Burns Chronicles #20

Who Owns Your Video? Who Owns Your Voice?

In light of the many complaints filed against the Arnold Law Firm, attorneys for Ammon Bundy, over their method of raising funds to pay for a legal defense against a government back by hundreds of attorneys and millions of dollars, perhaps there is another side to this story that needs to be looked at.

Shawna Cox had the wherewithal to begin recording the events, from the first stop to the murder of LaVoy Finicum. In so doing, she recorded a moment of history that cannot be duplicated.

We all know that if you are in a position to have exclusive footage of an event of such magnitude, there is some value, to some news agencies, for exclusive use of such footage. How often have you seen “Exclusive to XYZ News”, or something similar? Well, it would not be “exclusive” if it were freely put out in the public domain, for the use of all.

I contacted a number of news agencies (in each instance, I agreed not to disclose the name of those willing to aid me in an effort to determine what value that particular footage might have. It was predicated on the footage being exclusive and that its availability would have been shortly after the event, while it was still front-page news.

The results were that some would not have paid, as per their policy, for any such footage, to an estimate of that value being perhaps as much as $300,000.00. Interestingly, the higher numbers came from the established, checkout stand, publications. Those that rely on strange births, flying saucers, and other such attractions, intended to generate spontaneous purchases. But, that does not change the color of the money that such footage might bring to the owner of the intellectual property.

Shawna Cox is currently being represented by a court appointed federal public defender. This is not to suggest that she is not being well represented. On the contrary, her attorney has gotten her released, had the conditions of release modified to give Shawna more freedom to conduct her family business and care for her family. Included in the reduction of constraints, there was also an increase on the restrictions of what she could say and whom she could communicate with. Her attorney, with help from others, managed to get the Court to remove some of those restrictions, primarily because those restrictions made it difficult for her to work in preparing for her own defense. Shawna is the only defendant that has been released under a relaxed set of restrictions, as explain below.

The government chose to steal her property, make it public

Now, suppose she had in her possession that footage, shortly after she was released from jail. Suppose, also, that she chose to take advantage of her foresight in taking the footage by selling exclusive rights to it, which would be her right to do, so as to provide funds to assure a greater defensive effort than what is currently available to her under the meagerly funded federal public defender program. Would she then be able to mount a better defense against the leviathan known as the United States Department of Justice?

However, at this point, that ability to assure a far better funded defense is now moot. The government chose to steal her property, make it public, and totally destroy any value she might have obtained from the sale of her own property. In fact, they still retain both the camera and footage, and as such, well, denied her a degree of justice in a very expensive legal process that had been created by that same leviathan.

Now, if the government wants to argue that it is evidence, then they should have held it for trial. Instead, they put it out, and by so doing, influenced the public by putting their narrative on what it means, leaving that image with the potential jurors. Had it been presented with clear explanation that LaVoy, like many people, wary of law enforcement, would have presented it. If you are concerned for your safety, you have a right to call for another officer to be present before you roll your window down, or exit your car. LaVoy clearly stated that he wanted to go see the Sheriff in Grant County (Glenn Palmer), and that the FBI/OSP are welcome to follow him to where he would feel safe, especially with all of the guns pointed at him and the others, including women, in the car. Instead, they create the narrative, “Shoot me”, as a request, rather than the fact that our rights must be worth something, perhaps even our lives, if we wish to retain them.

I’m sure that the Justice Department is fully supportive of the claims being filed against Arnold Law, since that effort, if successful, will strip Ammon Bundy of the means of increasing his ability to defend both himself and the others named in the Indictment. After all, if you have a weak case, you want to restrict the other party of as much of their ability to counter your accusations as you possibly can.

Another consideration: Those who remain in jail have no restrictions on their ability to speak out, though most often, their attorney will tell them not to. However, those who have been released are coerced, yes, coerced, into giving up their right to speak, as is indicated on their respective release document. The specific wording, on most of the Release Orders, reads:

• Avoid all contact and communication with the following named persons: Co-defendants, any individuals involved with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation or militia members. ‘
• The defendant shall not make or publish any statements encouraging unlawful activity or about his criminal case.

• Do you think that such restriction is placed on the FBI, BLM, or the other players on the government side?

  Do you think that such restriction is placed on the FBI, BLM, or the other players on the government side? Clearly, they are not. For instance, Sheriff David Ward has come out in an interview with his take on the events that occurred in Burns and at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
  Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, in a speech, demonizes all patriots by explaining that the threat exists that other parks or facilities will be taken over. However, she offers no proof of such intentions; she simply demeans the entire conservative patriots in one broad swipe of the brush.
  Probably the worst abuse of truth is demonstrated in an article, based upon Fish and Wildlife Services, alleging the extent of damage caused by the occupation. A review of the claims (pictures) is presented, briefly, at Malheur Damage Explanation
  However, those who are presumed to be innocent are denied, either by limited communication privileges in jail, or restrictive Conditions of Release, from getting a truthful version of the contested facts out to the public.
  And, those who profess their own innocence, the Department of Justice, scheme to deny justice to those in jail.