Anna Brown’s kangaroo Tribunal (an unlawful court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of violating the Law) in Portland Oregon is using every underhanded tactic to convict the defendants before the trial. As the Esteemed Readers that have been following the proceedings of the Bundy/Hammond Malheur Wildlife Refuge Protest already know, Ridiculous charges, false allegations, and a parody of due process are only the beginning efforts of this unlawful Legal charade. The Latest effort of Public Policy Administrator Brown and the U.S. Prosecuting Attorney has placed every potential witness of the protest under the cloud of possible arrest on the same false charges and more. The Administrative Legal Tribunal has announced that anyone who actually went to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge is an unindicted co-conspirator
An unindicted co-conspirator, or unindicted conspirator, is a person or entity that is alleged in an indictment to have engaged in conspiracy, but who is not charged in the same indictment; but, once identified, may have alleged actions be declared as somehow supposedly illegal and charges brought in a different indictment. This type of pre-indictment labeling of course colors or taints every potential witness as somehow participating in the supposedly illegal activities that led to the allegations and indictment of charges. To the mind of the potential witness, this type of Labeling can only place every witness in jeopardy of being indicted. In the eyes of the prosecuting Attorney, all witnesses for the defense are potential targets for new indictments based on skewed allegations and false charges.
“The legal term “unindicted co-conspirator,” or unindicted conspirator, is a person or entity that is alleged in an indictment to have engaged in conspiracy, but who is not charged in the same indictment. Prosecutors choose to name persons as unindicted
co-conspirators for a variety of reasons including grants of immunity, pragmatic
considerations, and evidentiary concerns.
The United States Attorneys’ Manual generally recommends against naming unindicted
co-conspirators, although their use is not generally prohibited by law or policy.
Some commentators have raised due process concerns over the use of unindicted
co-conspirators. Although there have been few cases on the subject, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals addressed these concerns in United States v. Briggs.
The term unindicted co-conspirator was familiarized in 1974 when then president Richard
Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in indictments stemming from the
Watergate Investigation. Nixon was not indicted due to concerns about whether the
United States Constitution allowed the indictment of a sitting President (see Executive
1. United States Attorneys’ Manual, 9-11.130, available at
2. See Ira P. Robbins, Guilty without Charge: Assessing the Due Process Rights of
Unindicted Co-Conspirators, 2004 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 1 (2004)
3. 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975).
There is no Justice in any of this activity, it is meant to sway public opinion against anyone charged, or intimidate anyone willing to bare witness to the actions of the protesters and in the process of witness leave themselves open to possible charges. The ultimate goal of all of this activity is to force landowners off their land and to lay claim to public property so those in power can reap financial reward by selling something that does not belong to them. Gold, Uranium, Clinton, Uranium One, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men (women) are almost always bad men (women).”