Info for the Harney County trial from Tony Aiello Jr.:

Share far, and share wide: Here is the public (muted) meeting link for the Harney County Trial which will be live at 9AM on Monday, September 18.
Public Harney Webex Link
Join from meeting link:
https://oregonjudicial.webex.com/wbxmjs/joinservice/sites/oregonjudicial/meeting/download/45ccbee65ba94ac8a8410d98cb4ce3f7?siteurl=oregonjudicial&MTID=m3f3506976a606d97874f2d16a31b1275
https://oregonjudicial.webex.com/oregonjudicial/j.php...
Join by meeting number:
MEETINGS.WEBEX.COM
https://signin.webex.com/join?_13pxZju_ffafeFkyg6xykFWEbV7J7ga0DhykgKK-gyxe1saiKkk
Meeting number (access code): 2484 177 5578
Meeting Password: Harney*23
Join by phone:
1-408-418-9388
Access code: 2484 177 5578 ##


Link to the trial docs:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1re9nvdotCFWJuBbJquzeY_mfy1e6mdp7?

This whole thing is giving me an ulcer

I hear ya.  OFF is still trying to raise money to pay for the State legal fees from the federal trial, and fund the appeal at the same time.

I listened most of the day on day one. Too painful to listen on day two.

I loved it when the state tried to get the expert whiteness expelled because it didn’t think she was an “historian.” Your honor, she has a bachelors and masters in history. She was good enough for the Smithsonian and the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody. She was hired by the University of Wyoming for her expertise in this area. Yet the state contends she doesn’t have a phd so she’s not a historian?” “She is allowed as an expert whiteness.”

This is the same whiteness the federal court threw out because they knew she would destroy them. Because she didn’t have a PhD…..

The higher courts need to start bitch slapping these lower courts when the pull this shit.

On Monday, the state tried to get the testimony of several sheriffs thrown out with regard to their loadout.  They said that since LEOs are exempt, it has no bearing.  Plaintiffs attorney argued that self defense is self defense and it doesn't matter if you're wearing a badge or not.  Tuesday morning, the judge ruled that their testimony was allowed.

Also found out that the new head of OSP seems to be a bit of a jerk.

Another transplant? Several Departments at the Fairview site are all from California.  

At the end of the day, the defense (State of Oregon) is still pulling crap with admissible evidence.   The patience of the judge is wearing thin and he says he will hear some testimony regarding mass shooter events but these are mostly studies of studies.  He will decide later if these will be admissible.  He also says there is really no rush.  My take is that his decision will be quite a ways out.  

The second witness today was an Oregon historian.  During cross, it was revealed that he is a frequent flyer when it comes to snarky comments about gun owners.  Hubris and arrogance seem to run pretty strong within the ranks of the witnesses for the state.  This particular guy has only testified in two trials and this is the second one.  First was the M114 federal trial.  He's pretty chummy with the defense, has been appointed to positions by the governor, and is being paid by the state for his testimony.

Trial is now scheduled to run until sometime Monday if not later.

Thank you.

My gut says this judge is doing his job and not favoring one side or the other. What he is not doing is allowing politics to sway the process. Yes I will hear your evidence. But hearing your evidence and admitting it are two different things. If it is relevant and admissible then ok. If it is irrelevant and inadmissible then no.

The Benitez ruling in CA could very well weigh into his decision as well.

There is hope that justice may prevail.

Trial just concluded.  Judge says the law gives him 60 days to publish a decision but he expects to be done sooner.

Rob Tayler will have Kevin Starrett of OFF on his show in a few minutes: https://kwro.com/

This would have been good for our attorneys to know going into this.

Hopefully this sways the judge our way.

There are now conflicting federal circuit judge opinions.  Immergut says that mag bans and restrictions are constitutional and Benitez says they aren't.  That's a lot of pressure on a state judge.

Quite simply the Supreme Court has ruled that magazines are arms and are in common use therefor they are off limits. The Federal judge that made the ruling that they are constitutional needs to be bitch slapped by the Supreme Court.

Political judges will always make political decisions. That’s a bad combination.

This is what we are up against.

If some of you guys aren't aware

Here's from OFF.

Link to full decision .pdf.