From the April 2007 Idaho Observer:
Illegal aliens protected by "double jeopardy" prohibitions; Freemen get "terminal" jeopardy
Illegal aliens protected by "double jeopardy" prohibitions; Freemen get "terminal" jeopardy
The story of the Montana Freemen was occurring as my "career" in opposition journalism was beginning. Though we dissident types were learning quickly in those days, we were naive in that we still thought government had just gone off course and a properly reeducated American public would compel our misguided servant to get back on track. But, I think, the Freemen’s fatal flaw was that they overestimated the ability of our people to understand the mechanisms of their enslavement and, therefore, could not develop the will to stand up against advancing tyranny. Twelve years later, after being tried over and over again until convictions were achieved; after being subjected to abuses akin to those broadcast to the world from Abu Ghraib; after being summarily denied respectfully-filed petitions as an established fact of "undue" federal process; after all Americans have been through since the "Bushes" have been back, it is time to honor the Freemen for the stand they took for us—because now they are right on time. And, it must be stated, at no time have the Freemen fostered any criminal intent; they just wanted to save their country. ~DWH
By Red O’Hara, Investigative Journalist, Republic of Ireland
Two weeks after illegal alien Castillo Basa was acquitted of illegal entry into the U.S., the government found the tapes of Basa’s immigration hearing which proved perjury and sought a retrial. On February 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Castillo-Basa (2007 DJDAR 2584 [9th Cir.]). The court ruled the double jeopardy clause protects illegal aliens against retrial—even if the government finds new evidence proving perjury.
The "double jeopardy clause" protects illegal aliens but it does not protect the Montana Freemen. The Montana Freemen who have filed petitions for relief from the violations of double jeopardy in May, 2000, have either been denied or their causes simply not adjudicated, nor answered by the U.S. attorney in Montana.
The conviction for violating the Hobbs
The Freemen were convicted of violating the Hobbs Act (18 USC §1951), or robbery to interfere with interstate commerce. It was determined in an abortion clinic case that there must be a plan or purpose to interfere with interstate commerce before one can be convicted of violating the Hobbs Act.
The conviction came from an incident involving ABC Primetime Live Associate Producer Allison Marie Sesnon and subcontractor camera crew Hal and Amy Jo Bowers. Sesnon and the Bowers had been ejected from the "Private Posted Property" of the Freemen on six occasions while attempting to "interview" the Freemen at Justus Township and, without being granted an interview, were warned that the next time they would be arrested.
Difficulties between the feds and the Freemen began in January, 1995. A standoff of sorts began and continued throughout the summer and fall of 1995. During this time, the national media was consistently misrepresenting the Freemens’ motivations and intentions, characterizing them as "domestic terrorists."
On October 2, 1995, after being warned not to return to Justus Township, "paparazzi" Sesnon and the Bowers were conducting video surveillance for the U.S. Attorney and FBI agent Tommie R. Canady and trespassed onto Justus Township, near Brusett, Montana. They were arrested by Justus Township Constable Daniel E. Petersen, who seized their camera and sound equipment as evidence of their trespass and instructed the trespassers, "You will have to come to court to get your camera and sound equipment back."
Rather than face trespass charges, Sesnon and the Bowers tried to file a stolen camera and equipment report with Garfield County Sheriff Charles Phipps, who refused to take the report. Sheriff Phipps had also warned the "paparazzi" not to trespass at Justus Township.
Sesnon and the Bowers then went to the FBI to obtain FBI 302 reports in order to file a fraudulent insurance claim with Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. for $87,000 dollars to cover the cost of the "stolen" (10-year-old) camera and sound equipment. They settled for $47,000 dollars.
The Bowers then filed a victims’ claim against the Freemen for $39,000 dollars.
The FBI has no jurisdiction over stolen cameras on private property in rural Montana, on state fee titled land. Regardless, the Freemen’s insistence that they retain possession of the camera and sound equipment pending the outcome of a court proceeding at Justus Township (and many other issues) let to the Freemen being taken into custody and charged with a variety of "crimes."
After three trials, the jury would not convict the Freemen due to the lack of evidence. The Freemen were in custody the entire time.
During a fourth trial, the Freemen were tried in absentia, only John Patrick, Agnes Stanton, and Cherlyn Petersen attended and participated in the trials, everyone else was moved out of state during the trials, all in violation of the 6th Amendment.
On July 8, 1998, the jury deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared, without John Patrick’s consent the jury was discharged.
Though in violation of the Local Rule of Court Rule 245-5(a); prohibiting press contact with post-trial jurors, U.S. Attorney Sherry Scheel Matteucci and Chief prosecutor James E. Seykora had Billings Gazette reporter Claire Johnson interview the jurors.
The Billings Gazette published the jurors’ interviews, which revealed why the jury "hung"—insufficient evidence.
Jury foreman James Coates, on July 15, 1998, wrote, "Your respectful treatment of me, considering the overall verdicts, reinforced my original belief that much of the characterization of the Freemen" by the press and prosecution, was "bogus."
In the "Montana Free Press" (August, 1998) Coates wrote, "Scaling the mountain of evidence and testimony for a clear view of the overall scene, gleaning scraps of courtroom protocol tossed into the jury box from the sumptuous feast of judicial and political entrees being served to all but us, creating an impressionistic picture of the defendants from the small daubs of tincture offered on a palette of black and white. Deliberations and decisions were close to impossible, and just as dangerous as ice fishing in July."
John Patrick McGuire
On August 20, 1996, pretrial defense attorney Peter Robinson was interviewed on "Court TV," wherein Robinson stated, "I don’t get very, many innocent clients. I don’t think Pat McGuire is guilty of any of the charges against him."
There was insufficient evidence to convict in counts I, the conspiracy count, 18 USC §371, and count 13, 18 USC §1341 mail fraud, in addition there was insufficient evidence of carrying and using a firearm to convict the Freemen in counts 28, 29, 39, 42 and 43, violations of the Hobbs Act and 922 (g) (1) & § 924 © (1), and § 922 (g) (1) .
On August 25, 1998, in reprisal and retaliation of the hung jury, an additional indictment was issued against John Patrick with four counts of violating, §922 (g) (1) felon in possession (though John Patrick was not a convicted felon).
On September 8, 1998, U. .S. Attorney Matteucci filed a motion to dismiss count 1 the conspiracy count and count 13 the mail fraud count. Incorporated into count 1 by reference were all of the "Overt Acts" contained in counts 2 through 31.
The dismissal was granted by "out-of-district-we-have-the-guns" Judge John C. Coughenour, whose temporary designation to the District of Montana for pretrial matters only, expired on December 31, 1997.
(Note: In an earlier proceeding, Judge Coughenour essentially stated that the government can make up its own rules because it has the guns).
A conviction obtained by a court lacking in jurisdiction is "Null and Void Ab Initio" under the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ball (1896)
The dismissal of counts 1 and 13 was to correct the errors in the indictment discovered after trial. The prosecution was allowed to "hone" it’s skills with multiple trials and convict "Innocent Men" with the "Fifth" trial of the causes on October 26, to November 18, 1998.
The "paparazzi" incident: During the first main trial, May 26, to July 8, 1998, there was no evidence presented to the jury that the Freemen "Actively Employed," used or carried any firearm during the purported Hobbs Act robbery on October 2, 1995.
Government exhibit 2802 the ABC Primetime Live videotape, and exhibit 2802-K, the still-frame photo, did not reveal the Freemen "actively employing," using or carrying a firearm, shown to the jury during the May 26 to July 8, 1998 trial.
There is no charge in count 29 of the Freemen carrying or using a Norinco SKS rifle.
No Norinco SKS rifle was entered into evidence. However, four Norinco SKS rifles were displayed to the jury in violation of Federal Rule Evidence 103 during retrial.
EXHIBIT 2802-K WAS FABRICATED AND FALSIFIED TO CONVICT IN COUNTS 28 AND 29 IN VIOLATION OF THE "ABSOLUTE" BAR OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND DUE PROCESS.
On November 21, 1997, John Patrick was shown government exhibit #2802 the videotape of the October 2, 1995, purported robbery, just prior to a polygraph examination.
Said videotape clearly shows John Patrick did no talking during purported Hobbs Act robbery and was not armed.
At trial, May 26 to July 8, 1998, still-frame photos taken from exhibit 2802 were shown to the jury.
None show John Patrick with any firearms.
On November 4, 1998, at retrial, Hal Bowers testified John Patrick did not possess a long rifle.
John Patrick passed the polygraph examination with the highest score possible of 10+. The questions were, "did he do any talking and did he know the camera and sound equipment were going to be taken."
John Patrick answered "No" to both questions.
John Patrick was indicted on the perjured testimony of MCIB agent Brian Costigan that John Patrick was the leader of the purported Hobbs Act robbery, who did all of the talking—a reversal of what had been determined in previous trials, what had been testified to by witnesses, plus being inconsistent with the government’s own evidence.
"Paparazzi" Hal Bowers was instructed to identify John Patrick at the 3rd photo-array.
U.S. Attorney Matteucci knowingly took the Freemen to trial and retrial on the perjured testimony of MCIB agent Costigan.
Judge Coughenour denied John Patrick the right to use the polygraph evidence in his defense.
In all, John Patrick and the Freemen were tried with one bench trial and six, back-to-back jury trials before provably falsified evidence and perjured witness testimony achieved the predetermined result: Prison for the Freemen. And, I might add, because they are Freemen in mind, body and soul, theirs has been and continues to be, particularly "hard" time.
The point here is plain to see: Provably perjurious, uneducated, barely English-speaking illegal aliens such Castillo Basa are serving some political purpose so the courts are disposed to rule in their favor as a reward for duplicitously promoting reconquista of America with their criminal presence here.
Conversely, provably innocent, truthful, law-abiding, educated, eloquent Americans such as the Freemen are enemies of the U.S. government and are, therefore, subject to being tried over and over again until falsified evidence and perjured testimony results in convictions and an excuse to place them behind bars for many years.
We will continue our tribute to the Freemen next month with a few more details of the courtroom travesties that landed innocent men in prison and the land-based financial incentive that may have played a role in the militancy with which the Freemen where persecuted.
Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Corrections and Clarifications
Vaccination Liberation - vaclib.org
The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869