Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 42
Fabio Minoggio (John Killman)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 20, 2016

“John Killman”

Notice: Because of her extremely biased judicial discretion, Judge Anna Brown has ordered that I remove the information that I obtained from a ‘prohibited’ copy of the Discovery for the trial of the defendants in the Malheur Occupation trial. I have fully complied with that order and removed all of those portions prohibited, according to that order. All instances of removed text will be marked “[REDACTED]”, which is the same method the government used in depriving information that should have been available to the defendants, as well as you, the reading public, with factual information needed in order for you to make a fair and logical assessment. The FBI redactions were the government’s efforts to “protect” their army of paid informants, but they did a lousy job, as I was able to identify them with the unredacted text.

For the sake of this article, I will use the name that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) knew him by, John Killman.  However, his real name is Fabio Minoggio, from Switzerland, and currently living in Las Vegas, Nevada, or northwestern Arizona.

There is little information in his Fabio Minoggio Facebook page, though it appears that he was born in Pallanza, Italy.  He claims to still live in Locarno, Switzerland.  He may have been born January 1, 1971, as implied by a date shown on the John Killman Facebook page.

At this point, we only have what he said to the defense attorneys, when asked why he went to the refuge.  He told them, “I am in this because of my love of gun safety,” according to the lawyers’ notes.  He also said he didn’t want to miss a “moment in history.*” This claim doesn’t bear fruit, since, while on the witness stand, in response to a question about expenses, he said “I was going into harm’s way, so I had to buy ballistic vests”.  From whom did he sense a threat?

The Prosecution has refused to identify him as an informant.  The judge then told the FBI that if he lied on the stand, they had an obligation to point out any such lies.

Whether he contacted the FBI and volunteered, or was contacted by the FBI, we may never know.  I have tried calling Minoggio, but he “is not accepting calls at this time”, in a recorded message at the number that was initially used to contact him to testify.

How he was found and subpoenaed to testify is another interesting aspect of this story.  After Jeff Banta testified about a guy with a French accent had come to the Refuge and started training people in various military activity, such as team combat, team movements as a group, evacuating friendlies from a car, hand-to-hand combat, and firearms safety.  He had that French accent and was sort of an anomaly, compared to the others who had come to the Refuge.

This began raising questions.  The government, in discovery, had provided 129 “CHS Reporting Document” reports, constituting 230 pages, though they were so heavily redacted that there was no way to identify, without a bit of sleuthing, just who the informant making the reports were.  However, among those who had met “Killman”, someone had obtained his phone number.

At this point, Neil Wampler’s attorney, Lisa Maxfield and Shawna Cox’s standby attorney, Tiffany Harris, began pursuing an intensive search for the illusive John Killman.  A reverse look-up of the phone number showed the phone registered to Fabio Minoggio.  Once others confirmed that Minoggio’s Facebook picture (above) was Killman, it was a matter of finding him and getting him on the stand, having no idea what his testimony might be.  It was a long shot, but having ferreted out an informant just might be sufficient to persuade the jury that things were not just as the Prosecution had claimed.

What made the effort worthwhile is the fact that the Prosecution had already shown a short video Burns-Pieter_video_2016-01-24–16-31-39.mp4 at least four times, during their presentation to the jury.  That video, though only 29 seconds long, was, in the eyes of the jury, suggestive of the violent intent of the occupiers.  If the video could be considered in the proper light, perhaps that would be a major point of consideration by the jury.

.

According to the date/time stamp on the copy that I have obtained, the video was shot on January 24, 2016, at 4:31 pm, though that may be Central Time.

A subpoena was issued and served.  Minoggio contacted the attorney identified on the subpoena and stated that he didn’t know anything about why they wanted to have him testify.

On Friday, Oct. 14, Maxfield received a voice mail.

“I don’t know who this Mr. Wampler is,” the caller with the foreign accent told her, elongating the name so it sounded like “Woompler.” He also mentioned getting a subpoena “about some kind of Burns thing.”

The caller identified himself as “Samuel” and said he was in Arizona. He couldn’t just leave his life and drive to Portland, he said. “I don’t even know what this is all about,” he added. *

The Defense’s case was to close on the 17th, so a scramble began to arrange to get Minoggio to Portland in time to testify.

* – Maxine Bernstein’s article, “Who was John Killman“, published on November 5, 2016 at oregonlive.com.

Testimony

The Court had provided an attorney on Minoggio’s behalf, and he was advised of his rights.  He chose not to stand on the Fifth Amendment, so he took the stand.  Some portions of that testimony follow.

Tiffany Harris examining:

Q.  Mr. Minoggio, did you go to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on January 23rd, 2016?

A.  Yes, ma’am.

Q.  Were you present at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge each day between January 23rd and January 26th of 2016?

A.  That’s Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday; right.

Q.  Well, it’s three consecutive days?

A.  Yes, ma’am.

Q.  And was January 26th the last day that you were at the refuge?

A.  I left when LaVoy Finicum was killed.

Q.  When you were at the refuge, did you use the name John Killman?

A.  Yes, ma’am.

Q.  Did anyone at the refuge refer to you as Mr. Minoggio or Fabio or anything like that?

A.  Negative.

Q.  Between January 23rd and January 26th did you communicate with the government about events at the refuge

A.  yes, ma’am.

Q.  Were you paid for?

A.  That I don’t want come across as splitting hairs, but paid is not the answer. Reimbursed to do that.

Q.  You were reimbursed to do that?

A.  Expenses to get there.

Q.  Over and above your operating costs, did you receive any other form of compensation?

A.  No. It happened that my truck broke down and I was going into harm’s way, so I had to buy ballistic vests, which increased the — the reimbursement substantially.

Q.  Okay. But so your testimony today is that aside from expenses and costs that you incurred, you did not receive any other form of payment or income or remuneration from the government for your information?

A.  No. It was freely given and — and I wasn’t enticed or anything.

Then, AUSA Barrow, in cross-examination:

Q.  Sir, you testified you were reimburse forward expenses did what were those expenses?

A.  It was gas money for my old truck. I — I broke down with my — mudrock truck. I bought a ballistic vest because I was fully aware of what I’m doing, but it was a substantial risk to get harmed, so I invested into that, but also invested into food to stay there and so on and so on.

So, we really do not know if he received any additional payment, or not.  We do know that he was there and reporting, and, that he had done some training.  However, the Prosecution chose not to revisit that 29 seconds that they had relied so heavily on, earlier.

What is interesting about the testimony is that Judge Brown sustained most of the Defense objection while overruling some objections made by the Prosecution.  Perhaps Judge Brown has finally recognized the deceitful nature of the government’s case.

CHS (1023) Reports

Now, let’s look at what information he did give to the government.  Minoggio’s first report as a Confidential Human Source (CHS) was made on January 23, 2016.  “XXXX” indicates pertinent redactions.

[REDACTED]

So, we can see that he wanted to paint as complete a picture as possible, on all aspects, to the FBI.

His next report was on January 24, 2016.

[REDACTED]

You can see that he has done an excellent job of providing information regarding defenses, anticipated attacks against the occupants, and other information that would give an assaulting force a tactical advantage.

Minoggio filed two more reports on the 24th that contained only the two additional sets of photographs from first day at MNWR.

Then, on January 25, 2016, he reported:

[REDACTED]

His final report was on January 26, 2016.

[REDACTED]

Minoggio’s final report assured the FBI that they would be able to contact those who he believed to be in charge, for the negotiation teams.

The Jury

Finally, we get to the diligence, or perhaps Divine Intervention, that played a role in the
not guilty” verdicts in all but one of the charges against the Defendants then on trial.

Juror #4, the same one that called out another juror for bias, in an exchange of emails, including a statement and then some answers to questions.  This exchange was reported in Maxine Bernstein’s article, “Transcript of Juror 4’s emails“, published November 3, 2016, at oregonlive.com.

Q.  Wondered if there were turning points or particular moments in the trial that stuck out for jurors in helping the jury reach the not guilty pleas.

A.  Turning points? Let me begin by speaking for myself before I attempt to recall those of others. I expected there to be a witness to the January 2nd meeting at Ye Olde Castle before the protest/rally that would confirm the prosecution’s assertion of intent to impede, and the absence of such evidence became a seed of doubt that grew.  I expected that there must be proof of conspiracy between Ammon and Ryan Payne (most logical link, owing to their initial visit to the Hammond’s place in early November) but he wasn’t even called for either side, nor were there any phone calls, emails, etc. that would demonstrate agreement here.  These two major holes in the evidence record proved to cause insurmountable doubt for me.

Others said that, while the evidence record was not adequate, certain moments turned them.  One said they did a full 180-degree turn when they realized there were six informants that went unnamed on the refuge during the occupation, and the choice of the prosecution to allow that much room for mysterious influence there (remember Fabio?) was decisive.  One said that the doctrine of adverse possession seemed to govern every thought, word, and deed of the ‘leadership’ such that it could not be deemed intent to impede federal workers.  Another said that the repeated objections to the reading of the constitution became a wedge issue for them.  Those turning points are the most distinct ones I can remember, and so I’ll leave it there.

So, now we have a picture of a foreigner who, for some unknown reason, decided to catch “a moment in history”.  Is it possible that he was an agent for, and paid by, a foreign government?  That is well within reason, as we have agreements with a number of countries where they can spy on our people, though we cannot; and we can spy on their people, though they cannot.  However, the information can be given freely to the country that has its people spied upon.  Perhaps that would explain that he received only expenses, and probably was not bound to obeying our laws, as the other informers were bound not to violate.  Therefore, I will close with Mr. Minoggio’s final words, “I’ll leave it there.”

November 26, 2016 – update

This is a picture of Minoggio while waiting to testify in the Oregon trial.  Picture courtesy of Defense Attorney Lisa Maxfield