Murder of Pat Shunn and Monique Patenaude // Suspects: John and Tony Reed

This is an alert that I am forwarding to all potential readers regarding the reported murder of Pat Shun and his wife, Monique Patenaude.

I didn’t know Pat personally, but he was a friend of my daughter at Canby High School in Oregon; and Pat and my daughter were both members of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Search and Rescue group.  From all reports, he was an exceptional young man.

The suspects in the murders, now reportedly on the run, are the Reed brothers, John and Tony.  There is information that they may have recently been seen in the Ellensburg, Washington area.  For detailed information, including pictures of the suspects and a vehicle description, I would suggest you go to the Snohomish County Sheriff’s website:

http://wa-snohomishcounty.civicplus.com/Archive.aspx?ADID=4445

“Detectives have advised that the Reed brothers are in possession of a red 2007 Volkswagen EOS Coupes, Washington plates AXH5106, a vehicle that belongs to their parents."

"John Reed is 5’08”, 190 lbs. with hazel eyes and gray hair.  Tony Reed is 5’11”, 150 lbs. with green eyes and gray hair."  John is 53.  Tony is 49.

"Anyone with direct information on the whereabouts of John or Tony Reed, or with information about the investigation into the murder of Shunn and Patenaude, is asked to call 911 or the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office”

Snohomish County Sheriff's Office:  425/388-3845

It should go without saying that the two men are armed and dangerous.

Pat and Monique pictured above.

True Nelson

Three Friends (two liberals and one conservative) analyze the Presidential Primary Candidates

My two best friends and I met for lunch last week and current events were on the menu.  My friends are good guys – lifelong friends; but are pretty much (unfortunately at least from my perspective) liberal Democrats.  Residing in the Portland Metro area, the life of a liberal is actually pretty easy – surrounded by a massive support system of like-minded people.  On the other hand, being politically conservative can be rather lonely at times.  Nonetheless, friendship can usually overcome disagreements.  Let’s see, what did we discuss?

No surprise there, we discussed the primary race and the candidates.  Is anyone talking about anything else?

On the Democratic side, we all three generally agreed that Bernie Sanders was the ‘man,’ ah, sorry, the best candidate.  Democrats that I’ve come in contact with don’t readily admit they plan to vote for Hillary.  If, however, she is the Democratic nominee, I’m sure my friends will give her their vote.

Incidentally, I just finished a book written by Ed Klein called ‘UNLIKEABLE; The Problem with Hillary.’  If you are thinking about voting for Hillary, read it.  OK, OK, my friends will now be searching the internet for information on Ed Klein.  Tomorrow morning they will email me information from some obscure source that Klein is a past Nazi sympathizer or member of the Ku Klux Klan, maybe both.  Although Ed’s name sounds like he might be Jewish which would give me a very solid counter argument.

Ed, if you’re out there somewhere, don’t let me down on this.  Is what you said about Hillary accurate?  I would like to say I was shocked, but...

I’ve kind of committed to voting for Ted Cruz (no relation to Tom Cruise and the Scientology connection) – so I’m safe in that regard.  My friends sum-up their opinion of Ted Cruz as:  ‘Just don’t like him,’ ‘Everyone in Washington hates him,’ and ‘He’s too in-your-face religious.’  OK, got it.  I counter with:  ‘Right, well, I hate most everyone in Washington’ (maybe hate is kind of a strong word).  Let’s just say, I don’t care much about what the Senators and Congressmen think about Mr. Cruz; and firmly believe our elected officials spend almost all of their time thinking about themselves and darn little else.  Regarding the religion part, I’m fine with that; but I think Cruz should tone-it-down just a tad – now that he’s not campaigning in Mississippi.

So what about John Kasich?  One friend informed me that ‘no one likes him in Ohio.’  That might be true for all I know.  As you can see, I’m running out of good counter arguments, and out-gunned two to one.  Although -- it does seem somewhat odd that he is the Governor of Ohio, but no one likes him.  Maybe, it’s a new thing.

Oh, and as far as Donald Trump is concerned, we all three agreed that Donald Trump is totally ‘unlikeable.’  Mr. Klein, how about another book called ‘Unlikeable Too?’  I enjoyed reading the earlier one.

True Nelson

The FBI and Director James Comey; Hillary Clinton and Handcuffs

During a recent interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton laughed when Lauer suggested that some Republicans were predicting she would be “hauled off” in handcuffs. She referred to the notion as a “fantasy,” stating the FBI inquiry was merely a “security review.”

Well, there has been a lot of discussion on the Hillary situation within the former Agents’ underground network – nothing specific however.  Director Comey is playing this investigation close to the vest – the word being that any information leaked by current Agents would be punished severely, and that the polygraph would be used to ferret-out any potential ‘leakers.’  OK, but that hasn’t necessarily put a stop on the many informed opinions, at least I consider them to be informed opinions, circulating.

I don’t think we are going to see Hillary Clinton taken anywhere in handcuffs – even though many would be tickled to see her get the same punishment as the average Joe.  But let’s be candid here, that’s not how the world works.

For reference and context, you might take a look at a previous post of mine:  Hillary Clinton / Email Scandal / Will She be Prosecuted? 3-7-16

Here are some additional thoughts…

Director Comey, unless he has ice in his veins, must be under a lot of pressure.  What are the potential outcomes of this FBI investigation or, if you prefer, security review?

Let’s put forth some potential scenarios:

What if this investigation drags-on and there are no criminal referrals or indictments generated by the FBI?  Comey will be criticized for wasting millions of taxpayer’s dollars on a bogus inquiry that could have been handled far more efficiently, without the drama, by a more professional investigative agency.

What if Hillary doesn’t get the Democratic nomination, and Comey does not pursue any sort of criminal prosecution?  His continuing to delay the process will be blamed for sabotaging Hillary’s campaign.

What if he waits until she has been nominated by the Democrats, and then he drops the bomb?  He will be criticized for that and accused of playing politics in an effort to undermine her election.  The fallout could be significant, disastrous to the political process, riots in the streets, and fodder for all the conspiracy theorists for the next decade and beyond.

What if he makes an official, criminal referral to the Department of Justice, and they refuse to prosecute?  Does he resign?  Doubtful.  Director of the FBI is a good job and pays well.  No one could blame him for shrugging his shoulders and moving on to other matters.  He still has time to polish his legacy.

What if Hillary’s negligence, incompetence and/or criminal behavior involves the President?  One does wonder if he, too, exchanged emails with his Secretary of State (H.C.); and was also so clueless that he did not recognize this was not such a good idea.  Or, perhaps the President’s staff?  The Vice President?

Certainly, someone, other than Hillary’s immediate henchmen or hench-women were aware that Ms. Clinton was bending, if not breaking, the rules / that she was compromising security and the potential safety of others – you know the guys and gals that actually do the dangerous work.

Let’s go Director Comey – better get with it.  I don’t think the American public will be satisfied with a ten-thousand-page report saying ‘I’m sorry, but hundreds of Agents over these many months, couldn’t find that anyone, including the former Secretary of State had done a darn thing wrong.’  Perhaps, as a face saver, the Attorney General could critique Ms. Clinton’s State Department with a carefully worded, for the most part non-accusatory letter of understanding – suggesting some improvements.

No, realistically speaking, someone will have to take the ‘fall.’  Hillary – doubtful.  Hillary’s immediate staff – a good possibility – and no one of particular importance would have been hurt in the process.  Comey – who knows – maybe this will be a career ender.  I’m sure the Director has thought about it.

True Nelson

Donald Trump vs. Ted Cruz / I’ve made my choice / Tell you why:

OK, admittedly, I sometimes go off half-baked when it comes to politics.  But, it’s my blog, so if you’re not particularly interested in what I think about the Presidential race, just hit delete now.  

There are plenty of ‘talking heads’ (experts / at least in their own minds) out there.  I’m not an expert on this area, just a guy.  My opinion is no more valid than anyone else.  And, I do understand that.  But, here goes.

Short of an indictment, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President.  Some of you are happy with that – the nominee part, not the indictment part.

I am an officially ‘unaffiliated’ voter in Oregon.  I just changed my registration to Republican, because I’d like to have a say in who the Republican nominee is.  In Oregon, it will be winner-take-all.

Oregon is a ‘liberal’ state, for the most part; and the Democrats will fight over Bernie or Hillary.  I really don’t care.

I do care about the Republican nominee – Trump versus Cruz.  I’ve kind of researched them both.

Let’s see – Trump first:  Donald Trump projects himself as a ‘tough guy,’ and therefore appeals to real, authentic tough guys – the hard working class – the tell-it-like-it-is class.  I like those people.  I don’t like Trump.  Why?  Because he is, in no way a ‘tough guy’ by my definition.  He was born rich and I’m sure he has never broken a sweat doing any sort of hard labor.  Why does that matter?  Because for those of you who have – and I have – he is ‘jerking’ us around.  Was he a draft dodger?  Looks to me like he was.  But nothing new about that – that’s just what rich people did – student deferment changed to 1-A (for a short time) and then converted to 4-F under doubtful circumstances.

OK, what about his policies?  The 40 foot wall along the Mexican border – hyperbole at best – lying to the public at worst.  There are more sensible ways to solve the illegal residents’ problem.  Enforce the current law is the one I would start with.  That’s what every other country (with a lick of sense) does.  Simply said:  no work unless you are a citizen or have a valid temporary work permit.

And the rest of his polices?  Reportedly, he’s going to be doing a lot of ‘kicking ass.’  Yes, right, like he has ever kicked anyone’s ass in his entire life.  Unless you want to count his body guard shoving someone around, or being sued by him – in other words having someone else ‘kick ass.’

Now, for Cruz:  I must admit, he was not my first choice.  My first choice for the Republican nomination faded away weeks back.  That’s the way it goes I guess.  So, Cruz will have my vote here in Oregon.  I generally have a low regard for attorneys.  I’ve said this before; attorneys, in my opinion, often have a character flaw that is hard for me to ignore.  To me it boils down to a highly questionable tendency in attorneys that everything is ‘relative.’  There is no right or wrong – it just depends - and, of course, money talks.  It’s their nature.  And, unfortunately, attorneys often become politicians.  Now, I’ve met a lot of good people who were attorneys; but, as a general rule, I stand by my opinion.  Cruz is an attorney; and I understand he is, professionally speaking, a very good one.

So, you might ask, by your definition is Cruz a ‘tough guy?’  Well, I’m not sure.  One thing for sure is that he doesn’t constantly try and make us believe he is.

Example:

Donald Trump:  ‘Let’s go outside and I will kick your ass.’  Outside, you will find that Trump is nowhere to be seen.  His 6’8” body guard and his attorney are there instead.

Ted Cruz:  ‘Let’s not resort to violence.  Let’s have a debate about the issue.’  And, when the debate is finished, your head spinning, you will have to admit that he ‘cleaned your clock.’

Who do you want to be President?  I’ve decided.

PS:  I finished my taxes yesterday.  I went immediately after that to my Anger Management Class.

True Nelson

Shooting of Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum / FBI Agents Fired Two Rounds at Vehicle / or did they? (Part 2)

Regarding my previous post, there might be a partial explanation to my earlier questions.  It sounds like, based on statements from the passengers in Finicum’s car, that one of the bullets, allegedly fired by an FBI Agent, shattered the car windshield of Finicum’s car as he was trying to exit the car.  It could be said, if this is what happened, the shot was poorly timed and potentially escalated a tense situation – leading to Finicum’s explosive reaction upon exiting the car.

That said, the shot was not necessarily inappropriate or unlawful under the stress-filled conditions.  Nonetheless, if the members of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team attempted to conceal this fact – well, that’s a horse of a different color.

Refer Part One

True Nelson

The Shooting of Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum / FBI Agents Fired Two Rounds at Vehicle / or did they?

I’m curious and puzzled by the recent, front page, news article concerning the “2 Standoff Casings Not Found” (The Oregonian, Wednesday, March 16, 2016).  We shouldn’t jump to any conclusions at this point; but, reportedly, an FBI Agent fired two rounds at Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum’s vehicle as it raced toward a law enforcement roadblock.

For background information, I’d like to refer you to my previous post on the tactics involved in stopping Finicum’s vehicle and the shooting, by Oregon State Police, which resulted in Finicum’s death:  The Shooting of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum – Let’sTalk Tactics.

“Five FBI Agents assigned to the traffic stop told investigators none of them fired at Finicum’s Dodge pickup” as it neared the roadblock at a high rate of speed.  However, “Oregon investigators concluded one Agent fired twice at the truck, hitting it once in the roof and missing on the second shot.”  There was subsequent witness statements that appear to support this information.

However, all five Agents denied shooting.  But, “a State Trooper later described to investigators seeing two rifle casings in the area where the Agents were posted.  Detectives tasked with collecting evidence didn’t find the casings.”  It has been postulated that an, as yet undetermined, Agent picked up the casings and has lied about firing at the car.

Based on my past experience, a couple of immediate questions came to mind.  Why would the Agent lie about shooting at the car?  It appears that he was probably justified. A State Police Officer fired at the car, when it appeared the driver might ram the barricade.  Have the ‘rules of engagement’ for the FBI become so restrictive that the Agent feared criticism or worse if he admitted shooting – under the defined circumstances?  And, then, when questioned, why would he commit a potential crime by lying about it?  To complicate the matter, it has been discussed and reported that all the Agents present knew about the rounds being fired; and have chosen to be complicit in the lie / cover-up.  Why would they do that?

Maybe, we will never know the answer?  But, the FBI will not take this lightly.  And, they will find the answer.  If someone lied, or if others were complicit in a lie, this will be considered far more serious than the actual shooting.  Shots fired by the FBI Agent, if it occurred, could be favorably interpreted or rationalized by FBIHQ.  Lying to law enforcement investigators conducting an official inquiry of this nature would not be tolerated.  And, someone will be required to pay the price.

True Nelson

True's Miscellany March 2016 / My Previous Post / I Don't Like It.

This morning, I read my previous post.  I don’t like it.  I could delete it; but it adds context to what I am about to say.

It’s a personal thing.  Sometimes, I write about subjects that make me feel good.  The latest one did not.  It’s what I believe, but it’s angry and not particularly relevant to anyone but me.  This is the political season.  Everyone has their personal beliefs on who they would like to see become the eventual President.  However, most of us will come to the realization that we won’t be voting for someone – as much as we will be voting against someone.  My family and friends have their preferences.  They have, or will make, their own decisions based on personal reasons – some frivolous (in my opinion) – as, undoubtedly, are my own.  As the choices for President seem to narrow, I am becoming more and more convinced that I will not vote for President.  The process has become too ugly.  The choices uninspiring.

Many young people seem inspired and motivated by Bernie Sanders.  It’s their future.  He seems like a nice guy, maybe a little nutty.  Why not?

I’m a retired, unemployed, often (at least sometimes) depressed curmudgeon - actually a bit younger than Bernie.  I don’t like to think of myself that way - depressed curmudgeon that is; but, if I’m not already there, I’m well on my way.

I need to pause and rethink what’s important – to me – now - and to write about same - maybe just a tad more uplifting.

True Nelson

Hillary Clinton / Will She be Prosecuted? / My Prediction Regarding the Email Scandal

I have a prediction regarding the outcome of the FBI’s case regarding Hillary Clinton, her ‘Private Home Server’ and the errant emails.

The Feds are currently, or close to, impaneling a Federal Grand Jury to hear the evidence regarding the above stated investigation.  The FBI has expressed interest in interviewing Mrs. Clinton and she has offered her cooperation – at least for now.

What we now know is that at least three of Mrs. Clinton’s staff members are also under investigation.  Brian Pagliano who, reportedly, set up the questionable private ‘server’ in Mrs. Clinton’s residence has agreed to be interviewed by the FBI in exchange for immunity.  He had originally invoked the Fifth Amendment.  Pagliano’s original position against potential self-incrimination may mean little.  It doesn’t mean that now he will necessarily be entirely forthcoming.  But, he will undoubtedly receive an intense grilling.

The State Department has released over 50,000 pages of emails that passed through Mrs. Clinton’s private, and officially unauthorized, private server.  Twenty-two of those documents have the highest classification of Top Secret, and will not be released to the public.  Mrs. Clinton has said that none of the messages she received, or the information contained therein, were ‘classified’ at the time she received them.

While in the military, I was Custodian for classified documents (including Top Secret) – sent and received; and have some understanding of how such material is handled.  It is conceivable that new information received, and not immediately or officially Classified, could have been relayed on to Mrs. Clinton by her Staff.  And/or her Staff could have paraphrased, summarized or reissued Classified messages without advising Mrs. Clinton that the original information had been Classified.

That is possible, I suppose.  However, one would have to totally ignore the fact that Mrs. Clinton was not just working at the State Department, she was heading the State Department.  She was the boss.  If she had no idea what type of information may very well be classified, her incompetence would have to be off the chart.  It’s hard to even imagine.  No, I think she knew.  I think she simply didn’t care.

In view of the above, I’m of the opinion that Mrs. Clinton will not be prosecuted unless a potential prosecution is an absolute ‘slam dunk.’  And, what would that be?  Well, if she doesn’t confess to a crime (which she won’t, of course) and / or self-importantly lie to the FBI, any subsequent trial’s outcome could be somewhat in doubt.  The Attorney General will not take the chance – not with Clinton’s apparent ‘slam dunk’ of the Democratic nomination for President.

I do think there will be some indictments.  Some of Mrs. Clinton’s former staff will be required to ‘fall on their sword.’  They will be prosecuted, given light sentences, probably probation.  When Mrs. Clinton gets to be President, she can give them a full pardon.

So what do we know about Mrs. Clinton?  Well, we all pretty much know her and her husband’s reputation, their modus operandi – House of Cards – in spades.  “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is…” --- Benghazi.  Truth be damned.

True Nelson

What Ever Happened to Zachariah M. Peterson? / and his Online Threat to "Mow Down" Local Portland Area Teachers

What ever happened to Zachariah M. Peterson?  You know, the guy who threatened online to go to a Portland area school and “mow down” the teachers because of some past grievance.  He was 29 at the time of the threat, so his ‘grievance’ must have been festering a long time.

ZachariahPeterson Threatens to Mow Down (Kill) Teachers at Local Christian School

Update to Previous (Part 2)

Connection between Zachariah Peterson and Chris Harper Mercer / Coincidence? Doubtful.

Perhaps you will recall that Peterson was arrested by the FBI and local police on charges etcetera; including a charge of ‘a felon in possession of a firearm’ (a federal felony) to wit:  “a Mossberg shotgun, a .22-caliber handgun, a 10-22 Ruger rifle with two 25-round magazines and one Remington 700 rifle with a Leupold scope.”

Peterson was arrested at his home on 9/21/15 and immediately charged as an ‘Ex-Felon in Possession of a Firearm / US Code Title 18, Section 922’.  Said charges were ‘dismissed’ on 10/14/15.  Why?  I couldn’t tell you for sure.  I’m not about to go to the Multnomah County Court House, in downtown Portland; and endure that ordeal as I have done many times in the past, just to learn what I already know.  X- Felons found to be in possession of firearms are rarely prosecuted.

Some possible reasons for no prosecution:  part of a ‘plea deal’ or the US Attorney considers the crime low priority and declines to prosecute - ah, well, those are the two reasons generally utilized.  I suppose you could put forth a couple of the more obscure reasons:  ‘Peterson was framed by the police’ or ‘there was an illegal search conducted,’ and/or the guns were placed in the house by space aliens; but these explanations are generally considered to be highly unlikely.

Here is the take-away from all of this:  Gun Control, as proposed by politicians (particularly liberal politicians) is a ‘red herring,’ a ‘stalking horse,’ a ruse used to deceive the uninformed citizenry.  While recommending all types of additional legislation directed at basically honest gun-owners, the government refuses to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Why would they do this?  First, because they can.  Secondly, the jails would be, in their opinion, overwhelmed by real criminals.

On the other hand, the government can put forth some recommendations for gun control that does, I suppose, look to some (perhaps most) in the public like they (the politicians) are actually doing something – even though the laws proposed would be largely ineffective – and they know it.  But, the hard cold fact is that the government considers the general public to be pretty darn ignorant; and that legalese-laced platitudes will make said public temporarily feel good; but, more importantly, perpetuate the careers of many current politicians.

Furthermore, what's the big deal about a few more armed x-felons running around terrorizing the public?  At least they aren't clogging-up our prison system (True's sarcasm).

And then they wonder why Donald Trump is ahead in the poles.  God help us.  (Or... Maybe he is.)

True Nelson

The Shooting of Robert "Lavoy" Finicum / Let's Talk Tactics / Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Regarding the shooting of Robert “Lavoy” Finicum, let’s talk a little bit about tactics.

I, of course, don’t know all the details, or even most for that matter, of what lead up to the take-down of the ‘occupiers’ of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  I think the action taken Tuesday, January 26^th, was potentially precipitous – and difficult to explain.  The FBI and other law enforcement agencies transitioned from an extended laissez-faire environment, involving the ‘occupiers,’ to a sudden, armed confrontation – which unfortunately turned deadly.  Of course, there was a lot of dialogue between the FBI and the principals within the Refuge compound prior to the take-down; but, strikingly, in my opinion, there was no gradual tightening of physical pressure on those individuals that were freely going and coming, attending community meetings, collecting supplies and encouraging other like-minded people to join the occupation.

I looked at the FBI ‘take-down,’ several times.  I do not consider this an ‘ambush’ situation as many have described it.  And, for those who haven’t seen it, I attached a link to the FBI video.

FBI VIDEO

The FBI description of the action depicted in the video, in short, was that the vehicle holding Finicum and three other individuals attempted to run a roadblock set up by law enforcement.  Finicum’s vehicle attempted to swerve around the roadblock, going to the left shoulder of the road, nearly ‘running over’ an FBI Agent, before getting stuck in the snow along the shoulder.  Finicum jumped out of the vehicle, yelling, with his hands up, something like “shoot me,”  “shoot me.”  Allegedly, although it’s difficult to see, Finicum reaches toward his left armpit (twice) before being shot down.  He does not brandish a gun.  However, the FBI found later that he had a loaded handgun under his coat – and opine that he was reaching for same.

OK, I’m not going to second guess this.  Finicum had stated publicly that he wouldn’t be taken alive.  He was known to be consistently armed (see picture above).  And, law enforcement, in a split second, exercised their best judgement.  Finicum’s actions were foolish, under the circumstances, and one might even describe them as ‘crazy.’  The FBI’s account, to my knowledge, does not say how many shots were fired – only that the officer who shot Finicum was with the Oregon State Police.

Let’s talk a little bit about the FBI Agent nearly ‘run over’ by Finicum’s vehicle.  What was the Agent doing in a position behind one of the cars used to block the road?  Only in the movies does a law enforcement officer stand behind his car with a fleeing felon’s car barreling down on him.  The video seems to reflect that the FBI Agent made a last second observation that he would soon be crushed under his vehicle if it was rammed by Finicum’s car.  He jumps to his right toward the road’s shoulder.  Then he sees that’s where Finicum’s car is headed; and the Agent tries to jump back.  It appears that the Agent might have been hit, but he was apparently not seriously injured.  He managed to walk away.

The shooting:  The FBI has given the public a rather grainy aerial video.  The OSP, as I understand it, sometimes wear ‘body cams.’  Are they available?  Why weren’t they released?

OK, Finicum jumps from his vehicle.  We see a law enforcement officer coming out of the woods (left side of road).  Finicum is facing away from this officer, towards where he apparently observes or believes the main law enforcement contingent is located (right side of road).  The officer from the woods is holding something, which is either a handgun, maybe a Taser.  Another officer leaves cover on the opposite side of road and approaches Finicum while pointing a handgun.  When shot, Finicum appears to turn somewhat to his left and falls away from the officer who came out of the woods.  Finicum then appears to slightly lift his right arm.  No weapon is observed.

Some might question where the law enforcement personnel were positioned.  An FBI Agent is nearly run down.  Other officers are on both sides of the road, with Finicum between them – a potential cross-fire situation.  Two officers leave cover for no apparent reason to confront Finicum.  Finicum makes an untoward movement and was shot and killed.

True Nelson

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge 'Occupation' / Robert 'Lavoy' Finicum Dies in Shootout

And, so it goes.  We might have expected some sort of gradual increasing of law enforcement pressure at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge; but, instead, it was sudden and violent – right out of the play book for the Bonnie and Clyde take-down.  This may have been correct and proper under the circumstances.  I don’t know.  It’s hard for any in the public to know at this point.  The FBI has been rather reticent.

It is entirely understandable – in a way.  Law enforcement authorities were under increased pressure to act.  The Oregon Governor weighed-in with the U.S Department of Justice demanding some sort of resolution by the FBI.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe the Governor was anticipating or demanding what ultimately occurred.  It’s just that the complete, at least apparently so, inaction on the part of the FBI baffled and frustrated everyone including the Governor – who was undoubtedly being briefed by the State Police on a daily basis.  This would indicate to me that the Oregon State Police, the other principal law enforcement agency, was just as mystified as the rest of us.

Well, Ammon Bundy and six or seven other principals in the occupation are now in jail, held without bail.  One of the principals, however, is in the morgue (Robert LaVoy Finicum) – shot by law enforcement.  The exact circumstances of that shooting have not yet been released.

The siege continues.  There are still some hardcore hold-outs.  The FBI is telling them that they are free to leave; but that isn’t actually realistic.  Many of those still inside the Refuge headquarters have been almost certainly implicated in numerous crimes, including felonies.  The FBI doesn’t have the authority to issue them a ‘get out of jail free’ card.  The occupiers know this.

Road-blocks and checkpoints are now in place.  Why road-blocks were not put in place weeks ago – I have no idea.

Robert "Lavoy" Finicum pictured above.

True Nelson

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge / Current FBI Procedural Directive (Stop and Interrogate) Boot-Leg Copy Obtained

If you read my previous post, you will have noted that I gave the FBI and their local law enforcement compadres my recommendations for what they should be doing.  They, however, decided against my plan, at least for the time-being.  The FBI does have formalized directives issued to the on-scene agents and support personnel.  And, I was able to obtain a copy of the FBI’s current plan.

The FBI has decided that daily briefings on the actions of the ‘occupiers,’ and the collection of massive background data is sufficient for now.  It must be said that the FBI’s plan is and has been somewhat frustrating to the public, as well as Oregon Governor Kate Brown who noted the ‘standoff’ has been ‘pretty darn costly to Oregon taxpayers’ ( I think the latest figure was $500,000).  The FBI’s Special Agent-in-Charge, nonetheless, would find the Governor’s complaints rather uniformed and puerile; and would undoubtedly counter with ‘whatever the Oregon taxpayers have paid-out, the feds have spent ten times that amount.’

My source is keeping me apprised of the FBI’s investigative efforts regarding ‘MalBirdRef.’  It is the FBI’s custom to designate a case name that will facilitate and focus in-house communications; hence the case name ‘MalBirdRef.’  The following recently obtained SOP should clarify much of the public’s concern about whether or not the FBI is actively and credibly involved in resolving the ‘occupation’ of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  In that Bureau procedural directives can be somewhat confusing to the uninitiated, I have included my own explanation of each directive – my comments in italics.

MalBirdRef Standard Operating Procedures / Effective Instant Date

All investigators (FBI and Local Law Enforcement support personnel) objectives:  Identify, conduct background, interview when possible and fully document information concerning the following persons-of-interest (POIs):

Under this directive’s objectives, of particular concern are visitors, supporters and potential Bundy converts, from the following states.  Vehicles registered in those states should be stopped and a field interrogation conducted to determine the reason for the driver being in Oregon, and specifically in Harney County.  Applicable States:  Montana, Idaho, Nevada and New Hampshire.

True’s explanation: Montana, Idaho and Nevada are ‘Red’ states bordering Oregon; and moreover Nevada is Ammon Bundy’s home state and potential supporters might follow him to Oregon.  New Hampshire was added to the stop and interrogate list because of the State Motto on their vehicle plates – “Live Free or Die.”

Stop and Interview:  Any operator and passenger of a four-wheel-drive truck (Ford, Chevy, Dodge) holding two men and no women.  Foreign made four-wheel-drive trucks are considered low priority, unless other directives apply.

True’s explanation:  Two men together (not that there is anything wrong with that)… objective unclear.

Stop and Interview:  Men with beards, particularly untrimmed beards and associated slovenly appearance, driving older model vehicles, or in some instances stolen government vehicles.  Baseball caps worn backwards are a negative indicator.  Cowboy hats are a discretionary call.

True’s explanation:  Seems pretty clear to me.

Stop and Interview:  Drivers of any vehicle bearing a military theme license plate or other similar identifiers.  This directive would also apply to personal apparel, indicating the driver is or was a member of the military, or simply thinks military apparel is cool.

True’s explanation:  Most current FBI Agents were never in the military and are highly suspicious of those who would volunteer for that kind of duty.  Furthermore, they understand that many military members have been traumatized by their experiences and are therefore unpredictably confrontational and prone to join right-wing organizations like the VFW.

Stop and Interview:  Driver of any four-wheel-drive vehicle flying the American Flag.

 True’s explanation:  It’s believed that flying the American flag in this manner is highly questionable behavior indicating neurotic patriotism and instability.

Stop and Interview:  Driver of any vehicle bearing identifiers that said driver and/or passengers are religious extremists.  (Church of Latter Day Saints is the exception to this directive to avoid aggravating Wildlife Refuge occupiers.)

True’s explanation:  Religion is always a touchy subject, particularly in this instance – so, I better skip-it here.

Stop and Interview:  Any individual displaying guns, weapons or associated paraphernalia, to include gun racks in rear windows of vehicles; unless the driver is a ‘certified’ member of the Wildlife Refuge occupation.  In that eventuality, he or she should not be bothered in that such contact could lead to a confrontational situation.

True’s explanation:  Do I have to explain everything to you?

True Nelson