Malheur National Wildlife Refuge 'Takeover' / Second Trial Convictions / My Thoughts

I’ve always had this tendency to bristle whenever someone, who has never been in law enforcement or worked in the judicial system, lays that old saw on me:  Justice isn’t always just.  But, of course, they’re right.  It’s sort of a bitter pill to swallow when you’ve dedicated a portion of your life to that profession.

Nonetheless, this brings me to the article by Maxine Bernstein in The Oregonian (March 12, 2017) –“Prosecutors Reflect on Refuge Takeover Trials.”  This article pertains to the second trial in the unlawful takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon by ‘armed occupiers.’

The ‘occupation,’ the ‘armed standoff,’ began in January of 2016; and ended with one of the ‘occupiers’ being shot and killed by Oregon State Police.  There was, as noted, an earlier trial of the principals, the leadership, in that stand-off.  All the defendants in the first trial (Ammon Bundy et al) were acquitted.

Ms. Bernstein asked U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams – why the U.S. Attorney’s office pursued a second trial of lesser involved defendants when the first trial of the leadership ended in acquittals.

Williams said that the “decision to continue to pursue felony conspiracy charges against the lesser-known defendants, after last fall’s acquittal of occupation leader Ammon Bundy and six other key figures, was made between his office and Justice officials.”

And you might ask:  What’s the motivations behind that decision?  Well, there are a couple of possible explanations.

1. An ‘occupier,’ Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum was killed during the ‘stop’ by Oregon State Police and the FBI.  Finicum’s wife is suing the Federal government charging ‘excessive force and wrongful death,’ among other things.  She is asking for $5 million in damages for herself and for each of her 12 children.  Federal lawyers do not want to go into court and attempt to fight those charges when no one was actually convicted of a crime - principally the big seven leaders of the ‘occupation.’  It was imperative, therefore, that the government win at least some convictions and be able to trot-out some actual evidence of criminal behavior, even if those persons convicted played more minor roles.
2. Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney’s office admitted that the acquittals in the first trial (the big seven) was an “excruciating” defeat.  And, there could be an element of ‘saving face’ involved for the U.S. Attorney, the Department of Justice in D.C., and the FBI.
3. The U.S. Attorney might also allude to a responsibility for pursuing prosecutions that are owed to the citizens of Burns and Harney County who were inconvenienced in many ways.  But, I don’t think that aspect was given much weight.

When Williams was additionally asked how he accepted the two significantly different trial verdicts, he responded that, “It takes two different juries evaluating the evidence and testimony and making different conclusions.  Sometimes, that’s how this system works.’’  No mention was made that the original defendants were ‘overly charged with complex crimes,’ which seemed to turn the trial into a nuanced exercise that the jury did not find understandable or compelling.

But, to many of us, the conclusion is that:  Justice is not always just.

The following from Ms. Bernstein’s article:

Felony charges recently adjudicated in the second trial:

• Conspiracy to impede employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM from doing their work at the refuge through intimidation, threat or force.
• Possessing a firearm in a federal facility.
• Depredation of government property.  (This was interesting.  I thought I was fairly familiar with federal violations investigated by the FBI, but I’d never heard of anything like “Depredation.”  I had to look up the word in the dictionary and found...  “An attack involving plunder and pillage.”  Wow, how would you like that on your rap sheet?)

Trial Decision Results:

• Jason S. Patrick, age 43:  Conspiracy – Guilty; Firearms – Not Guilty.
• Darryl W. Thorn, age 32:  Conspiracy – Guilty; Firearms – Guilty.
• Duane L. Ehmer, age 46:  Conspiracy – Not Guilty; Depredation - Guilty
• Jake E. Ryan, age 28:  Conspiracy – Not Guilty; Depredation - Guilty

And so it goes…

True Nelson

PS:  For those who would like to read more blog posts on this subject concerning the early 'takeover' and shooting...

January 10, 2016

January 14, 2016

January 25, 2016

January 27, 2016

February 2, 2016

President Donald Trump accuses Barrack Obama administration of ‘bugging’ the offices of Candidate Trump prior to the Election

A very interesting development – explosive in a way – President Donald Trump has accused the Obama administration of placing a ‘wire-tap’ on the offices of candidate Donald Trump – weeks before the election.

In response, Barrack Obama has quickly and formally denied involvement in any such efforts – which could potentially be considered illegal.

But, don’t be too quick to dismiss this as a Trump fantasy.

It is conceivable that the Obama administration perceived or imagined Trump’s suspected involvement with the Russians was to undermine the election.  They (the Obama administration) directed a government agency to present their suspicions, via affidavit, to the FISA Court.  This is usually done by the FBI or the NSA – but could have been presented by the United States Attorney.  Permission could then have been granted by the court; and monitoring begun.

Furthermore, the wire-tap process would require the Court to advise, in writing, the ‘target’ ninety days after the program had been terminated.  The timing seems to fit.  This information could have been just now dropped in Trump’s lap.

If true, and we don’t know at this point, someone will almost certainly be 'thrown under the bus.'  Will it be FBI Director Comey or perhaps former Attorney General Loretta Lynch?

Obama will simply deny any knowledge and will have undoubtedly prepared a contingency plan.

FISA Court:  a U S court composed of a rotating panel of federal judges that sits in secrecy to review prosecutors' requests to wiretap telephones of suspected spies and terrorists and to conduct searches.

True Nelson

Multnomah County Deputies (Portland, OR) Seize Record Haul (100 pounds) of Methamphetamine

Interesting article:  The Oregonian (Portland Oregon’s daily newspaper; 2/24/17):

“Deputies seized nearly 100 pounds of methamphetamine worth more than $2 million from two homes in Portland and Gresham.”  Guns, heroin and $30,000 in cash were also seized.  Sounds like some darn good police work on the part of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office.

Here’s where I have to be a little tactful – you know, in light of Portland’s Sanctuary City thing.  Nothing was mentioned in the newspaper article as to whether or not those arrested -  Alfredo Narcisco Pineda, Alejandro Lopez Gonzales or Celso Marroquin Benitez - were in the United States legally.

Yes, I’m aware that the Portland Area City and County officials would probably say that the citizenship of these three criminals (alleged) is none of the public's business and even to consider such a thing is blatantly racist.

OK, OK, I get it; but to continue…  Let’s see, how did the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office possibly crack this case?  Could it have had something to do with the arrest of Salvador Martinez-Perez, in mid-February, when his semi 'produce' truck ran in a ditch in Sherman County (North Central Oregon)?  And, 'lo and behold,' hidden among the bell peppers was a large quantity of meth, heroine, and cocaine valued in excess of $1 million – likely en route to Portland.  Could that have been a lead?

Oh yes, and incidentally, law enforcement did opine that it is likely, in view of the vast quantity of illegal drugs and other drug paraphernalia recovered in the recent arrests, that a Mexican drug cartel is probably involved.

But, let’s be open minded…

There are probably several possibilities how this might have transpired.  I will present two for your consideration:

1)  The four individuals, mentioned above, are here illegally, have close ties to a Mexican cartel; and perhaps were sent and settled into the Portland area due to the City’s ‘welcoming’ pronouncements by City leaders.

2)  The four individuals are citizens by birth or are perhaps “Dreamers,” by President Obama’s definition – and that said four were on a college sponsored field trip to Mexico, maybe a research / study type program, when they were inadvertently introduced to a Mexican drug cartel.

I know, it’s none of my business what brought these four to Portland and whether or not they are here legally, whether they have been deported before, or why they were here in Portland in the first place; but inquiring minds want to know.  I’d like to know.

The four, and perhaps others, were undoubtedly planning to dump this poison in our communities.  Shouldn’t we know these things?

If I was a betting man, I would bet serious money that…

True Nelson

What is a ‘Sanctuary City,’ and what does that actually mean for a city like Portland, Oregon? / Conclusion

Many people, the vast majority I would venture, and particularly young people who seem so eager to demonstrate (sometimes violently) in support of Sanctuary Cities, are misinformed about why City and State Administrators often promote the concept.

I’ve been researching immigration law and the various interpretations of the law.  I started writing this long essay based on my research; but have given that up.  It became a futile and tiresome project.  Hit delete.  Start over.

So…  Let’s see…

Illegal immigration is one of those issues, like ‘guns,’ you can research and discuss the subject; but no one is actually listening.  And facts?  Eyes glaze-over.  Facts be damned.  No one cares.

We, of course, have definitive federal immigration laws.  It quite clearly is against the law for foreign nationals to enter this country illegally.  The first time is a misdemeanor, to include deportation.  The second time is a felony.

Federal, State and City administrators have often taken it upon themselves to defy or ignore said law in the name of ‘compassion,’ hence Sanctuary Cities. The ‘compassion’ justification is phony.  It is a deception.  It is a lie.

The real reason is ‘expediency.’  Take a city like Portland or San Francisco, who is going to clean the thousands of hotel/motel rooms, and do the tens of thousands of other jobs associated with keeping a City operating?  What about farm labor?  Who will do it?  As I’ve said before ‘illegals,’ generally speaking, work hard and ask little of their employers.  Well, you might ask, 'Is that a bad thing?  The ‘illegals’ make money and the city or the farm hums-along.'

That’s one way to look at it.  However, in reality it’s the hotel owners and their shareholders, agribusiness and their shareholders, as well as many other contractors and businesses who profit.  But, who often picks up the associated tab?  The taxpayers will pay to cover all manner of public services provided to the ‘illegals.’  Additionally, there is an increase in crime.  Yes, there is.  Look it up.  Research how many illegal immigrants now reside in our prison system.

Many politicians, of course, are on board with allowing ‘illegals;’ and often receive the support of those influential members of the community, stated above, who ultimately profit.

And, we can’t forget the associated benefit, ‘votes.’  ‘Illegals can’t vote,’ you might counter.  No, but many U.S. citizens of the same ethnic background do vote; and they are sympathetic to the cause.  Moreover, too many of the rest of us, have bought into the counterfeit ‘compassion’ argument that is continually put forth – and are therefore willing to, unwittingly in my opinion, go along.  ‘It’s just the nice thing to do.’

There are ways to solve the problem.  If we need more immigrants – allow more to enter legally.  If you want to stop illegal immigration, levy a large fine on anyone who hires an ‘illegal.’  Of course, there would have to be some sort of legitimate system to easily verify who is actually a citizen of the U.S. and who is not.  But, you see, that’s not going to happen any time soon.  Enforcement would create for some very rich people an inordinate increase in their overhead.  It is about, low cost, low maintenance, labor.  It is, after all, for the movers and shakers of industry much more cost-effective to purchase a politician who will support their view.

OK, you might add, 'What about all the illegals that now reside in the U.S. – many for decades?'

My response to that would be:  In that our ‘system,’ at the local, state and federal levels, not only permitted this immigration travesty, but in many ways encouraged it, our federal government should make every effort to accommodate, in some way, the honest residents who are now here illegally; but to round-up and deport the others - to include those convicted of grievous misdemeanors (crimes against persons) and all felonies – no exceptions.

To read my previous post click here.

True Nelson

What is a ‘Sanctuary City,’ and what does that actually mean for a city like Portland, Oregon? / Part 1

A ‘Sanctuary City’ or in some instances a ‘Sanctuary State’ has a stated policy to protect illegal immigrants by not enforcing federal law or cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies in immigration related enforcement.  That policy can be expressly set forth as a law or just observed in practice.

Why do cities or states do that?  The elected officials have two basic reasons that actually have little or nothing to do with compassion.  However, ‘compassion’ is the song they sing – often associated with ‘crocodile tears.’

Reason #1:  Cities have influential citizens (the political donor class) who, for business reasons, require a considerable influx of cheap, hardworking, dependable labor.  And, incidentally, it doesn’t hurt for the employer to have a little extra leverage in dealing with these workers (‘illegals’). The employers that I’m referring to are the owners and managers of hotels, motels, restaurants, construction operations of all types, as well as landscape and maintenance, ad infinitum.  Said ‘illegals’ are not normally public employees in the immediate sense, but work for the countless companies that contract with the city and / or support the tourist industry.

Reason #2:  The majority of the city’s voting constituency is in support of the ‘sanctuary city’ concept, even though the vast majority of the public does not understand what is involved, what it means, or how that might personally impact them.

The typical Mayor of a city, such as Portland’s Mayor, Ted Wheeler, would principally focus on ‘reason number one;’ because ‘reason number 2’ could be easily neutralized or eliminated by any good PR firm.  Besides ‘reason one’ is where the money is.

In my previous post, I referred to Ted Wheeler as ignorant or stupid because of some of his recent comments and his strong support for the ‘sanctuary city program;’ as well as his strident comments to defy President Trump - regardless of the potential loss of federal funds and the impact those lost funds will have on City residents.

OK, the Mayor isn’t stupid.  Well, maybe, if you want to use Forrest Gump’s definition; and perhaps I’m tending to give the Mayor too much credit.  Forrest Gump might be right.

  

FG:  “Stupid is as stupid does.”

For Reference:  My previous post.

__________

Next, I would like to discuss the law enforcement issues.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Sanctuary Cities, Portland, Oregon / Mayor Ted Wheeler / Is he ignorant or just kind of a nut?

I’d like to weigh-in on ‘sanctuary’ cities; and in support of President Trump’s current proclamations - which I understand are just temporary until the federal government can get a handle on what exactly is going on.

The associated impact of Sanctuary Cities is, without doubt, a law enforcement issue; and I believe most in the law enforcement community would agree.  Maybe, I will talk more about this down the road and how politicians attempt to spin their unlawful actions in support of ‘sanctuary cities.’

But, for now, specifically, I’d like to talk about my home city, Portland, Oregon.  They have ‘proudly’ proclaimed themselves a 'sanctuary city' – commonsense be damned.

I particularly got a good laugh out of the ‘In my opinion’ article in the Oregonian (1/29/17) by our newly elected Mayor, Ted Wheeler.  As justification for his position on keeping Portland a sanctuary city, he utilized the famous quote displayed on the Statue of Liberty:  “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

My suggestion is that Mayor Wheeler dig-out his underutilized college dictionary and look up the word ‘irony.’

And, then he should look out his window at the “homeless,” the “tired,” the “poor,’ the “huddled masses,” “the wretched refuse,” that currently try to survive the cold, hardships, and dangers associated with downtown Portland streets.  They are on every block of the city.  It’s a disgrace.

My question would be:  Is Mayor Wheeler just plain stupid or is he a nut?  Probably not stupid and he has many degrees to prove it.  He is, of course, playing his cards as a politician attempting to placate his base.  Everyone should recognize that politicians have one priority and it is what’s best for them.

Wheeler is a new mayor, but he knows how the game is played – albeit clumsily in this instance.  Sorry to say, he doesn’t understand how absolutely ridiculous he can sound.  That seems to be a pretty common affliction with politicians these days.

True Nelson

President Obama ignores pleas to pardon or commute the prison sentence of Leonard Peltier (Cop Killer)

Well, I was happy to see that President (now former) Barrack Obama did not, in the waning days of his administration, pardon or commute the sentence of Leonard Peltier who was convicted for the execution-style murder of two FBI Special Agents – Ronald Williams and Jack Coler.  As a result, Peltier will probably live out the remainder of his miserable life in prison – as he should.

I hope the former President understood that his decision regarding Peltier will likely compromise any future positive relationships he might have had with the likes of Robert Redford, Willie Nelson and Pamela Anderson.  But, these are the small sacrifices associated with leadership.

More information on this topic...

True Nelson

The Lionization of a ‘Cop Killer’ (Leonard Peltier) by a tax subsidized University (American University, Washington DC)

Most decent people hate to read stuff like this, much less think about it.  It sometimes seems hopeless.  What’s that?  Oh, the Leonard Peltier statue erected on the American University campus in Washington DC.  It’s an affront to all decent people, and American University should hear from us.  But, guess what, they couldn’t care less.

Ms. Rebeca Basu, Public Relations Manager for said University put forth the schools justification:

“American University regards this statue as an exhibited piece of art and takes no position on the advocacy movement. As part of a major clemency push by supporters in the final days of President Barack Obama's presidency, a 9-foot-tall statue of Native American activist and prisoner Leonard Peltier has been installed at American University Museum to raise awareness for Peltier's plight and pardon request. Peltier, convicted and sentenced in 1977 in the shooting of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, has maintained his innocence in the 41 years he's been imprisoned, and his conviction has been contested by leading human rights organizations in the United States and beyond.”

Ms. Basu (pictured above), who incidentally looks about 18 years old, has articulated the University’s position.  It sounds pretty harmless doesn’t it?  Did you notice how she frames her statement to illuminate (exaggerate) “Peltier’s plight” and to minimize the University's dubious motives.

Well, let’s see… ‘Peltier’s plight’ is that he is now serving a life sentence for the brutal execution style murder of two FBI Agents – which Ms. Basu passes off in a very sanitized way as “the shooting of two Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents.”  Almost sounds accidental, doesn’t it?  

Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams were working a federal case on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (South Dakota) – an inquiry that had nothing to do with Leonard Peltier.  As the Agents drove along, their car was ambushed from a distance by Leonard Peltier et al.  The Agents' car was quickly riddled with bullets and disabled.  Both Agents were wounded.  They tried to take cover behind their car and return fire, but all they had available were their revolvers and a shotgun.  They were outgunned and had nowhere to hide.  After sustaining numerous wounds and unable to resist any further, Peltier et al approached the Agents who were at that point unarmed and helpless.  The Agents were shot in the head at close range.  One Agent made an attempt to protect his face with his hand, an ineffective defense gesture of submission; but the bullet, of course, passed through his hand and into his face.

Here are the facts of which you should be aware…  A letter sent to American University’s President from the FBI’s Agents’ Association.  And, just who is the illustrious President (the principal decision maker) of said University?  He is Dr. Cornelius M. Kerwin, aka Neil (and pictured below).  I'm sure he is the one who gave Ms. Basu her marching orders.

December 29, 2016

American University

4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20016-8060

Dear President Kerwin:

I write today on behalf of the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), a voluntary professional association currently representing over 13,000 active duty and retired FBI Special Agents.

We write to express our concern regarding the decision by American University (AU) to proudly display a statue of convicted murderer Leonard Peltier in an outdoor area, and to announce that decision by repeating slanted and misleading claims about Peltiers’ murder convictions.

The message being sent by AU to FBI Special Agents and their families, past and present, and to all members of the law enforcement community, is both clear and troubling— AU has decided to advance the political arguments of activists with little concern for providing all of the facts or considering the views of law enforcement.

The fact that the display is a political statement, rather than simply a display of art, is made clear in the press materials released by AU in connection with the display.  The AU press release notes that the display is “part of a major clemency push by [Peltier] supporters” and that the installation is intended to “raise awareness for Peltier’s plight and pardon request.”

The press release from AU also includes misleading descriptions of Peltier’s case and a variety of hyperlinks to activist groups that have created a cottage industry dedicated to misleading the public about Peltier. The press release does not, however, mention the names of the murdered FBI agents, the circumstances surrounding their execution, or the exhaustive judicial process already utilized by Peltier.

The FBIAA believes that AU should remove the installation, and that AU has a responsibility to share additional facts with students and the public.

Relevant facts regarding Peltier and his convictions include:

On June 26, 1975, Leonard Peltier was involved in an unprovoked attack on FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams while they were searching for a fugitive on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Both agents were caught in an open field in a deadly crossfire by members of the American Indian Movement. Both agents were critically wounded and then summarily executed with rifle shots at pointblank range, killing them instantly and mutilating their faces.

Leonard Peltier was convicted of first degree murder and aiding and abetting in those murders and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. Through well-over a dozen appeals, twice reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, every aspect of Peltier’s trial has been reviewed in minute detail and his conviction and sentence has been upheld in every instance.

Peltier has been far from a model prisoner, and would never be considered a candidate for clemency but for his status as a political celebrity. Peltier has been punished numerous times for violating prison rules. In 1978, he was involved in an armed escape from Lompoc Penitentiary, during which shots were fired at prison guards. For this post-conviction criminal act, Peltier received an additional seven-year consecutive sentence.

Peltier does not have a credible argument for clemency. One of the requirements for Executive Clemency, as described by the U.S. Attorney’s manual, is that a prisoner has accepted responsibility “for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to its victims” and that “A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication.” Peltier’s supporters, and now AU, have decided to re-litigate the Peltier case rather than satisfy this requirement. AU has repeated the familiar mix of folklore, falsehoods and out-of-context statements that are designed to both exonerate and lionize Peltier in the eyes of the public, rather than show any true remorse regarding the murders of Agents Coler and Williams.

The FBIAA is committed to protecting the Constitution, and we appreciate the right to free expression. However, with that right comes a responsibility to consider the consequences of speech. AU should not use its property to celebrate the man convicted of murdering FBI Special Agents Coler and Williams.”

PS:  One more comment from me regarding ‘freedom of speech’ and the diversity issue on campuses that seems to supersede any semblance of commonsense.

American University is proud to display a statue of Leonard Peltier (convicted cop killer), but would they do the same for someone like General Robert E. Lee?  I don’t think so.  That would be just too controversial and politically incorrect.

To read more details of this case please refer to previous posts:

   More Info Regarding Leonard Peltier (earlier post - part 1)

   More Info Regarding Leonard Peltier (earlier post - part 2)

   More Info Regarding Leonard Peltier (earlier post - part 3)

True Nelson

The Electoral College 2016 / What is it anyway? / Is it fair? / Why do we have it? / and Donald Trump

On December 19^th the Electoral College members will vote and confirm Donald Trump as the next President of the United States.  And, I must say that most Oregonians that reside in the Portland Metro area have their respective undershorts or panties in a bunch regarding that expectation; not to mention the Hillary supporters, aka liberal activists (rioters) (or as I affectionately refer to them – ‘knuckleheads'), who spent a good bit of their inordinate spare time wrecking a very liberal city (Portland).  Moreover, the majority of said ‘knuckleheads’ didn’t vote or were not even registered to vote.  However, that didn't seem to hold any particular sway with them.  And, incidentally, said rioters will not, for the most part, be prosecuted because around here we are very protective of free speech – even when it includes significant taxpayer dollars lost (in the millions) for property damage and police overtime.  No one was killed you understand.  And, boys and girls (as they say) will be boys and girls.

So here we are.  The new target (temporarily) is the Electoral College.  Liberal activists are hoping that the appointed Electors will revolt and turn the process on its head.  If so, the Electors by showing their disapproval of the process, which they previously volunteered for (including swearing an oath), will as a result throw the Presidential election into chaos.

The Electoral College:

Unfortunately, most voters do not know much about the Electoral College and I’ve done some research that may be helpful.

How is the number of Electors for each State established?

Each State gets the number of Electors equal to the State’s number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus their two Senators.  Washington DC (not a state) also gets three Electors.  Each State has a minimum of three – correlated to two Senators and one Representative.  Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories do participate and vote in the Presidential primaries, but do not vote or participate in the actual election.

It is important to note that the number of Representatives to Congress is designated by the associated State’s population – not the number of registered voters and not the number of actual U.S. citizens in the State – it is the population overall based on the census at which time everyone is counted.

There are approximately 2.7 million residents in California designated as being illegal, about 7% of that State’s population.  Those illegals are counted toward awarding California its apportioned Congressional Representatives – even though the 2.7 million are in this country illegally.  For perspective, the 2.7 million illegals are equivalent to approximately 70% of Oregon’s entire population.  So, what’s the point?  Could it be that California actually has more Congressional Representatives and also Electors than it should have?

We live in a Democracy, or do we?

Yes, I understand that Clinton won the popular vote; but lost the Electoral vote.  And, many claim we live in a democracy – so what’s up with that?  Perhaps a technicality to some; but (surprise) we don’t live in a pure democracy.  We live, and have always lived since this Country was founded, in a ‘Democratic Republic.’  What’s the difference?  Well, it’s time you looked it up.  The Electoral College is emblematic of a ‘Democratic Republic.’  Pure democracies can become tyrannies where 51% of the population dictates to the 49% (some have described it as ‘mob rule.’)  The U.S. Constitution, in many respects, was written to protect the 49%, the minority – and that is a standard that most of us would agree is a good thing.  Am I wrong?

To be continued…

True Nelson

Thanksgiving Dinner at Jake’s in Portland (2016) / the good and the bad / The ‘Homeless’

I know Christmas is less than three weeks away; but I’ve still been thinking about Thanksgiving – the good and the bad - mostly the bad.

This year the family went to Jake’s on 10^th Street in downtown Portland for Thanksgiving dinner.  It’s a nice restaurant.  Eating out on Thanksgiving might not be everyone’s cup of tea; but it certainly saves a lot of wear and tear on those who customarily would be required to prepare Thanksgiving dinner at home.

Well, what was it like having dinner at Jake’s?  The answer:  good and bad.

The meal and service were very good.  The meals started at about $40, but I guess that’s to be expected considering the holiday aspect and the venue.

However… right outside the large window where we were seated was a ‘homeless’ woman, huddled under a quilt, trying to stay warm on a cold, rainy night.  She was, or at least looked, middle-aged.  I couldn’t get her out of my mind.  Except for the window, she was not more than four or five feet away.

We were in the restaurant about two hours.  When we exited the restaurant onto the street, the woman was mostly covered and facing the wall.  I lightly touched her shoulder and said something like, “Ma’am, excuse me.”  The quilt was wet to the touch.  She glanced at me and if looks could kill I would have breathed my last at that very instant.  I put a twenty down near her face.  She grabbed the money and pulled the quilt over her head.  I walked on with my family.

This ‘homeless’ woman is not unique.  In Portland, ‘homeless’ people are everywhere.  It is a public disgrace.  The City of Portland has been struggling with the problem for many years, but it only seems to get progressively worse.

The Oregonian newspaper (photo above from the same) did an article awhile back on the subject.  At the time, their research found that 20% of the ‘homeless’ are Mentally Ill, 20% are Chronic Substance Abusers, 10% are Victims of Domestic Violence and 10% are veterans.  I suppose some, maybe many, are on the streets because this is their choice.  I don’t know.  But, there are thousands of the ‘homeless’ populating Portland streets.  Why can’t we do something?  Why can’t we at the very least care for the Mentally Ill?  Wouldn’t that constitute some progress?

Next Thanksgiving, I will not be eating at Jake’s.

True Nelson

The Patricia Hearst Kidnapping / Some Final Thoughts / Conclusion

When I think back on the Patty Hearst investigation, I don’t remember any unusually dramatic experiences – that pertained to me directly.

Oh, I suppose I could bore you with endless stories about what it was like to be a FBI Agent working in Berkeley – in the early 70’s.  It was ‘surreal.’  And, yes, I understand that word is often overused, but that’s the way it was.  It was a crazy time.  Such as?  Well, like following Bill Walton around Berkeley.  You know Bill, the basketball player.  He was a shirt-tail radical at the time, and wanted to get involved some way in the Hearst matter.  I remember he was on crutches and was about seven feet tall – so he was pretty easy to follow.

               Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
               The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here.

You gradually become acclimated.  The abnormal and bizarre begin to become normal and routine.  For the most part, the Agents were hard-working and professional; but there were, of course, many exceptions.  There was some danger involved; and it went without saying the potential danger could extend to your family.  On many occasions, I got down on my knees to examine the undercarriage of my BuCar and even my personal automobile – looking for bombs.  There was a joke circulated about having your wife go out in the morning to start your car.  Not funny for most, I suppose; but Agents initially found it rather hilarious.

The days were long and exhausting, nerves got frayed.  Ultimately the Agents’ feelings toward Patty Hearst deteriorated – going from ‘I will risk my life to save her’ to something along the lines of ‘f--- her, I couldn’t care less.’  Most of us just wanted it to be over.

A couple other comments about the principal Agents mentioned in Jeffrey Toobin’s book, American Heiress:

Charles W. Bates, FBI Special Agent in Charge, San Francisco Division, during the Hearst investigation:  The Agents referred to him as Charlie.  I don’t know if he liked that name or not.  My experience, and I had a few contacts with him while in SF, was that he was formal, remote, often humorless and not particularly interested in the working Agents.  During the Hearst case, he spent a lot of time, much of it reportedly was social time, with the Hearst family.  Too much time, in my opinion – but they were, after all, the Hearsts.  Much of this time he should have spent with his Agents addressing leadership issues and morale.  There often seemed to be a leadership vacuum in the division.  Just my opinion.  Perhaps I am wrong.   I understand he had a long and distinguished career in the Bureau.  He passed-away at 79.

Picture above is several of us receiving an ‘incentive award’ for the capture of Cecil Robert Moody Jr., age 29, a former associate of SLA member, Donald DeFreeze.  Moody was wanted for armed robbery and murder.  Charlie Bates is in the center, dark suit, and terrific smile.  I am the tall dude, second from right.  I participated in the investigation leading up to the arrest; and was given the ‘honor’ of smashing down the apartment door with a 16 pound sledge hammer.  Moody was nude when captured, sleeping with two semi-naked women.  A loaded .357 magnum was under the bed, where he could quickly get to it.  Wisely, he made no move to do that.

Tom Padden, FBI Special Agent, San Francisco Division, directly involved in the capture of Patty Hearst:  I knew Tom casually.  He was an older Agent and assigned to the Bank Robbery, Fugitive Squad.  As I recall he was, at one time, with the Portland Police Bureau – and we discussed that we were both from Oregon.  Tom was one of the older Agents who chose to remain a ‘Street Agent,’ not interested in advancement.  He was highly regarded.  The fact that he was assigned or given the opportunity to arrest Patty was not circumstantial.  The arrest was, as I remember, a gift assignment largely based on information developed by other Agents.  However, I don’t begrudge him that assignment.  He was a good Agent.

Monte Hall, FBI Special Agent, San Francisco Division:  An older Agent, I knew him, but had very little contact with him.  He was on the same squad as Tom, and I believe Tom and Monte were close friends.  Monte might have been the squad supervisor – not sure about that.  Tom and Monte were major characters in Jeffrey Toobin’s book.  From what I read, it sounded like Monte may have been a little too cozy with the Hearst defense team – maybe not the most professional conduct, in my opinion.

As I’ve said before, on the inside, the whole Hearst / SLA investigation seemed often disorganized.  I suppose it’s easy to criticize, but that was the way it seemed to me.

For example:  To my knowledge, the FBI never set-up a professionally structured ‘hotline’ to receive tips from the public, as well as to offer a substantial reward.  The public did occasionally call in tips to various FBI offices, but those tips were sometimes ignored or haphazardly recorded.  I know of one instance where a caller telephoned the Resident Agency in the South San Francisco area; gave good information on the SLA’s possible location (which was later confirmed to be accurate), but the Resident Agent failed to write a memo reporting the caller’s information.  I guess he thought the tip didn’t sound credible.  Many of us thought the Agent should be fired, but he wasn’t.  I believe he received a letter of censure.

The ‘water – gas leads,’ when Agents were sent to every residence in the Bay area where new hook-ups for water, gas, electricity were ordered.  The operation became very public – ridiculously so – but might have caused the SLA to move south to Los Angeles.  Was that a good thing?  Doubtful.

I could go on, but what’s the point.  Anyway, I enjoyed reading American Heiress.  It brought back many memories.

Oh yes, in a previous post, I referred to ‘towers’ and that I would subsequently explain what they were.  This is what the Bureau called them and perhaps now calls fixed surveillance locations.  A tower could be an apartment, hotel room, or vacant building overlooking a location believed to be frequented by a suspect, person of interest or associate of same.  Towers could be operational for several hours or for many months – even years for those working foreign embassies.  It was boring, tedious work.  Towers were often used in organized crime cases and counter-espionage.  During the Hearst case, I spent one night in a teenage girl’s bedroom which overlooked the apartment of a possible associate of the SLA.  The girl, of course, slept downstairs on the living room sofa; but she made it clear that she was more than a little irritated by the FBI invading her private space.  I spent the night sitting on the floor and braced against her bed – drifting in and out of some sort of dream-like state.  It was miserable – and uneventful.  When I came down in the morning, the girl’s parents offered me coffee.  They were gracious.  The girl – eyed me suspiciously.  I apologized for the inconvenience.  Another Agent, later in the day, followed-up with a nice gift for the family.  This ‘tower’ turned out to be a one night deal – and was discontinued.

Patricia Hearst Kidnapping:  Part 1

Patricia Hearst Kidnapping:  Part 2

Patricia Hearst Kidnapping:  Part 3

Patricia Hearst Kidnapping:  Part 4

True Nelson

FBI Director, James B. Comey, Reopens Hillary Clinton Email Investigation

Breaking news… FBI Director, James B. Comey, is once again in the 'hot seat.'

First, it is my opinion that Director Comey is doing the right thing by notifying Congressional members of the recent developments in the Hillary Clinton ‘email investigation.’  Moreover, I don’t think he had any other viable choice in the matter.  But, I also believe that he put himself in the box by not following normal and customary FBI procedures initially.  Meaning…?

The FBI is now, and always has been, an investigative agency.  Usual procedure in FBI investigations is to conduct same in a thorough manner; and then present the results to the regional United States Attorney; or in this instance it would have been the United States Attorney General (Loretta Lynch).  Comey put himself in the spotlight for questionable reasons, or at the direction of Lynch, when he gave his famous, or infamous depending upon your point-of-view, analysis of the original Clinton email investigation – and that said case had no prosecutive merit.

Why did he do that?  I’m not sure.  Perhaps, it was a matter of self-assertion (I’m a player too), or perhaps self-promotion (political ambitions.) Or, maybe, it was at the direction of someone in the Obama administration (like the President himself) to take the focus off Lynch and her very inappropriate meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.  If Lynch would have allowed Hillary to ‘walk,’ the public would have screamed ‘cover-up,’ and with some justification.  So, it probably appeared like a good move to everyone, including Comey, that he give the prosecutorial opinion.

But, don’t tell me that Comey made the decision on his own.  I just can’t buy it.  Obama was in.  Lynch was in.  It all seemed so simple and clean at the time – to the ‘players’ at least.

Comey is in a bind.  I wonder how this will all work-out – his career that is.  Now, certain members of Congress are throwing their weight around – saying Comey has violated the Hatch Act.  That is just ‘eye wash’ folks.  Politics talking.  It’s not going to happen.  Comey, as of now, is doing the right thing.  Let's see how it plays out.

The Clinton Foundation is still on the FBI's table.  More to come I predict.

Interesting Presidential election, isn't it?

Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity (The FBI Motto)

True Nelson