Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged

by Elias Alias

Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged
Political Prisoners
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers

USA -(AmmoLand.com)- Jury selection/rejection began Wednesday, September 07, 2016, in Portland, Oregon, for the Bundy trial. I am not surprised to read accounts of the judge’s bias against jury nullification.

The Oregonian/OregonLive website posted an article which quotes a few of judge Anna J. Brown’s opinions about protecting the government’s assumed power to railroad defendants.

A passage from the article:

“Jury selection is something of a misnomer,” said Jeffrey T. Frederick, director of jury research services for the National Legal Research Group. “It really is jury rejection. That’s because the practice is meant as a filter, to keep unqualified people from sitting in judgment,” he said.

Further down the article we read:

Potential jurors will almost certainly face questions on their opinions about federal control of public land, militias, law enforcement, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and whether they believe a person exercising their First or Second Amendment rights must observe lawful limitations on those rights.

That judge has had ample opportunity to learn the truth regarding jury nullification. Her refusal to see that truth robs her soul of dignity and makes of her a robotic agent of government force, indifferent to the spirit of the Constitution, ignorant of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of “Unalienable Rights”, and repugnant to every principle of individual freedom. She is a willing agent of what we old hippies used to call “The Establishment” or “TheSystem“.

Recall, another judge has already ruled that the Bunkerville, Nevada, trials will be shrouded in secrecy. See my article of July 25, 2016, on that – “My God! The Judge Wants Total Secrecy In Bundy Trial!”

So judge Brown is not the only one willing to defend government’s sins. But she is tying up the hands of justice in her own way by her denial of Jurors’ rights to judge of the law as well as of the facts of the case.

We are looking directly into the face of governmental tyranny unabashedly displaying itself with cold cruelty in a theatrical abomination of the very purpose of “justice“. The infrastructure of power now has its own evil momentum and will lay to waste any dissent, in order to protect the gigantic fraud which the mechanism of government has asserted through “code” and “statute“, through “color of law” and “rules of the court”. States’ Rights be damned; Jury Nullification be damned; it’s full steam ahead for the soul-less, ego-driven hunger of authoritarian power dressed appropriately in the black robes of darkness and death.

Readers may wonder why I speak this way about our corrupt court system, and some may feel that I’m condemning all judges. I am not condemning all judges, just most of them. I am happy to show an example of a true judge who sat on the Washington State Supreme Court and honored his Oath. I’ve written about the man, and his message of jury nullification, many years ago. It is right here on the Oath Keepers website. I would encourage any reader who has not read that article to pause here and do so now. And someone needs to show the article to Judge Brown. The opening of that article –

In a small but powerful booklet which was copyrighted in 1996, former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe gives an accounting of the origin and establishment of our present-day jury powers. I would like to share with you some passages from his essay entitled: “Jury Nullification: Empowering The Jury As The Fourth Branch Of Government

Quoting former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe:

Of all the great trials in history tried at Old Bailey in London only one is commemorated by a plaque. Located near Courtroom Number Five it reads:

“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury. Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others, who refused to give a verdict against them although they were locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the court which established the Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their conviction.”

“The case commemorated is Bushell’s Case, 6 Howell’s State Trials 999 (1670). This case is a good beginning for tracing the roots of a legal doctrine known as jury nullification.” (End quoted passage by Justice William Goodloe, ret.)

Justice Goodloe’s article builds from there, giving context, founders’ commentary on the subject, court cases concluded favorably on jury nullification, and, as his intelligence shown through brilliantly, his booklet shows the proper place for common sense and moral uprightness in the American court system. So the question remains – why do not all judges care enough about their duties, and their Oaths, to educate themselves about our rights as embodied in jury nullification? This judge Brown is positioning herself as the antithesis of what our court system is supposed to be. Here are some passages from the bottom of the OregonLive article linked above.

The judge also said she intends to question each juror on whether they were handed a flier outside court about jury nullification, and to instruct them that they must follow the law even if they disagree with it. Judge Brown said deputy U.S. marshals indicated there may be people outside court distributing such fliers.

Ryan Bundy and Ammon Bundy’s lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the judge’s proposed instructions to prospective jurors. Ryan Bundy argued that they will “rob a juror” of the right to serve as a “check and balance” on the federal government’s power.

Mumford asked that the judge not suggest that any of the defendants were responsible for such fliers.

“A jury’s place is to be able to use their common sense, their intellect, their conscience, whether the law is proper or not proper,” Ryan Bundy argued.

Judge Brown dismissed his objection.

“It’s overruled,” she responded.

Jurors take oaths, the judge said, and she plans to advise them to “follow the law whether they agree with it or not.”

“I’m not going to say they have the option,” the judge said.

So there we have it. Damn what’s right. Damn the people. Damn the purpose of the law in the first place; and damn moral duty to our fellow man. Damn everything when the authority of Statism might be threatened by the truth.

The cowboys never shot at a cop, never killed an agent, never shot at anyone. Instead, they merely made a conscientious stand to raise the question in public about who Constitutionally is authorized to manage public lands within the boundaries of a State in this Union. They are correct, and the Federal government is wrong. The American Lands Council has that information, here.

One of the phrases in my culture when I was growing up was – “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” My question today is why do most judges insist on remaining ignorant of the highest uncontested law of the land? It must be something like a fervent and worshipful passion for that un-named religion called “Statism“, the philosophy of worshiping authority over all else in the name of Statism; the theology of which was encapsulated accurately by one Adolf Hitler, who put it this way [1]:

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual…”

That is a classic example of Statism, and that is exactly the mindset of modern judges who deny a jury’s right and duty to nullify according to their consciences in any criminal case.

Every Patriot should want to land in one of those twelve seats.
Every Patriot should want to land in one of those twelve seats.

There is a wonderful article at the Fully Informed Jury Association website which plainly shows why We The People, when confronted with this sort of corruption coming from a damned judge, are morally justified in outright lying to the prosecuting attorneys and the judge during Voir Dire (the process of screening jurors with, by, and for bias favoring the government). Read it here – http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_surviving_voir_dire.pdf.

Elias Alias, Oath Keepers Editor

  • See also: “Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking It To Leviathan“, co-authored by Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, and Don Doig, co-founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association
  • 1 – Page 13 in The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff; copyright 1982 by Leonard Peikoff; published by the Penguin Group, Penguin Putnam, Inc., 275 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014; foreword by Ayn Rand; no ISBN in my paperback copy; Library of Congress number: 83-60247.

About Oath Keepers:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

For more information, visit: www.oathkeepers.org.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fred haferkamp

the author of this piece of BS is a complete fool. i spent years serving dumb sh**s like this . im so very glad to be retired. OATHKEEPERS are total idiots if this is the way they all think. glad i didnt join.


Go to this site Judge Anna J. Brown…One nasty looking b**ch..Liberal through and through and bought and paid for my her hanlers…

Clark Kent

‘Hanlers’? Is she of German heritage?


Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the… Read more »


These people were idiots. Had they broke in to the facility and not been armed, they would still be guilty of felony crimes. The fact that they packed guns along with them makes them extreme idiots. There was no excuse to take over the building under the threat of violence. Finicum committed suicide. Everyone of these people threw out any common sense when they joined into this silly protest.


There was no threat of violence you have no idea what you are talking about. They stood for the Constitution not an UN-Constitutional law. Grow a set how about? COWARD!

As for Finicum, your statement reveals you to be just another scumbag paid troll. Go back to HUFFONME post. Kneel down, lick the hands that feed you and may posterity forget ye were our countryman.

chicken little

You are so articulate!


And you so weak and owned.


You statement makes sense.. “weak and owned” is a phrase used by gangbangers who only made it to the third (3rd) grade.You reflect poorly on true patriots.

Wild Bill

@charon, Have a lot of experience talking with gang bangers who only made it to the third grade AND true patriots, do you?

Clark Kent

Unless YOU were at the scene quit telling everyone how it was at the scene. That is for the JURY to decide based upon witness testimony and evidence. Grow up. By the way, ‘patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’.

Joe Rhodes

While I strongly believe in the power of jury nullification, the Bundy’s are clearly trying to rig the jury themselves. From the facts I’ve seen its pretty well their only hope. You’re trying to nit pick pieces of law you like and discard the rest. Just like you’re doing with the facts.


Not following laws that are blatantly UN-Constitutional is not nit-picking it’s PATRIOTISM.

Perhaps you should try some. COWARD!

chicken little

There you go, attack those who do not agree with you. Try a little logic.


There you go cowering away from any disagreement with you. It’s not you it’s your sheeple mindset.

I bet you believe those that pass laws and sit in the oval office are the federal government right?

Wild Bill

@PM, passing laws that are blatantly Unconstitutional or using executive orders to do what can not be done Constitutionally are special ways of using our own legal system against us. Maybe refusing to enforce or abide by the Unconstitutional legislative works and executive orders is upholding the Constitution. Maybe those who have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution have a special duty to refuse to execute or abide by that which is Unconstitutional.

Chicken Little

That’s logic? You sure have a bag full unoriginal epithets. Must be common to inarticulate 12 year olds.

Wild Bill

, charon and chicken little are trolls, probably paid by the hiLIARy campaign, to go to conservative sites, like this one and cause chaos. They verbally maneuver themselves into position of judge of everything. They really don’t have any real world experience. They just expel large quantities of liberal socialism in an attempt to make conservatives feel isolated. They get paid by the response. So many of us do not respond to them. Occasionally we respond to others about them

Icorps 1970

The Gov’t CANNOT tell you how to vote. However, neither the judge nor the lawyers like thinking people or informed people on juries. They are to hard to sway with BS. If you tell them that you will vote your conscience they will kick you off as well. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court stated that juries can judge the law… But this idea interferes with big gov’t and its agenda. Whole idea of the Jury trial is to remove gov’t oppression by law, the Jury is the last defense of the people. The legislature… Read more »

Icorps 1970

An Unconstitutional Law in Unconstitutional from the time its written. Nor does the Constitution require interpretation. Its self-explanatory. “Interpretation” is the way for the courts (gov’t appointed shills for life in too many cases) to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION without input from the people. If you want information on almost anything to do with the Constitution read the applicable Federalist Paper. Such as #46 on the Militia and the Right of the People to bear arms. It’s by Madison BTW. Further the Constitution specifically says that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution the US Gov’t can’t do. This would include… Read more »


“If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

Wild Bill

Rhodes, all trial lawyers try to get a jury advantage. One of the weaknesses of our judicial system is that not one of the lawyers involved are charged with finding the truth. The lawyers are all trying to WIN. The judge only makes the lawyers follow the rules as he wants the rules to be.


You all have to understand, “The King’s men can do no wrong.” Has anything changed in 241 years?


Don’t need no trial – get a rope!

Will N. Otcomply





yeah, we need a rope alright… for the dope in the black bathrobe. How can she sleep at night, except for her drugs?

Chicken Little

Yup, that’s how we do it in a democracy.

Randall Anderson

Issue here in AZ, is that ‘nullification’ is against the law. When I don’t have time to serve, I just mention it an I am dimissed.


Is that Constitutional?


Randall Anderson,
I am not an attorney, but I am a retired AZ LE. I am not aware that AZ has any ARS against jury nullification. Can you point me to a source that will clarify the issue here in AZ?