Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect

Burns Chronicles No 37
Intent v. Effect

intent-v-effect-composite

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 30, 2016

There has been no substantial interview regarding the deliberations that resulted in 12 Not Guilty Verdicts, and One Verdict where the jury could not get consensus.  However, we do have a bit of information that is probably the most critical single piece with regard to understanding just what happened that led to those verdicts.

Juror #4, the juror that brought Judge Brown the indication of bias by Juror #11, has stated that the government failed to show that the occupiers had the intention to impede the government employees.  That the failure of the employees to report to the Refuge may have been an effect of the occupation.  Since the Jury Instructions required the government to prove “intent”, the jury had to find them Not Guilty, at least with regard to Counts One and Two.  In a written statement, Juror #4 said, “All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation.”  The difference between “effect” and “intent”, then, becomes the foundation for this article.

However, first, a bit of an explanation.  I seldom bring politics into any of my articles, however, to put this situation in a proper context, I think it is necessary to do so, now.  Whether what I am going to bring to your attention had anything to do with their verdict, or not, is yet to be known.  If it was not considered, then the irony of the comparison still should be of interest to all.

Addressing those matters that were brought to our attention, this past Friday, regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server and the possibility that criminal pedophiliac material may have gone through that server.  That material could possibly be emails from former Representative Anthony Weiner (New York (D)), through his wife, Muslimah Huma Abedin*, through Hillary’s rather suspicious email server, to an underage girl.

* Huma AbedinFormer deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and still a prominent figure in Hillary’s campaign for President.

If that were the case, then suspicion of such activity would warrant, as in all pedophile investigations, the seizure of phones, computers, photographs, records, and almost anything that might prove to be evidence of criminal activity.

At present, there is no public knowledge of the suggested connection, FBI Director James Brien “Jim” Comey, Jr., has advised Congress that the Clinton email scandal investigation has been reopened.  Rather ironically, this information comes out the day after the Verdict of Not Guilty in the Ammon Bundy trial.

However, this email scandal had its roots back on July 5, 2016, when Comey stated that, “[W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton, or her colleagues, intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information…” (video).  In his almost unprecedented statement, he recommended that the Justice Department not prosecute, because of the absence of intent.

However, it appears that the Jury in the Bundy trial had more sense than either Comey or Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the Oregon District.  Comey chose not to prosecute and Williams, probably based on the recommendation of Greg Bretzing, FBI SAIC, chose to prosecute.  All three ignored what even a blind man could see.

.

Criminal activity should be judged on intent.  If an act is done inadvertently, with no intention of the act being criminal, then it should not be criminal.  However, the government has not been known to play that way.  Especially with patriots.  But, that is exactly what Clinton did.  She set up her private server, she conducted communication with her staff, and others, she allowed others who also worked for the government, to access her computer, and she let those with no ties to the government not only have access, but to maintain, the server.

That’s almost like saying, I jammed the door to the bank so that they couldn’t lock it, but I had no intention of robbing the bank.  When the means to create criminal activity are conducted, they become the intent.  Neither the jammed door nor the private server were accidental.

On the other hand, those who occupied Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) conducted their activities in the open.  Anybody that wanted to visit was allowed to visit.  Anybody who wanted to eat was allowed to eat.  Anybody who wanted to spend the night was allowed to spend the night.  Only those whose behavior might be of concern for the safety of others were asked to leave.

The government enlisted 15 people to inform on those who occupied the MNWR.  At least nine of them actually visited the Refuge and were treated equally with everyone else.  They were supposed to “get dirt” on the principals.  However, they could get no “dirt”, so the government never called them to testify.  The Defendants, however, saw a benefit to having two of the informants testify on their behalf.

On the other side of Burns, at the Airport, the FBI set up their “headquarters”.  There were numerous battle dressed guards on duty at the gates and questioned anyone that approached them.  Their operation was about as secretive as you could get, and access was denied to all but those chosen soldiers of the government.

When the activity of those at MNWR and those at the airport are compared, which of the two groups reeks of intent?  Which one reeks of armed force?  Which one reeks of conspiracy?

However, at the other location, the jury clearly understood that there was no intent of conspiracy, and that the government employees would be as welcome as anybody else would, though they stayed away as an effect of the occupation, not as a result of it.

When that government, established to serve the people, determines to serve itself, it has failed its purpose.  When that government turns its forces to persecute those who challenge its abuse, intending to make political prisoners of them, it has failed in its purpose.  When that government, created by the Constitution, refuses to abide by that Constitution, it has failed in its purpose and has become despotic.

But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Addendum (October 30, 2016)

In the article, I had taken some available information that seemed to suggest that Weiner had used Hillary’s server to send email to an underage female.  This may still be true, but the bigger story is that Huma Abedin had been sending highly classified documents to her own server that she shares with her husband, Anthony Weiner.

Huma, being an avowed Muslim, may well have sent some of the documents to her friends in Muslim countries.  She may also have provided herself and Weiner some “life insurance”, though it appears that that policy may have just expired.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect”

  1. […] XXXVII. Intent v. Effect [10/30/16] […]

Leave a Reply