerent” he was physically taken into custody. After he was taken into custody law enforcement officers claim to have spoken to one witness who allegedly stated that earlier in the day Mr. Patrick was angry at having to access the court through a back alleyway due to construction and that the court was violating his Constitutional rights. The witness allegedly heard Mr. Patrick state that he was going to kill everyone in the courtroom when he got there. Mr. Patrick was not in possession of any weapons during this incident.

Mr. Patrick is represented by counsel in this case. He has an arraignment currently scheduled for February 17, 2016. It is Mr. Patrick’s intent, confirmed by local counsel in Georgia, to enter a plea of not guilty and request a jury trial later this year. This makes sense given the underlying statute’s prohibition on resting a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. Mr. Patrick has a release resource in Georgia, a close friend, David Ballengy, who has known Mr. Patrick for approximately six years. They met as congregants in the River Church in Kathleen Georgia where Mr. Ballengy indicates Mr. Patrick was for years an active church goer. They were involved directly with the Church’s fundraising activities for battered women and at-risk youth. Mr. Ballengy has spoken to U.S. Pretrial and he confirms that he is available to assist Mr. Patrick in anyway necessary. Mr. Ballengy is a disabled veteran of the United States Marine Corps and shares a home in Perry, Georgia with his wife. Neither he nor his wife have any criminal convictions. He indicates that Mr. Patrick was residing with them at his home prior to returning to the Northwest and still has a bedroom at his home.

4) The Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to any Person or the Community if the Defendant Were Released. In her initial Order Judge Beckerman further found that Mr. Patrick posed an unacceptable risk of danger because of the nature of the Offense, violent behavior, prior criminal history and his pending case in Georgia. The nature of the offense has been discussed at length above. To put the issue of violence to rest, there is simply no evidence of any violent behavior on the part of Mr. Patrick separate and apart from his presence at the MNWR. There is no written nor oral explanation of what if any risk to the community Mr. Patrick poses if released upon conditions, nor is there any evidence to support such a finding. The government speculates that he could “do it again.” If that were the standard for such proof then no one would be released pending a federal criminal trial.

Conclusion

At its core this remains a Class D felony charge. Far more dangerous and less-likely-to return defendants are released on conditions in this District every day: Defendants charged with horrible and personal acts of violence; Defendants with multiple prior convictions, defendants with severe substance abuse problems, mental health or personality deficits, drug dealers, pimps, sophisticated fraudsters and thieves. Individuals who routinely have engaged in a criminal lifestyle. Such are some of the successful candidates for conditional release in federal court.

For Mr. Patrick, the events that led to this case are now over. The points he wished to make have been made and at long last there is a forum within which he believes his arguments may be heard. He is not a danger to commit any further offenses. Whatever minimal safety risk he may pose is easily manageable with any number of pretrial release conditions. He has a verified network of support and meets every release criteria in the Bail Reform Act.

In terms of his flight risk, the notion that he – or any of these defendants for that matter might flee the jurisdiction of the court borders on the ludicrous. It stands in contradiction to how the well documented, open and public course of events that led to this Indictment unfolded. Mr. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER… Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 14 of 14

Patrick desires greatly to continue to participate in this case. This is in many respects a fight of his choosing. It is not the result of his discovery after an investigation of his clandestine activities. It is not something he will turn his back on. In an effort to have this matter heard he is absolutely willing and able to abide by conditions imposed on him by this court.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of February, 2016.

______AndrewAndrew M. Kohlmetz M. Kohlmetz, OSB 955418 Attorney for Defendant Patrick

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418 Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC. 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503) 224-1104 Fax: (503) 224-9417 Email: [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

) Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-09-BR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REVOKE vs. ) PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER AND ) RELEASE DEFENDANT JASON PATRICK, ) ) EXHIBIT A Defendant. ) ) )

EXHIBIT A Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 14

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418 Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC. 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503) 224-1104 Fax: (503) 224-9417 Email: [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

EXHIBIT B Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 14

EXHIBIT B

LETTER TO HARNEY COUNTY SHERIFF DAVE WARD DATED NOVEMBER 12, 2015

AS VIEWED ON WWW.BUNDYRANCH.BLOGSPOT.COM February 9. 2016

TEXT ONLY

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 14

Letter to Sheriff Ward - Harney County

Sheriff - David M Ward

County of Harney

485 N Court Avenue #6

Burns, Oregon 97720-1524

Phone: 541-573-6156

RE: Facts and Events in the Hammond Case

Dear Sheriff Ward,

Thank you for the opportunity to present this information. We testify that two or more witnesses have verified each facts and events in this document. It is our hope that you will research each point of this document independently and determine for yourself if the Hammonds have been the subjects of extreme, vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies.

The Hammonds are good people that carve their living out of the land they live on, much like the Native Americans and early pioneers. Their experience, practical use and care for the land has brought them at odds with those that harbor the ideology, that it is a moral obligation to restrict man from the use of the land and resources.

We respect that no two people think the same and there are many opinions of how things should be accomplished. However, when one positions themself in government to force others to live the way they believe, a serious line has been crossed.

It is our solemn belief that multiple federal employees are using their position in government to remove the Hammonds from the land to set a precedent for the removal of other land users. We declare that the Hammonds are not “Terrorists”. They have not and would not hurt those around them. They are kind and generous people that love their neighbors. They have committed no crime and must not be punished further for these absurd accusations.

As the County Sheriff, you have taken an oath of office to defend against foreign and domestic threats. You hold the responsibility to insure the Hammonds are protected from those that will continue to use government to force their personal beliefs upon others. Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 14

The following document is categorized in four parts. Facts & Events / Violations, Corruptions and Abuses / Bill of Rights Violations / Conclusion

Thank you,

Ammon Bundy

Bundy Family

Facts & Events in the Hammond Case

Facts & Events

(aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 14

ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 6 of 14

magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

Dwight Hammond (Father)

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 7 of 14

Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff's office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

Steven Hammond (Son)

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 8 of 14

communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; " I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home. Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 9 of 14

(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as "Terrorist" under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

(r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

Hammond Family

(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.

Notes:

S* Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 10 of 14

Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

b* Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.

k* Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.

Conclusion

The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.

The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.

The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 11 of 14

Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.

The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.

Thank you,

Ammon Bundy

Violations, Corruptions and Abuses in the Hammond Case (Bill of Rights)

Violations, Corruptions and Abuses

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM), US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS), US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ACTING IN:

• VIOLATION of US Constitution 1.8.17 – Unlawfully controlling property inside States

• VIOLATION of the US Constitution 4.4.1 – Denying the people in the States a republic form of government. Forcing the people in the States to live under territorial law, not affording the people constituted protection under the U.S. Constitution.

• VIOLATION of the Separation of Powers Doctrine – Federal agencies, federal law enforcement, US attorneys, federal judges, all being paid by the Plaintive. No separation of powers, no checks and balances, no one to make sure they do not collaborate or abuse the people.

• ABUSE: Fencing off waters legally owned by individuals as documented with the State of Oregon.

• ABUSE: Barricading public roads to restrict individuals from accessing their private property.

• CORRUPTION: Using local law enforcement to protect federal officials and contractors in performing illegal actions.

• CORRUPTION: Using local law enforcement to arrest and incarcerate individuals for protecting private property as documented by the State of Oregon. Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 12 of 14

• ABUSE & CORRUPTION: Using the federal court system to force individuals and local governments into undue obedience.

• CORRUPTION: Revoking grazing permits without a court proceeding or a court ruling. Restricting the use of grazing right as established by “prior appropriation” and “beneficial use”.

• ABUSE: Restricted the use of private property.

• ABUSE & CORRUPTION: Disregard of State laws for the benefit of federal agencies, adversely affecting the people and their real property.

• ABUSE: Using the authority of congress (acts) to falsely charge individuals as “terrorist” deeming them as an enemy to the State. Denying individuals their right of protection.

• ABUSE: Intimidating individuals to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of statutory fines to cover federal agencies expenses involving their own prosecution.

• ABUSE: Using government property, tax dollars and law enforcement to punish U.S. Citizens that maintain opposing political views.

• CORRUPTION: Deceitfully waiting only days before the statutes of limitation expired so individuals would not be able to properly defend themselves.

• CORRUPTION: Federal Judges granting one party unequaled opportunity to influence the Jury.

• CORRUPTION: Federal Judge assembling a jury that is not of peers.

• ABUSE & CORRUPTION: Unreasonable search, raiding home of US Citizens without founded evidence.

Bill of Rights Violations in the Hammonds Case

- Violation of the 8th Amendment - Cruel and unusual punishment

- Violation of the 5th Amendment - Double jeopardy – Punished twice for the same crime.

- Violation of the 5th Amendment - Never was indicted by a grand jury

- Violation of the 5th Amendment - Taking of private property without just compensation

- Violation of the 4th Amendment - Unreasonable search and seizures

- Violation of the 6th Amendment - Tried by jury of peers – impartial jury

- Violation of the 9th Amendment - Federal government shall not act outside the authority listed in the US Constitution Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 13 of 14

- Violation of the 10th Amendment - Power not given to the federal government is reserved to the States

- Violation of 2nd Amendment – Right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Conclusion in the Hammonds Case

Conclusion

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 14 of 14

Thank you,

Ammon Bundy

Bundy Family Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-3 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 5

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418 Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC. 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503) 224-1104 Fax: (503) 224-9417 Email: [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

EXHIBIT C Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC 741 SW Lincoln Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1104 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-3 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 5

EXHIBIT C:

NOTICE OF REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

DATED DECEMBER 11, 2015

AS VIEWED AT WWW.BUNDYRANCH.BLOGSPOT.COM

FEBRUARY 9, 2016

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-3 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 5

NOTICE: Redress of Grievance

We the People - United Individuals of these States United: Coalition of Western States (COWS), Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), Bundy Family and Supporters, Oregon Oath Keepers, Idaho III%, Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, Oregon Tactical, Oregon Bearded Bastards, Liberty Watch Washington, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, Rural Heritage Preservation Project, Liberty For All (LFA) [continuous names below]

December 11, 2015

NOTICE: Redress of Grievance

Notice to agent is notice to principle; notice to principle is notice to agent

Sheriff David Ward, Commissioner Dan Nichols, Commissioner Pete Runnels, Justice of the Peace Donna Thomas, District Attorney Tim Colahan, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Governor Kate Brown

Dear Sirs,

After extensive research on the Hammond case, We the People of these States United have reason to believe that Dwight and Steven Hammond were not afforded their rights to due process as protected by the United States Constitution.

We have principled evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond committed no crime in the act of performing the prescribe burn and back fire, that the U.S. Government does not have authority to enforce Territorial law under Article Four within the State of Oregon, and that the County of Harney and State of Oregon failed to protect the Hammond's rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. USC 42.1986, 18.242, 18.121, 42.1983, 42.1985,

We hold compelling evidence that the U.S. Government abused the federal court system, situating the Hammond family into duress as effort to force the Hammond's to sell their Steen Mountain property to a federal agency.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-3 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 5

We have substantial evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office exploited an act of Congress, imposing cruel and unusual punishment upon residents of Harney County.

We hold substantial evidence that inside the borders of Harney County the U.S. Government is acting outside the authority enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

We secure evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office independently prepared the indictment against Dwight & Steven Hammond, and that the Grand Jury did not properly assemble or investigate before the indictment. We have no evidence that the Grand Jury participated in the indictment altogether.

We have sure evidence that U.S. Congress does not have authority to legislate minimum sentences, requiring Dwight and Steven Hammond to serve five years in a federal penitentiary.

We hold confirming video evidence of federal agents exhibiting a culture of intimidation toward individuals and businesses within the borders of Harney County. That federal agents, by fire destroy private property, and that the Hammond family are being denied the same protection of the laws that are enjoyed by federal agents.

We have supporting evidence that Judge Hogan controlled the narrative and did not allow full disclosure in the courtroom. We have additional evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond were sentenced for something different than what they were found guilty of.

We hold sounding evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond are victims of cruel and unusual punishment, and that the U.S. Justice Department is violating the 8th Amendment.

We hold sure evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond are being subject for the same offense twice put in jeopardy. Including that the Ninth District Court of Appeals is in violation of the 5th Amendment.

We have obtained appalling evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office threatened the Hammond family with early detention and further punishment, if the Hammond family continued to communicate with a certain individual. This evidence foundationally speaks against the U.S. Attorneys Office in their gross effort to infringe upon the Hammond’s right to free exercise of speech. 1st Amendment, USC 18.242

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135-3 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 5

In a commitment to expose the truth and administrate justice, We the People of these States United insist that you immediately assemble an independent Evidential Hearing Board (EHB) comprised of the people of Harney County in accordance with Common Law principals. That the Evidential Hearing Board call witnesses and investigate each of these allegations publicly. That the Evidential Hearing Board make public conclusions in writing upon their findings. That the Harney County Board of Commissioners and the Sheriff’s Department enforce the conclusions of the Evidential Hearing Board in support of the United States Constitution. We further insist that the Hammond family be protected from reporting to federal prison until all allegations can be determined.

We need not remind you of your lawful duty to act on these matters as insisted, nor of the consequences if you knowingly neglected your duty. USC 18.2382, 18.2071, 18.2076, 42.1983, 42.1985, 42.1986

In light of the information presented, we require your thoughtful response within 5 days of the date of this notice. If we do not receive your response within 5 days, we will have no choice but to understand that you do not wish to do your duty and are content in acting in negligence to your solemn oath to the people who have placed you in this fiduciary position and in defiance of your obligation to defend the Rights and Liberties of the people. Therefore, govern yourself accordingly.

Respectively,

We the People - United Individuals of these States United