10-19-2016 ECF 1471 USA V SHAWNA COX - Motion and Memo For Order Disqualifying Judge Brown

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 1 of 43
FILED190CT '16 U:45USDCORP

Shawna Cox
1031 South Monument
Kanab, Utah 84741
Phone:435-899-0300
Fax: 435-644-5371
Email: utazpatriots@gmail.com
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF OREGON-PORTLAND DIVISION 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bundy, et al,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

MOTION & MEMORAMDUM TO DISQUALIFY
THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANNE J. BROWN FOR
GOOD CAUSE OUTLINED HEREIN;
VERIFICATION; DECLARATION
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE

Power and law are not synonymous. In truth they are frequently in opposition and
irreconcilable. There is God's Law from which all Equitable laws of man emerge and by
which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced
from God's eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man's
power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when
enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose
governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy
the government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of vena~ 1 1iudges.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 B. C.
1. Venal. 1. Ready to be bought for money or other consideration, and entirely from
sordid motives; ready to be bough over for lucre; mercenary; hiring; sordid; applied to
persons.
1
Note: By statute under Title 18 U.S.C. 3232 the correct court was and is the United States Court for District and
Division is Pendleton. "Proceedings to be in district and division in which offense committed". (United States Code Title
18, 3232)
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANNA J. BROWN FOR GOOD CAUSE
Page 1of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
I.
I.
Filed 10/19/16
Page 2 of 43
Index
Index .............................................................................................................................................. 2
II.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
III.
Argument ................................................................................................................................... 7
Rule 2.1. Promoting confidence in the judiciary .............................................................................. 7

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently ...... 7
IV.
Judge Anna Brown Has Systematically Blocked Our Defense ............................................... 10
V.
"Every Litigant Has Right to Expect an Impartial Judge Who Will Listen and Judge Without
Bias" 11
"The Queen Has Ruled - Off with Their Heads" ........................................................................... 12
Judge Brown Conspires Against Defense in Oregon Standoff Trial.. ............................................ 13
Judge to Ammon Bundy's lawyer: ... "she'll hold him contempt" .............................................. 13
Judge Brown, "the Queen" Rules Belt, Tie and Boots a Security Risk in Her Courtroom ............ 14
The Prosecution Kept Jumping Up and Objecting ......................................................................... 16
Prosecution Shenanigans in Malheur Protest Trial ........................................................................ 17
Judge Brown Leading jurors; Giving Prosecution Everything ... "She is not fair" ...................... 18
Out of nearly four thousand objections raised by the prosecutors about 99% of them were
sustained ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Objection/Sustained-Objection/Sustained by the Prosecution Twenty-one (21) Times during Chris
Briels Testimony alone ................................................................................................................... 20
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JuDGE ANNA J. BROWN FOR GOOD CAUSE
Page 2 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 3 of 43
You might not be in Kansas anymore ... when the Judge forbids you from reading the
Constitution] in the courtroom ....................................................................................................... 20
"She [Anna Brown] is a prosecuting attorney, she is not a Judge" ................................................ 22
Shawna Cox's cousin Sheila Dutton ... turned to judge: 'Object to what?' ................................. 24
Take a seat, the ruling stands. Rising from her seat now, judge yelled, 'MOVE ON!' ................. 24
U.S. District Court of Oregon, Judge Anna Brown, killed my client. With a ferocious mien and
verbal bullets .................................................................................................................................. 24
Federal Judge Anna J. Brown accused of "intimidating a witness; tampering and concealing
evidence" stemming from the murder of Lavoy Fini cum .............................................................. 25
REPORTS CROSS STATE LINES: Regarding the Trial of Ammon & Ryan Bundy in a
California Small Town New Paper report Judge Anna J. Brown is Extremely Biased ................. 26
VI.
Substantial Ties Creating Conflict and I or Potential Conflicts ............................................... 26
VII.
Once Challenged Jurisdiction Must Be Addressed .................................................................. 30
The Honorable Judge Anna J. Brown Refuses Her Duty to Address Jurisdiction ......................... 31
VIII.
Judge Anna J. Brown and Judge Robert E. Jones Tag Team the Ammon & Ryan Bundy . 33
The Honorable Judge Robert E. Jones ........................................................................................... 33

IX.
Federal Court-No Criminal Authority in The Several States Federal Judge and Federal Court
Officers Violates "Separation of Powers Doctrine" in the Several States ......................................... 37

X.
Denial of a Republic Form of Government-Principal We the People Are Governed by Our
Consent ............................................................................................................................................... 41
XI.
Prayer ....................................................................................................................................... 42
XII.
Verification .............................................................................................................................. 43
Page 3 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
XIII.
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 4 of 43
Jurat ...................................................................................................................................... 43
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
.................................................................................... 43
Page 4 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 5 of 43
Power Corrupts
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always
bad men."
-John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834-1902).
"We Promise Justice, but We Deny Access."
"We promise justice, but We Deny Access.
We promise equality, but We Deny Access.
We promise fairness, but We Deny Access.
We don't seek your sympathy. We don't want your pity.
Just remove the barriers, and Let All Have Access."
-Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court R. Fred Lewis
"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the
whole people by its example. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
-Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court- Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
"Nothing can destroy a government more quickly, than its failure to observe its own laws, or
worse, its disregard of the Charter of its own existence."
-Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court-Justice Tom Clark
II.
1)
Introduction
NOTICE: Plaintiff the in error2 "United States of America" has no constitutional authority
to prosecute a criminal action in the several States. Generally speaking, within any State of this Union
the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state
government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of Congress in
United States of America. The nation occupying the territory between British America [Canada] on the north, Mexico on
the south, the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the west; being the republic whose
organic law is the constitution adopted by the people of the thirteen states which declared their independence of the
government of Great Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776. (A LAW DICTIONARY, ADAPTED TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND LA ws OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE Seberal States of the American Union:
with reference to the Civil and other systems of Foreign Law, By John Bouvier, 14th Ed. Revised and Greatly Enlarged.
Vol. II, pg. 622. Col. 1) [seberal and old English font in original]
Page 5 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 6 of 43
respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only
in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
national government. Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)
2)
NOTICE: After good faith search regarding the power of the President of the United States to
prosecute a criminal action under the Constitution; there appears to be no provision in the Constitution
for United States of America m: granted by an act of Congress, giving authority for Presidential or
executive power to prosecute a criminal action in the several states.
3)
The Honorable Judge Anna J. Brown likes to inform all who listen (and even those who do not
care to listen) that she alone can declare the law in this case.
4)
Thus the burden is on her shoulders to declare the law that allows the President and the
Executive branch officers to ignore the Separation of Powers Doctrine and violate the constitutional
restrictions of the federal government under for the Constitution for United State of America,
Amendment X.
5)
Defendant files this motion disqualifying Judge Anna J. Brown for the reasons stated infra,
because she refuses to candidly address the fact that the United States District Court of Oregon from
the first instance has no jurisdiction.
6)
Equally important, Judge Anna J. Brown has made it
**** OBNIXIOUSLY CLEAR**** she
cannot be an impartial arbiter in this case. "It is axiomatic that "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic
requirement of due process." Murchison, supra, at 136, 75 S.Ct. 623. As the Court has recognized,
however, "most matters relating to judicial disqualification [do] not rise to a constitutional level." FTC
v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 702, 68 S.Ct. 793, 92 L.Ed. 1010 (1948).
7)
The early and leading case on the subject is Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71
L.Ed. 749 (1927). There, the Court stated that "matters of kinship, personal bias, state policy,
remoteness of interest, would seem generally to be matters merely oflegislative discretion." Id., at
523, 47 S.Ct. 437.
Page 6 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
8)
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 7 of 43
Herein the Defendant files this motion to disqualify the Honorable Judge Anna Jaeger Brown
for cause under (but not limited to) 28 U.S.C. 144, 455 and various violations of the Judicial
Cannons and common law ruling.
III.
Argument
A judge should recuse hii;nself or herself if the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a); In re Kensington Int'l, 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004);
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Recusal is proper if a court determines that a reasonable person would perceive a
significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. See
Sao Paolo State of Federative Republic of Braz. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229,
232-33 (2002); Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865-67
(1988).
Rule 2.1. Promoting confidence in the judiciary

A) A judge shall observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity, impartiality and
independence of the judiciary and access to justice are preserved and shall act at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system.
(B) A judge shall not commit a criminal act.
(C) A judge shall not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's character,
competence, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
(D) A judge shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
(Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.1) [Adopted effective December 1, 2013.]
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties
prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:
(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and
should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain
order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge
should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge's control, including lawyers to the
extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.
Page 7 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 8 of 43
(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and
that person's lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Except as set out below,
a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other
communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the
presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte
communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify
the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to
respond, if requested. A judge may:
(c) obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law, but only after giving advance
notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice and
affording the parties reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the
advice received; or
(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or
impending in any court.
(B) Administrative Responsibilities.
(5) A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating
the likelihood that a judge's conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable
rules of professional conduct3.
(C) Disqualification.
( 1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in
which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse or
minor child residing in the judge's household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected
substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding; (e) the
judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in
a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding
or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.
3
Judge Brown neglected to take appropriate action regarding witness coaching by the prosecution as
reported by defendant Shawna Cox, in a (NOTICE THAT THE U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE HAS
BEEN CAUGET COACHING WINTEESES AT THE WITNESS STAND." (See dkt. #1305, filed
September 20, 2016)
Page 8 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 9 of 43
(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary financial interests
and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the
judge's spouse and minor children residing in the judge's household.
(3) For the purposes ofthis section:
(c) "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small,
or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except
that:
(i) ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a "financial
interest" in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a
"financial interest" in securities held by the organization;
(d) "proceeding" includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.
(D) Remittal of Disqualification. Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a judge

disqualified by Canon 3C(l) may, except in the circumstances specifically set out in
subsections (a) through (e), disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. The judge may
participate in the proceeding if, after that disclosure, the parties and their lawyers have an
opportunity to confer outside the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the
record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to
participate. The agreement should be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.
COMMENTARY
Canon 3A(3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent
with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and
businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including
the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to
be respectful.includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could
reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.
Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must
demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues
resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to
reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
Canon 3A(6). The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or
impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete. If the public comment
involves a case from the judge's own court, the judge should take particular care so that the
comment does not denigrate public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality,
which would violate Canon 2A. A judge may comment publicly on proceedings in which the
judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but not on mandamus proceedings when the judge is
Page 9 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 10 of 43
a litigant in an official capacity (but the judge may respond in accordance with Fed. R. App.
P. 21(b)).
"The test for disqualification ... asks whether, from the perspective of 'the average person on
the street', a reasonable man knowing all of the circumstances 'would harbor doubts about the
judge's impartiality." Tyler v. Purkett, 413 F.3d 696 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13296, (8th Cir.
2005)
9)
The internet news sites and social media news sites are full of reports reported live from the
trial made by the news reporter and public concerned citizens. Most shed a very un-favorable light
regarding Judge Anna J. Brown demeanor, decorum, bias and prejudice displayed in this trial.
A judge should [have] recuse[d] ... herself ifthe judge's impartiality might reasonably
be questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a); In re Kensington Int'!, 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir.
2004); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 2001);
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865-67 (1988).
10)
A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses,
lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.
11)
Defendant Shawna Cox, declares Judge Anna J. Brown has been anything but "patient,
dignified, respectful, and courteous to" the defendant, and defense "witnesses" and defense attorneys
and in particular to Ammon Bundy's attorney Marcus Mumford.
12)
Defendant Shawna Cox avers Judge Anna J. Brown should be disqualified from any further
proceedings and a mistrial should be declared for the following (but not limited to) reasons outlined
infra.
13)
Judge Anna J. Brown has made very clear even to various members of the press and concerned
public citizens that have attended the sham trial. Many of the members of the press and the public
have posted on the internet and in social media groups like Face Book and Twitter.
14)
As a review of the index shows there are multiple grounds for judicial disqualification in this
matter and each of the grounds is distinctly different, equally important and each stand alone on its
own merits is sufficient to disqualify Judge Anna J. Brown.
IV.
Judge Anna Brown Has Systematically Blocked Our Defense
Page 10 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 11 of 43
There is a reasonable factual basis for calling the judge's impartiality into question. See
United States v. Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1998); Nichols v. Alley, 71
F.3d 347, 351-52 (10th Cir. 1995).
The judge has exhibited actions from which a reasonable inference of partiality may be
drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1F.3d985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993
15)
Defendant Shawna Cox, charges Judge Anna J. Brown actions micromanaging the not only her
witness but co-defendant's witness in such an extreme degree that the net effect has been to deny she
and her co-defendants their due process rights to by denying key witnesses the intended to call.
16)
Of twenty-three witnesses the defense intended to call nineteen were stricken before ever being
called.
17)
Judge Brown backed the Government demand for a proffer of intended testimony even though
the Government did not offer any testimony for one hundred witnesses.
18)
The signed partiality is in no way limited to the limiting of witnesses. On of the early
indications of Judge Browns intention to hamper defendants' defenses goes to the umeasonable
requirement that all defense pre-trial legal motions had to be filed by April 27, 2016.
19)
A second in restricting the defense motions to ten pages, which is particularly burdensome to
the pro se litigants who pleadings are not trained in drafting short briefs.
20)
Defendant also spent considerable time and expense in arranging for an important expert
defense witness only the have her witness and a line of defense stricken without going to the jury.
21)
Admittedly, a Judge has some discretion in controlling the trial, but to prescreen and block
witnesses without allowing the defense to put on witnesses before the Jury to determine the facts is
acting in excess of judicial discretion and a denial of due process.
V.
"Every Litigant Has Right to Expect an Impartial Judge

Who Will Listen and Judge Without Bias"
There is reasonable factual basis for calling the judges impartiality into question. See
United States v. Avilez, 160 F.3d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1998); Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d
347, 351-52 (10th Cir. 1995).
Page 11of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 12 of 43
If the judge does not recuse herself, the public's confidence in the judiciary will be
irreparably harmed. Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 162 (3d Cir.
1993).
22)
Following is a list of a few "reasonable persons" with relevant knowlge ot the facts that clearly
do not believe the defendants have had fair hearings and I or trial.
23)
These are not all the sources reports found on line regarding this trial, but they are clearly
reflective of problems related to Judge Anna J. Browns handing of this case.

24)
The clearly make clear that the public confidence has suffered and continues to suffer as the
proximate cause Judge Anna J. Brown obvious bias (lack of candor) and disrespect of the defendant
Shawna Cox and her co-defendants and their attorneys.
"The Queen Has Ruled - Off with Their Heads"

drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1F.3d985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).
25)
In a recent article dated September 28, 2016, written by Gary Hunt and posted on Outpost-of-
Freedom.com the caption reads: "The Queen Has Ruled - Off with Their Heads". The article
centers on the fact that Judge Brown has not upheld her judicial duty to hold the prosecution
accountable to meet another challenge to the jurisdiction.
This is reflective of what the public alternative media, is reporting regarding this SHAM
TRIAL. Defendant Shawna Cox filed a request for JUDICIAL NOTICE regarding the fact the
Malheur Wildlife Refuge and may actually be owned by the United States, however missing is the
required ceding document (going to jurisdiction the absence of which the Court is in want of
jurisdiction-Dk! #1245) evidencing the ceding the property from the state of Oregon to the United
States (step one) and acceptance of that land by the Congress (step two). (http://outpost-offreedom.com/blog/?p=1693) (See Exhibit 001, a true and correct copy attached and incorporated
herein by reference)
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANNA 1. BROWN FOR GOOD CAUSE
Page 12 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 13 of 43
Judge Brown Conspires Against Defense in Oregon Standoff Trial
drawn. See United States v. Cooley, I F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993
26)
Another Face Book video post reads "CROOKED JUDGE Anna J. Brown" with the
following caption underneath the video "Judge Brown Conspires Against Defense in Oregon
Standoff Trial." (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=ffITMSx05uM) Because there is not written
article a screen capture was made of the video as it appears on line. (See Exhibit 002, a true and
correct copy attached and incorporated herein by reference)
Judge Brown Stacking the Deck Against the Bundy's
drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1F.3d985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993
27)
Another article posted on line a REDOUBT NEWS is captioned "Judge Brown Stacking the
Deck Against the Bundy's". (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/08/22/judge-brown-stacking-deck-
bundys/) (See Exhibit 003, a true and correct copy attached and incorporated herein by reference)
Judge to Ammon Bundy's lawyer: ... "she'll hold him contempt"
drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).
28)
In a story posted on line by Maxine Bernstein - The Oregonian/Oregon Live the article is
captioned "Judge to Ammon Bundy's lawyer: If he continues to defy her orders, she'll hold him
on contempt". Even though a defense attorney has every right (not only right but duty) to
aggressively is client, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown on Thursday threatened to hold Ammon
Bundy's lawyer in contempt of court each time defies her order and tries to delve into the
circumstances surrounding the officer-involved fatal shooting of refuge occupation spokesman Robert
"LaVoy" Finicum during trial.
The judge told Marcus Mumford that she'd fine him $1,000 each time he raises the issue in
from of jurors in the federal conspiracy trial of Bundy and six others stemming from the 41 day take
over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Page 13 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 14 of 43
"I have ruled on this issue and it appears to me you disregard it." Brown told Mumford after
excusing the jury for a morning restroom break.
"Do you understand what I'm saying ... yes or no?" the judge asked Mumford as he was about
to explain. "I don't understand. Your honor says I'm asking improper questions?" Mumford said. The
judge pointed to Mumford's questioning ofrancher Andy Dunbar, whose property is adjacent to the
eastern Oregon refuge, about what he learned on Jan. 26 about the fatal shooting of Fini cum. "You are
not to do that," Brown said. "You're telling me I'm allowed to inquire about the shooting, but not the
circumstances of the shooting?" Mumford asked.
Brown reminded him: "Anything about Finicum's shooting death, beyond that it occurred and
the date, isn't allowed to be discussed in front o_fjurors". "I can understand the words," Mumford told
her. "I hope you can comply," the judge said.
(http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/09/judge threatens ammon bundy if.html) (See
Exhibit 004, a true and correct copy attached and incorporated herein by reference)
Judge Brown, "the Queen" Rules Belt, Tie and Boots a Security Risk in Her Courtroom
drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993
29)
In a story posted in line by Maxine Bernstein- OregonLive on September 07, 2016 wrote in a
story title: "Federal judge finds Bundy brothers' trial attire appropriate."
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown stepped down from her bench to inspect the clothing and
footwear that Brothers Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy wore to court Wednesday for the start of jury
selection in their federal conspiracy trial.
[She is quoted saying:] "Ammon Bundy is wearing a very nice sports coat," the judge noted.
He was dressed in a gray suite, with an open-collar white shirt. Ammon Bundy's attorney pointed out
his client's "urban loafers" with white tennis socks. "It's comical," his lawyer Marcus Mumford said.
"I don't find it comical at all," Brown responded.
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANNA 1. BROWN FOR GOOD CAUSE
Page 14 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 15 of 43
Oreg
high I
Ammon's older brother Ryan Bundy stood before the judge, dressed in blue jeans, a brown
leather vest over a white dress shirt, and wearing black loafers on his feet. "I'm accustomed to boots
and a belt," Ryan Bundy plainly told Brown.
Heat
light
fede1
Wed
Amrr
Mumford and co-counsel J. Morgan Philpot argued that their client and his brother should be
Bun~
Harn
able to wear what they want at trial. Philpot said the court should consider their "presumption of
innocence," though he could not cite a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling or other court case that
Oreg
highl
said a criminal defendant is entitled to wear whatever they want at trial.

The U.S. Marshals Service does not allow defendants who are in custody to wear boots,
neckties or belts because they can be used as weapons against deputy marshals or the defendants
themselves, a deputy marshal told the court.
Amrr
resis1
oreg
AUS
Judge Brown, eager to get jury selection underway, ruled from the bench that there was no
evidence provided that the Bundys' trial wardrobe would in any way suggest to jurors that they were
being held in jail. "There has not been any showing these men are any different from any other
defendant," the judge ruled.

She added of Ammon Bundy, "he's dressed better than most people in the building, period."
"Let's get going folks." Brown said. "You're wasting time."

Defense attorney Tiffany Harris, standby counsel for co-defendant Shawna Cox, chimed in and
stood in support of the Bundys. "The public saw them appearing emblematic of a certain rural
culture," Harris argued. Seeing the Bundy's now in more staid suites suggest to jurors that they're
somehow disavowing what was important to them and could by prejudicial.
Judge Brown held to her ruling. In her 25 years on the bench, she said, the vast majority of
defendants who appeared before her were "not nearly was well dressed as these men."
*********
Page 15 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 16 of 43
Ignoring the Judicial Cannon 3(d) requiring patience "A judge should be patient, dignified,
respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers ... "and ignoring the Maxim regarding
rushing one to justice.
Festinatio justitiae est noverca infortunii. The hurrying of justice is the stepmother of
misfortune. Hob. 97
How ironic this Judge is reported to actually teach a judicial ethic's class! It is clear Judge
Brown is without the ability to have EMP AHTY this for these men.
The key point is not how "Queen Brown" feels, about a defendant's attire, but how the
defendants themselves feel and as Shawna Cox's standby counsel Tiffany Harris pointed out; how the
defendants feel and how the jury perceived them.
Can a man get a fair trial presided over by a judge that will not reasonably allow a MAN
TO APPEAR IN HIS CHOISE OF SUIT, TIE, BELT AND BOOTS WITHOUT THE "Queens"
approval?
These men are not violent men that committed heinous crimes, they are Honorable Men
respectable men, thus their restrictions are not reasonable on any standard; and are an unreasonable
restraint of Liberty clearly intended to intimidate and harass and humiliate the defendants that have not
viOlent criminal history or record.
(http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/federal judge finds bundy brot.html) (See
The Prosecution Kept Jumping Up and Objecting.
To obtain disqualification of a federal judge on the grounds of an alleged appearance of
bias, the standard is a purely objective one. [See, e.g., U.S. v. Cooley, 1 F. 3d 985, 993
(10th Cir. 1993)]; ''that is, a charge of partiality must be based on facts that would create
a reasonable doubt concerning the judge's impartiality not in the mind of the judge
himself, [See Traficant v. C.I.R.., 884 F.2d 258, 267 (6th Cir. 1989)] or in the mind of
the litigant or his counsel [U.S. v. Martorano, 620 F.2d 912 (1st Cir. 1989)] - or even in
that of a member of a jury [Cool Light Co. v. GTE Prods. Corp., 832 F. Supp. 449, 458
(D. Mass. 1993) - but in the mind of a reasonable, [See, E.G. U.S. v. Cherry, 330 F.3d
658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003)] uninvolved observer. U.S. v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 576 (3d Cir.,
Page 16 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 17 of 43
1995) ("in determining whether a judge had the duty to disqualify ... or focus must be
in the reaction of the reasonable observer").
30)
It has been reported by many that Judge Brown allowed the prosecution to block defense
witnesses and defendant's attorney's by objecting each time they spoke. In a Face Book post an
observer of the trial wrote:
"This fit with the rest of the day and how many objections the prosecution could jump
up and make. She sustained nearly all of them. However, she was so wrapped up in
helping the prosecution that at one point she even sustained and objection that was not
made."
The Face Book posted wished to remain anonymous so a redacted screen capture of the page is
provided. (See Exhibit 006, a true and correct redacted copy attached and incorporated herein by
reference)
Prosecution Shenanigans in Malheur Protest Trial

F.3d 347, 351-52 (10th Cir. 1995).
31)
In a story posted in REDOUBT NEWS the caption, reads "Prosecution Shenanigans in
Malheur Protest Trial" dated September 19, 2016. Even though Ryan Bundy and other defendants
have repeatedly asked for disclosure of informants and witnesses the government intended to call, and
Judge Brown is well aware the prosecution informed her they did not intent to call any informant, they
appear and she proves her bias by allowing them in. The story in part reads:
The prosecution them moved on to a witness they hoped would seal Ryan Bundy's fate
on the theft of cameras. Nicolas Bleuler is a 23-year-old with 3 violent felonies to
date. He was on probation last January when he decided to go to the refuge and show
his support. He testified that he cleared each visit with his probation officer, and it was
ok with him.
The defense asked Bleuler if he and cut a deal with the prosecution for his testimony,
and the witness said no. When asked ifhe could still get charged with this crime he
claimed it was "still up in the air." So whether the prosecution made deal with this
young man and did not report it to the court as they would be required to do, or they
totally ignored the Constitution in Federal Court.
The way Judge Brown has run this trial, I would have to guess that she does not lose
any sleep over her abuse of the same document she swore an Oath to uphold.
Page 17 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 18 of 43
[Bolding and underling added] (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/19/prosecutionshenanigans-malheur-trialD (See Exhibit 007, a true and correct copy attached and
incorporated herein by reference)T
Judge Brown Leading jurors; Giving Prosecution Everything .. "She is not fair"
drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993)
32)
Lisa Bundy speaking briefly with reporters on the sidewalk outside the Federal Courthouse in
downtown Portland where her husband, Ammon, is on trial; as reported on KGW & Associated Press,
KTVB October 4, 2016.
"I feel like judge is very biased," she said of U.S. District Judge Anna Brown. "I feel
she's leading the jurors. I think she's giving the prosecution everything and not
allowing anything on the defendants. She is not fair."
[Bolding and underling added]
(http://www.ktvb.com/news/crime/ammon-bund ys-wife-the-j udge-is-verybiased/328955660) (See Exhibit 008, a true and correct copy attached and incorporated
herein by reference)
Out of nearly four thousand objections raised by the prosecutors about 99% of them were
sustained
To obtain disqualification of a federal judge on the grounds of an alleged appearance of
bias, the standard is a purely objective one. [See, e.g., U.S. v. Cooley, 1 F. 3d 985, 993
(10th Cir. 1993)]; "that is, a charge of partiality must be based on facts that would
create a reasonable doubt concerning the judge's impartiality not in the mind of the
judge himself, [See Traficant v. C.I.R.., 884 F.2d 258, 267 (6th Cir. 1989)] or in the
mind of the litigant or his counsel [U.S. v. Martorano, 620 F.2d 912 (1st Cir. 1989)] - or
even in that of a member of ajury [Cool Light Co. v. GTE Prods. Corp., 832 F. Supp.
449, 458 (D. Mass. 1993) - but in the mind of a reasonable, [See, E.G. U.S. v. Cherry,
330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003)] uninvolved observer. U.S. v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568,
576 (3d Cir., 1995) ("in determining whether a judge had the duty to disqualify ... or
focus must be in the reaction of the reasonable observer")
33)
Mr. Scott Rohter on his blog "Less Gov. is the Best Gov." captions hos report "The Trial of
the Century - The Occupation Trial of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge" points out the
Governments interference with the defense witness through a continual onslaught of objections. Mr.
Rohter writes in part:
Page 18 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 19 of 43
Why is it The Trial of the Century?

"To watch someone brave adversity is to know someone worthy of respect."-Seneca (Roman philosopher)
Worthy of Respect
"This may be the most intensively managed trail that America has ever seen. It is
certainly the most intensively' manages trial I have ever seen.
"In order to eliminate a lot of what Judge Anna Brown likes to call cumulative
evidence, but what many observers, including myself consider to be corroborating
evidence, she has sustained almost four thousand objections raised by federal
prosecutors who want to keep as much exculpatory evidence as possible out of this trial.
"Every time defense attorneys open their mouth to speak, another government
prosecutor is back up on his feet again raising another objection. Perhaps he should
just keep standing up. Much of the time is spent stating and restating the following
words:
"Objection... cumulative... sustained. The objection is sustained Mr. Mumford,
now move on please". This goes on over and over again till you just want to scream.
"The judge ruled that no one could discuss the Constitution in her court because
only a lawyer is qualified to properly understand and explain it and since she
wasn't about to do it therefore it wasn't going to be done... To be sure she wasn't'
going to allow the defei;idant Ammon Bundy to do it period, after all he isn't a lawyer...
end of story.
The prosecutors objected to the Constitution being read in court, and the Bible
being quoted, and the Book of Mormon entered into evidence. God was ruled
inadmissible at some point during the day which he created, but someone did find a way
to bring the devil into the discussion. That was one hell of a day ... and there is one
more thing that is Verboten[4] in court... No one can ever talk about the murder.. .
(excuse me, I mean the death) of Lavoy Finicum. That is absolutely forbidden .. .
along with any discussion of how 700 million acres of land in twelve western states has
become occupied by the Federal Government and controlled by Congress through two
federal agencies ... the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest
Service.
This trial is so restricted as to what the defense is and is not allowed to talk about
that it is getting quite ridiculous already.
Out of nearly four thousand objections raised by the prosecutors about 99% of
them were sustained.
Verboten. adj. forbidden, as by law; prohibited. (Random House Webster's Dictionary,
WordGenious 4.1)
Page 19 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 20 of 43
(http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/the-trial-of-the-century-the-occupation-trial-of-themalheur-national-wildlife-refuge.htm) (See Exhibit 009, a true and correct copy attached and
incorporated herein by reference)
Objection/Sustained-Objection/Sustained by the Prosecution Twenty-one (21) Times during
Chris Briels Testimony alone
F.3d 347, 351-52 (10th Cir. 1995).
34)
When the defense called Mr. Chris Briels as a witness on October 3rd, 2016 the Government did
not want the Jury to hear what he had to say.

Why? Because as the Fire Chief of Bums Oregon had credibility! Mr. Briels quit his job in
protest how the government was handling the peaceful protest.
It was well known the Mr. Briels found Government agents acting as civilian protestors near
the National Guard Armory. When he took the witness stand the Government did not want the jury to
hear what he had to say. The "Objection/Sustained" was posted twenty-one time during Mr. Briels
testimony by a public witness Kelli Stewart reported on Face Book from the trial. She later reported
that it was not an exact count, but reflective of what was happening in Mr. Briel's testimony. (See
You might not be in Kansas anymore ... when the Judge forbids you from reading the
Constitution] in the courtroom.
Recusal is proper if a court determines that a reasonable person would perceive a

significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. See
Sao Paolo State of Federative Republic of Braz. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229,
232-33 (2002); Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865-67
(1988).
35)
In a caption posted by Kelli Stewart on Face Book as she posts her latest video update on the
USA v. Bundy trial in Portland Oregon reads:

"When a judge refuses to enter the US Constitution as evidence when the defense
requests it to be entered ... and demands it NOT be read in her court room while
still on the record. You might not be in Kansas anymore."
Page 20 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 21 of 43
(https ://www.facebook. com/ 100011813 922844/videos/vb. l 00011813922844/191683014 568 82 8/?

type=2&theater) (See Exhibit 011, a true and correct copy attached and incorporated herein by
reference)
The Constitution is the founding document that all laws within the United States of America have
to conform or they are as a matter oflaw, null and void ab initio. The mere reading of the constitution
by a defendant do not any in any way mean he is voicing a legal opinion. It merely goes to the state of
the mind of the defendant. It would show the foundation ifthe defendants believe (right or wrong) and
certainly a proper thing to be offered in defense. It is blatant judicial error not to allow a defendant to
put on a defense of his own choice without judicial interference.
Regarding the Constitution and judicial authority the Supreme Court in pertinent part had this to
say in Mar"!Jury v. Madison:
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes,
directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change
that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must
the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers
of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts,
as well as of the legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly
applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to
impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments,
for violating what they swear to support?
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the
legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words, "I do solemnly swear that I will
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich;
and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as
according to the best of my abilities and understanding. agreeably to the constitution, and
laws of the United States." [Underling and Italics added]
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the
United States, ifthat constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him,
and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to
take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
Page 21of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 22 of 43
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law
of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States
generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that
rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and
strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law
repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are
bound by that instrument.
(Marbury v. Madison,1 Cranch 137 at 179 (1803), 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60)
"She [Anna Brown] is a prosecuting attorney, she is not a Judge"

If the judge does not recuse {himself/herself}, the public's confidence in the judiciary
will be irreparably harmed. Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 162
(3d Cir. 1993).
36)
In Kelli Stewart Face Book post of her video, she passionately states Judge Anna Brown is
merely an extension of the prosecution. The comment section next to her video provides a good clue
about the content of her video which states: "When a judge refuses to enter the US Constitution as
evidence when the defense requests it to be entered ... and demands it NOT be read in her court room
while still on the record. You might not be in Kansas anymore."
Several comments she makes in this video report of the day's proceedings make it clear and
obvious Judge Anna J. Brown bias, and her clear and blatant policy of prosecuting from the bench.
She has allowed the prosecution to proceed unfettered in blocking defense witness statements.
In excerpts taken from her video, report October 06, 2016 of defendant Ammon Bundy while
on the witness stand:
KELLI STEWART VIDEO: At one point, Ryan cross-examined Ammon, and he said
to him, um,
RYAN BUNDY: "Mr. Bundy, how long has the land disputes been going on?" Ammon
responded,
AMMON BUNDY "Well, my grandfather... "
KELLI STEWART VIDEO: Anna Brown interrupted him and said,
JUDGE BROWN: "Mr. Bundy, just state a time frame without a narrative."
[LAUGHS] And he paused for a minute and he says,
Page 22 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 23 of 43
AMMON BUNDY: "OK, um, well, since the Sagebrush. .. "

JUDGE BROWN: "Mr. Bundy, answer the question! How long has this been going
on?"
KELLI STEWART VIDEO: "Well, he was trying to answer how long it had been going
on if you would shut up and let him speak. He's on the witness stand and you're not a
prosecuting attorney, so stop silencing him like you are. That's what I was thinking
today every time she interrupted him."
KELLI STEWART: "Two different times she sustained objections that did not come in.
She literally said,
JUDGE BROWN: "Mr. Bundy, this ... this objection is sustained," and nobody sustained
[objected to] it. She told him to be quiet, and stop talking, and when he continued,
she said,
JUDGE BROWN: "Mr. Bundy, the objection is sustained," and there was ... there was
no objection!
KELLI STEWART VIDEO: "Ammon tried to read two times from the Constitution,
and he was told to put his Constitution away. He would not be reading it. Um, the
defense asked him a question about his state of mind, and said, uh,
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "What part in the Constitution. .. ?" He said,
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "What was your state of mind. .. ?"
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Why did you believe you had the right to petition your
government for a redress of grievance?" And he said,
AMMON BUNDY: "Well. it's in the Constitution." And he said,
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Can you read that to me?" And Ammon pulled out his
Constitution to read it, and she said,
JUDGE BROWN: "/ (orhid you from reading that in this courtroom," and made him
put his Constitution away. Another time, uh,
DAVID FRYS ATTORNEY: asked him ifhe would open his Constitution, and look at
a statement in there, and Ammon opened it and looked at, and, um, he said,
DAVID FRY'S ATTORNEY: "Can you read to me ... ?" And, then, she interrupted, and
said,
JUDGE BROWN: "We are not doing this here. He is not reading from the Constitution
in this courtroom!"
Page 23 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 24 of 43
KELLI STEWART VIDEO: So, I've been saying this since the day I met her back in
February. She [Anna Brown] is a prosecuting attorney she is not a judge!
(https://www.facebook.com/l 00011813922844/videos/vb. l 00011813922844/19168301
4568828/?type=2&theater) (See Exhibit 012, a true and correct screen capture attached
and incorporated herein by reference)
Shawna Cox's cousin Sheila Dutton ... turned to judge: 'Object to what?'
A reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the
judge's impartiality. Alexander, 10 F.3d at 164; Cooley, 1 F.3d at 993.
37)
Maxine Bernstein a reporter for the Oregonian on October 5, 2016 tweeted:

As Shawna Cox's older cousin Sheila Dutton was about to describe something & a
prosecutor objected, Dutton turned to judge: 'Object to what?'
(https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/785916766362808320) (See Exhibit 013, a

true and correct screen capture attached and incorporated herein by reference)
Take a seat, the ruling stands. Rising from her seat now, judge yelled, 'MOVE ON!'
(C) A judge shall not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's character,
competence, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
(D) A judge shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
(Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.1) [Adopted effective December 1, 2013.]
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants,

jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.
A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge's control, including
lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process. (Judicial
Cannon 3(A) [Bolding and underling added]
38)
Maxine Bernstein a reporter for the Oregonian on October 5, 2016 tweeted:
Judge Brown to Mumford: 'Take a seat, the ruling stands. Counsel, move on .. '
Rising from her seat now, judge yelled, 'MOVE ON!'. [Bolding and underling
added]
(https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/783817145406722048) (See Exhibit 014, a true and
correct screen capture attached and incorporated herein by reference)
U.S. District Court of Oregon, Judge Anna Brown, killed my client. With a ferocious mien and
verbal bullets.
A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A
judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge's control, including
Page 24 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 25 of 43
lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process. (Judicial
Cannon 3(A) [Bolding and underling added]
39)
It appears this is not the first time Judge Brown lack of judicial decorum and trial demeanor has
been called into question. Attorney Lauren Paulson has a story posted on line regarding Judge Anna
Brown and is likely the harshest word that could ever be made regarding a judge. In the BULLETINS
FROM ALOHA posted July 14, 2013 he states on pertinent part:
"U.S. District Court of Oregon, Judge Anna Brown, killed my client. With a
ferocious mien [5J and verbal bullets." Jessie was proud of her job as a short-order
grill cool. I think she got a certain amount of pleasure in handing up her fare to the
students; kinds-like taking care of them. Jessie had a supportive boyfriend living with
her in a suburban motel turned into apartments. Jessie's family lived in Oklahoma.
Jessie disappeared the next day. Never to be heard from again. Her boyfriend had no
clue where or why she left. Her relatives in Oklahoma heard nothing. She had no
employer to notify. Gone.
No one, but Jessie knows what it was like having to work adjacent to such male
dominated lasciviousness. No one, but Jessie knows what it is like to appear before
a non-empathetic Judge. Except all those what know, who have been there; before
Judge Dread ..... .
Lifetime Judge Anna Brown killed Jessie and not one cares. This is happening
everyday in a courthouse near you. Our leaders don't care.
(http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2013/7/14/judge-anna-brown.html) (See
Federal Judge Anna J. Brown accused of "intimidating a witness; tampering and concealing
evidence" stemming from the murder of Lavoy Finicum
40)
In an article quoted herein in part was posted on Corrupt Washington" dot com the report states
James O'Hagan was subponened by defendant Shawna Cox to give his "eye witness account" of the
events occurring at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Bums Oregon. Mr. O'Hagan says he was
prohibited from offering his "eye witness account" by Judge Anna Brown and has filed a "Friend of
Court Brief' stating the following. (http://corruptwash.com/2016/10/13/federal-judge-anne-brown-
Mien. n. air, bearing, or demeanor, as showing character, feeling, etc.: a person of noble mien.
(Random House, Webster's College Dictionary, Word Genius 4.1)
Page 25 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 26 of 43
accused-of-intimidating-a-witness-tampering-and-concealing-evidence-stemming-from-the-murder-oflavoy-finicum/) (See Exhibit 016, a true and correct copy attached and incorporated herein by
reference)
REPORTS CROSS STATE LINES: Regarding the Trial of Ammon & Ryan Bundy in a
California Small Town New Paper report Judge Anna J. Brown is Extremely Biased
If the judge does not recuse himself/herself, the public's confidence in the judiciary will
be irreparably harmed. Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 162 (3d
Cir. 1993).
41)
In the California Siskiyou Dailey News on October 18, 2016, Valley View Liz Bowen writes
under column "Get ready for the Etna Veteran's Parade", subheading: Bundy Trial:
"The trial of Ammon and Ryan Bundy and others, who occupied the Malheur National
Refuge in January of this year, has revealed significant information. Reports show that
federal Judge Anna Brown is extremely biased against the occupiers. Well, that's not
surprising. And two of 15 government confidential informants have been exposed.
Yep, there's a low of underhandedness going on by the feds. Do a "Bundy" search on
Google or http://pienpolitics.com/ for more."
(See Exhibit 017, a true and correct screen capture attached and incorporated herein by
reference)
VI.
Substantial Ties Creating Conflict and I or Potential Conflicts
A judge should recuse himself or herself if the judge's impartiality might

reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a); In re Kensington Int'l, 368 F.3d 289,
301 (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114-15 (D.C. Cir.
2001 ). Recusal is proper if a court determines that a reasonable person would
perceive a significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than
the merits. See Sao Paolo State of Federative Republic of Braz. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
535 U.S. 229, 232-33 (2002); Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.
84 7, 865-67 ( 1988). [Bolding and underling added]
42)
" ... Judge Brown left private practice when Governor Barbara Roberts, appointed her first to
the Multnomah County District Court and them to the Multnomah County Circuit Court, While Judge
Brown was trying Oregon's first tobacco liability jury trial in 1998, former President Bill Clinton
appointed her to the United States District Court, for the District of Oregon." (See EXHIBIT
Page 26 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 27 of 43
#018, "Meet U.S. District Court Judge Anne J. Brown, Oregon Women Lawyers" (Summer 2010),
page 5, col 2.)" [Bolding and underlining added]

43)
"For instance we have learned in 1992, Judge Brown left private practice when Governor
Barbara Roberts, appointed her first to the Multnomah County District Court and them to the
Multnomah County Circuit Court, While Judge Brown was trying Oregon's first tobacco liability jury
trial in 1998, former President Bill Clinton appointed her to the United States District Court, for
the District of Oregon." (See EXHIBIT 18, "Meet US. District Court Judge Anne Jaeger Brown,
Oregon Women Lawyers" (Summer 2010),page 5, col 2.)

44)
Defendant files this motion disqualifying Judge Anna J. Brown for among other points listed
herein for failure to disclose substantial conflicts of interested including clear un-adulterated violation
of the "Separation of Powers Doctrine" and failure to disclose multiple organization ties which
required to recuse herself or the very least disclose to the prosecution and the defendants her ties that
create a conflict or could reasonably be considered a conflict.
45)
Serious FAILURES TO DISCLOSURE by Judges Aiken, Brown & Beckman Regarding
Involvement in the Oregon Women Lawyers ("OWLS")

46)
Judge Ann Aiken was the Judge that sentenced the Dwight and Steven Hammond to serve out
the full five-year sentence.

a. Judge Ann Aiken was appointed by President Bill Clinton, the same Bill Clinton the Bill
with Clinton Foundation that is linked to the selling uranium rights to the Hammond Ranch.
(See Exhibit #019, a true and correct copy of story as posted on line)
b. Judge Ann Aiken is the Judge that made the ruling that the Protestors (many now
defendants) protested against regarding the resentencing of the Hammonds.

"EUGENE, Ore. - Dwight LFcoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight
Hammond, 48, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Flamey County, were
sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons
they committed on federal lands." (https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastemoregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison) (See Exhibit #020,
a true and correct copy of story as posted on line)
Page 27 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 28 of 43
c. Judge Ann Aiken is reported to be the Judge that presided over the Grand Jury that Indicted
of the Protestors. (This is stated on information and belief and has not been confirmed as
Judge Anna J Brown has blocked all efforts to obtain information regarding the Grand Jury
proceedings.)
d. Judge Ann Aiken was also the first Judge assigned to U.S.A. v. Ammon Bundy et. al.
(See 3:16-ms-0004, Dkt. 80)
e. Judge Ann Aiken's sons are reported to be members of the "Friends of The Malheur"
and are reported to have raised $78,000.00 for opposition to the Protestors. (See
Exhibit #021, a true and correct copy of membership search results)
f.
Judge Ann Aiken also had a complaint file against her for failure to disclose her
membership in the U.S. District Court Historical Society in a legal proceeding with a
potential for conflict.
"Judicial Misconduct Complaint v. US. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken
This Complaint concerns multiple matters and cases including No. 6: l 3-cv-175AA. Please take judicial notice of the US. District Court case cited and US.
Ninth Circuit Case No.# 13-71718 along with the complete record in both cases
including dockets and filings. Therefore, Judge Ann Aiken serves on two
boards, one with Hon Thomas Balmer, a defendant here--The U.S. District
Court Historical Society and one with a member of the Cosgrave law firm -representing the other Defendants here -- the Oregon Federal Bar Association
and did not disclose either affiliation in this case.
(http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2013/7/27/oregon-judge-annaiken.html) (See Exhibit #022, a true and correct copy of membership search
results)
g. Judge Ann Aiken is also a member of the OWLS, and no disclosures appear to have
ever been filed disclosing the potential conflict. (See Exhibit #023, a true and correct
copy of membership search results)
h. None of the above mentioned club memberships or ties to the "Friends of the Malheur"
appear to have ever been disclosed in the U.S.A. v. Ammon Bundy et. al.
4 7)
The defendants first appearance and the first detention hearing was held before Magistrate
Judge Stacie F. Beckman. (See 3:16-ms-0004, Minutes of Proceeding, Dkt. 15)

Page 28 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 29 of 43
a. Magistrate Stacie F. Beckman is a member of the OWLS. (See Exhibit #024, a true
and correct copy of membership search results)
48)
Judge Anna J. Brown is the Judge that was assigned after Judge Ann Aiken in the instant
action. (See 3: 16-ms-0004, Dkt. 91)

a. Judge Anna J. Brown as also appointed by President Bill Clinton.
b. The Clinton foundation has been linked to the sale of uranium mining rights on the
Hammond land.
c. Judge Anna J. Brown is also a member of the OWLS.
d. As with Judges Aiken and Beckman mentioned above Judge Anna J. Brown has failed
to disclosed her ties to the U.S. District Court Historical Society and the OWLS.
49)
The defendants protested the abuse of the Hammonds and it has been a matter of public
knowledge that the Clintons through the Clinton Foundation sold uranium-mining rights connected
with the Hammonds land. (See Exhibit #025, a true and correct copy of one of several reports on the
Internet)
50)
The Oregon Women Lawyers organization is described by Conetta Schwesinger, OWLS 2010
President, in the "Advance Sheet", Published Quarterly by Oregon Woman Lawyers, Vol. 21, No. 3,
Summer 2010 at pg. 2:
"It's hard to believe, but over 20 years ago I started my career as a county deputy district
attorney, later growing in private firm positions, and assuming my current role in 2003.
During the same time period, OWLS was incorporated by a dynamic group of leaders,
grew, and has continued to transform itself to meet the needs of our current 1,430
members. OWLS is now the second-largest no mandatory bar association in Oregon."
51)
Clearly the OWLS organization is a locally select few members of women with a lot of
influence in the legal world and a key organization with the judicial system and the fact that not just
one but three judges directly involved with the trial are involved and came within the statutes and rules
requiring disclosure!
Page 29 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
52)
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 30 of 43
Defendant avers that these ties should at the very least been made under full disclosure thereby
allowing the defendants the opportunity to decide whether to proceed to trial under Anna J. Brown or
seek another impartial judge without the potential conflicts.
VII.
Once Challenged Jurisdiction Must Be Addressed
"Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are
not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment."
Trinsey, 229 F. Supp. at 649. "Mere allegations or conclusory statements of facts
unsupported by evidence do not sufficiently establish such a genuine issue." Baldwin v.
Sisters of Providence in Wash., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 127, 132, 769 P.2d 298 (1989).
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears
that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather,
should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "There is no discretion to ignore
that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. "The burden shifts to the court to
prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. "Court must prove on the
record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102
F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150.
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without
jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or
property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have
jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re
Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject
matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense
of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in
any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to
decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los
Angeles, 171P2d8; 331 US 549, 91L.ed.1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law,
however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the
effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v.
Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of

law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. "The
fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an
arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first
instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221
F Supp 685.
Page 30 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 31 of 43
The Honorable Judge Anna J. Brown Refuses Her Duty to Address Jurisdiction.
18 U.S.C. Section 1. "Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have
jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason." U.S. v. Will,
449 U.S. 200, 216, 101S.Ct.471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19
U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) [Bolding and underling added]
53)
Judge Brown has thwarted every effort to get the United States to address the lack of
jurisdiction in this case.

54)
To-date, there has been multiple challenges to jurisdiction and Judge Brown neglected her duty
and has avoided or sidestepped each one. Everything has been denied for one reason or another
without any substantive response from the Government.
55)
Defendant Shawna Cox filed a Motion to dismiss for incorrect venue and jurisdiction and the
Government responded with a two paragraph response citing Title 18 U.S.C 3231. However, the
response was merely a sham answer for multiple reasons. First, the one section the government
responds with cannot standalone settle the question of jurisdiction. Section 3231 provides:
The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts
of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the
several States under the laws thereof. (Title 18 U.S.C. 3231)
56)
Clearly, this code section speaks of two different courts; !l the courts of the State and} the
courts of the several states.

More important is that Judge Anna J. Brown has in the fact of venue andjurisidtion let the
Government respond with bad-faith sham response and then determined let the government had
jurisdiction.
The pleadings and Judge Browns order speak clearly on their own, making clear, the argument
that Judge Brown has failed her duty to hold the government accountable to declaring the facts and law
providing the court with jurisdiction.
See defendant Shawna Cox "DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
Page 31of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 32 of 43
TO QUASH VENIRE DRAWN FROM WRONG, DISTRICT-DIVISION and I or VICINAGE AND

VENUE" Dkt. #1196 filed September 06, 2016 attached herein as Exhibit #026; See also the
Government Sham Response filed September 07, 2016, Dkt #1223, p5, paragraph VI, Exhibit #027;
and the Court ORDER Dkt. #1273 Exhibit #028.
Note defendants motion was it this was a
57)
The Governments entire sham response to defendant's good faith: 1) challenge to jurisdiction
and 2) challenge the jury venire is verbatim copied herein:

Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 1196
Cox correctly notes that a motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction may be raised
at any time. Her Motion fails to identify any viable defects in this Indictment that would
justify dismissal. As she acknowledges, the government has already pointed out that this
Court's jurisdiction over these federal criminal charges is found in 18 U.S.C. 3231.
Rejecting the plain language of that statute, Cox instead generally attacks the FBI agent
who prepared the original criminal Complaint, she complains that the Indictment is
insufficient because it fails to define "United States" or clarify whether Cox is a "citizen
of the United States." She also reargues that venue is improper, the Grand Jury was
Court's jurisdiction over this criminal case. Thus, although this Motion cannot be
denied as untimely, it should be denied because it lacks merit.
Dated this 7th day of September 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
BILLY J. WILLIAMS United States Attorney
s/ Geoffrey A. Barrow ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB
#992984
GEOFFREY A. BARROW
CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571
Assistant United States Attorneys
58)
As one can see the response was a meaningless sham response to the substantive point and
authorities raised in defendant's motion.

Judge Anna J. Brown Order cited (regarding Dkt #1196) in full herein:
II.
Motion (#1196) to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
"In her Motion (# 1196) to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Cox raises
several arguments that the Court has already addressed and rejected on multiple
occasions concerning venue and the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over these
criminal proceedings."
Page 32 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 33 of 43
"Cox's Motion also contains considerable material that does not raise any legally
cognizable issue for this Court to address. Finally, although Cox contends she was
never arraigned on the Superseding Indictment, this judicial officer personally presided
over Cox's arraignment on the Superseding Indictment at the Status Conference held on
March 9, 2016."
59)
Defendant has looked back in the record and found where the second arraignment did in fact
take place so the Judges regarding the "Superseding Indictment" was correct; defendant was present at
what was referred to as an arraignment.
60)
The problem is the sham response by the Government and the fact that Judge Anna J. Brown
had no facts and law upon which to base her sham ORDER.
VIII.
Judge Anna J. Brown and Judge Robert E. Jones

Tag Team the Ammon & Ryan Bundy
drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).
The Honorable Judge Robert E. Jones

F.3d 347, 351-52 (10th Cir. 1995).
The partiality stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings
made in the course of the proceedings. Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.,
360 F.3d 155, 167 (3d Cir. 2004). [Bolding and underling added]
61)
It appears in the record that there has been extrajudicial communication regarding defendants
Ammon and Ryan Bundy between the Honorable Judge Anna Jaeger Brown (trial judge) and the
Honorable Robert E. Jones purporting to be a neutral Magistrate Judge over the pre-trial detention
hearings.
62)
Judge Anna J. Brown and Judge Jones presided together in proceedings held in U.S.A v.
Ammon Bundy et al, 3:16-cr-0051-BR, on February 24, 2016. In that proceeding Judge Jones was
introduced partway into the proceeding by Judge Brown who stated:
Page33 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 34 of 43
THE COURT: "In this courtroom, it happens to be occupied this morning by Judge
Jones, who's helping with these proceedings. And to offer testimony under oath that
is relevant to the charges; subject of course, to cross-examination by Government's
counsel as to any testimony given on direct." (See Transcript, dated February 24,
2016, (Oral Argument) before the Honorable Anna J Brown, District Judge) [Bolding
and Underling added]
63)
Judge Jones was to offer testimony relevant to the charges?
64)
Then Judge Jones sits as a neutral magistrate presiding over the Bundy brothers detention
hearing where he then coerces defendants counsel to admit Judge Browns statements were true!
THE COURT: "I now see -- although it's been a contested hearing before Judge
Brown -- that when she mentioned that these were two of the leaders of this, it's now
been conceded in the briefthat they were the leaders?" (July 18, 2016, transcript, pg.
32, In 16-19) [Bolding and underling added]
"THE COURT: But now in your brief you do finally admit that Judge Brown was
correct that the Bundy brothers were leaders of this occupation; is that correct?
You say so in your brief?" (July 18, 2016, transcript, pg. 32, ln 16-19) [Bolding and
underling added]
65)
Clearly, Judge Jones had previously attended a hearing in which both judges were present at the
same time.
66)
What is not clear is what Judge Jones intended to testify about. What is also not clear is when
Judge Brown informed Judge Jones that the Bundy brothers were the leaders and it did does not
show up in the transcript of the February 24 hearing.
67)
It is evident; however, that by his own admission Judge Jones was influenced by Judge Browns
statement that were apparently made out of a court.

68)
It is noteworthy also that there appears to have been no pretrial services reports used to evaluate
the pretrial release and the decision to detain them was based solely on the statements of the
Government counsel and Judge Anna J. Brown out of court hearsay statement.
69)
It is also clear that Judge Jones pressure was put on defendant Ammon Bundy' attorney to
admit something in a pleading which is not evidence; and further as clearly stated in the Federal Model
Criminal Jury Instruction #3.7 an attorney's pleadings and statement is not testimony.
Page 34 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 35 of 43
In reaching your verdict you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received in
evidence. The following things are not evidence and you may not consider them in
deciding what the facts are:
Questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the lawyers are not evidence.
The lawyers are not witnesses. [Bolding and underling added]
70)
During the pretrial detention hearing Mr. Ryan Bundy tried twice to object, to the Government
attorneys testifying and was blocked both times.

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: Objection, Your Honor.
Counsel is appearing -THE COURT: Wait. You'll get your turn in a minute.
(Transcript, July 18, 2016, pg. 13, ln. 21)
DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You will remain silent until you have your opportunity to
speak, and then you'll have the rest of the afternoon to say whatever is on your
mind that's relevant.
Don't interrupt the prosecutor again.
Sir, go ahead.
MR. BARROW: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Transcript, July 18, 2016, pg. 13, ln. 21) [Bolding and underling added]
71)
"YOU WILL REMAIN SILENT UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN AN OPPTUNITY TO
SPEAK"!!! "DON'T INTERRUPT THE PROECUTOR AGAIN"! An objection not timely made
can be deemed waived your Honor!

72)
It would appear that there is a double standard in the procedural effect of an objection made by
the defendant versus one made by the Government Prosecutors.

73)
On October 04, 2016 (day 17 of trial) according to the "rough draft" transcript Judge Anna J.
Brown made the following comment regarding an objection made the Government attorney Mr.
Barrow the objection was qualified in the following exchange:
MR. BARROW: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is -- there's an objection,
so I need to rule on it before the witness answers.
Excuse me, sir.
State your objection.
MR. BARROW: Relevance, and calls for hearsay, your Honor.
(Rough Draft, Transcript, October 04, 2016, pg. 61, ln. 7) Bolding and underling added]
Page 35 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 36 of 43
Objection. Act of objecting; that which is, or may be, presented in opposition; an
adverse reason or argument; a reason for objecting or opposing; a feeling of
disapproval.
The act of a party who objects to some matter or proceeding in the course of a
trial, or an argument or reason urged by him in support of his contention that the matter
or proceeding objected to is improper or illegal. Used to call the court's attention to
improper evidence or procedure. Such objections in open court are important so that
such will appear on the record for purposes of appeal. See Fed.Evid.R. 103(a)(l);
Fed.R. Civil P. 46, and Fed.R.Crim.P. 51. See also Contemporaneous objection rule;
Object (v). (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. (1990) pg. 318, co. 2)
Contemporaneous objection rule. Rule which requires that a specific and timely
objection be made to the admission of evidence for the question of its admissibility to
be considered on appeal. Jensen v. Jensen, 205 Kan. 465, 470 P.2d 829, 831.
(Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed., (1990) pg. 1073, co. 1)
74)
It is defendant Shawna Cox's belief that there is a double standard in how the Court treat her
and the co-defendant versus how the Court treats the Government Prosecutors.
75)
Further, that throughout all the hearings and now trial that Judge Anna J. Brown has
demonstrated extreme bias throughout this action.

76)
Finding out about this evidence of out of court communication between Judge Brown and
Judge Jones further degrades defendants' confidence in the judicial system.

77)
It is startling to realize in reviewing this pre-trial detention hearing transcript, there was not a
single live witness other than the beneficially interested (paid) prosecutor or evidence presented that
Co-Defendants Ammon and Ryan Bundy were dangerous or a threat to the community.
Questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the lawyers are not evidence.
The lawyers are not witnesses. (Federal Model Criminal Jury Instruction #3.7)
Mere allegations or conclusory statements of facts unsupported by evidence do not
sufficiently establish such a genuine issue. Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence in Wash.,
Inc., 112 Wn.2d 127, 132, 769 P.2d 298 (1989). (Cited by the Un-Published,
TWINSTAR CREDIT UNION, v. CANZONI, No. 43609-4-II. Court of Appeals of
Washington, Division Two)
"Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court
are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary
judgment." Trinsey, 229 F. Supp. at 649. (Cited by the Un-Published, TWINS TAR
CREDIT UNION, v. CANZONI, No. 43609-4-II. Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division Two)
Page 36 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
IX.
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 37 of 43
Federal Court-No Criminal Authority in The Several States

Federal Judge and Federal Court Officers Violates
"Separation of Powers Doctrine" in the Several States.
"Recusal is proper if a court determines that a reasonable person would perceive a significant
risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. See Sao Paolo State
of Federative Republic of Braz. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 232-33 (2002)"
78)
How can it reasonably be argued that all the Federal District Court Judges (including the
Honorable Judge Anna J. Brown) not have a direct pecuniary interest in this action. Each Judge
(including the Honorable Judge Anna J. Brown) draws a paycheck from the same sources as the
Prosecutors and Investigative Officers (including the FBI) and the alleged injured Public Officers and
Employees.
79)
Federal Judges are administrative Judges with limited jurisdiction and powers as distinguished
from state courts with general jurisdiction.

80)
The Federal Courts only have criminal power in the territories without their own legislatures.
81)
The Peoples Legislature in Oregon wrote the criminal laws to be applied within its legislative
jurisdiction and the citizens and visitors, travelers entering the territory of Oregon are protected under
the X Amendment of the United States Constitution.
82)
The USA v. Bundy, et al involves twenty-six defendants being charged by the Federal
Government, is spawned by the complaint of a Federal FBI Officer brought in retaliation to the
peaceful protest targeting the federal over reach of federal officer and employees involving two federal
agencies ll the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and ~ the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USF&W).
83)
To make matters worse the Honorable Judge Anna J. Brown is not the only one in this illegal
court action with the conflict.

84)
Beginning with ll the federal FBI agent Complainant Katherine Armstrong,~ the
Prosecutors' and all support staff, fil the Clerk of the Court,~ the Court Recorder, .fil the Marshal
Page 37 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 38 of 43
and all Court Security, and 11 the all Public Defenders each receive their appointments, orders
handed down from the Chief Executive Officer, being the President of the United States.
85)
All the officers, at every level are in the executive branch of government, who's employment is
subject to the President under the principal of Respondeat Superior.

86)
Clearly, Judge Anna J. Brown is a Judge appointed under the Executive Department, and
subject to the President (Bill Clinton) of the United States making her an officer in the Executive
Branch, and not the Judicial Branch.
87)
Her rulings under the principal of "Respondent Superior6" are subject to the whims of
President. (See Exhibit#0029, "U.S. sidelined judge who ruled for key rancher against Feds ... ".
http://www.worldtribune.com/u-s-sidelined-judge-who-ruled-for-key-rancher-against-feds-rejectedsame-sex-marriage/)
88)
This is a clear violation of the "Separation of Powers", thus all federal officers appear to be in
collusion, collectively maliciously prosecuting vendetta by using the vast resources and
OMNIPOTENT POWER of the federal government persecute a Nevada ranching family that had
the courage and integrity to standup to the usurpation by the federal government.
89)
For the Court officers (one and all) to violate the defendants' rights under the protected under
the Constitution for the united states of America; would constitute a "MISPRISON OF FELONY"
under 18 U.S.C. 4.
Respondeat superior. Let the master answer. This doctrine or maxim means that a master is liable in certain cases for
the wrongful acts of his servant, and a principal for those of his agent. Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Govro, C.A.Mo., 407
F.2d 921, 925. Under this doctrine master is responsible for want of care on servant's part toward those to whom master
owes duty to use care, provided failure of servant to use such care occurred in course of his employment. Shell Petroleum
Corporation v. Magnolia Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 829, 832. Under doctrine an employer is liable for
injury to person or property of another proximately resulting from acts of employee done within scope of his employment
in the employer's service. Mid-Continent Pipeline Co. v. Crauthers, Oki., 267 P.2d 568, 571. Doctrine applies only
when relation of master and servant existed between defendant and wrongdoer at time of injury sued for, in respect to very
transaction from which it arose. Hence, doctrine is inapplicable where injury occurs while employee is acting outside
legitimate scope of authority. Rogers v. Town of Black Mountain, 224 N.C. 119, 29 S.E.2d 203, 205. But if deviation be
only slight or incidental, employer may still be liable. Klotsch v. P. F. Collier & Son Corporation, 349 Mo. 40, 159
S. W.2d 589, 593, 595. See Scope of employment; Vicarious liability.(Black's Law Dictionary, 6 1h ed., (1990) pg. 1311,
col. 2)
Page 38 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
90)
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 39 of 43
The Federal Judge is an appointee made by the President of the United States (an Executive
Officer) appointed in an administrative court authorized specifically by Congress to preside over

matters in the Federal Territories and not within the several states, also termed the commonwealth of
states.
The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the
courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of
the several States under the laws thereof. (18 U.S.C. 3231: June 25, 1948, P.L. 80772, 1, 62 Stat. 826) [Bolding and underling added]
91)
So here the statute is clear there are two different courts referenced in this statute. One the
"courts of the United States" and two the courts of the several States".
"In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct
jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the (Union] states within their own state
boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to
the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories and federal enclaves within the states,
under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17." Bevans v. United States, 16 U.S. 336 (1818)
92)
The jurisdiction of the United States District Courts in clearly provided in United States Code
Title 18, Section 5.

The term "United States," as used in this title is a territorial sense, includes all places
and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except
the Canal Zone. (18 U.S.C 5: June 25, 1948, P.L. 80-772, 62 Stat. 685)
93)
Nothing in Title 18, Section 5 provides for any jurisdiction in the several states.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of
another. Coke, Litt. 21 O; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 596; 2 Parsons, Contr. 28; 3 Bingh.
N. C. 85; 8 Scott, N. R. 10131 1017; 5 Term, 21; 6 id. 320; 12 Mees. t W. 761; 15 id.
110; 16 id. 244; 2 Curt. C. C. 365; 6 Mass. 84; 11 Cush. Mass. 328.
The Supreme Court, in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) and
Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938), elucidates as to the nature and origin of
a "United States District Court"; to wit, respectively and in pertinent part:
"The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under
article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein
conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under
article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of
Page 39 of 43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 40 of 43
true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a

tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial
court."
"The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an
addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the
constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the
Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of
the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with
jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does
not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds v. United States, 98
U.S. 145, 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263,
268,10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United States, 141U.S.174, 182, 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949;
Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476, 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers v.
United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101, 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United States v. Burroughs, 289
U.S. 159, 163, 53 S.Ct. 574." [Mookini, supra]
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
district judges for the several judicial districts, as follows: ... ". [listing the number of
judges for each respective state of the Union.] (Title 28 U.S.C 133.)
As reflected in the jurisdictional provisions of the Constitution, no territorial court, such
as United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, has
jurisdiction anywhere within the exterior limits of any section of territory occupied by
one of the several commonwealths united by and under authority of the Constitutionsuch as Texas; rather, only "[O]ver such District ... as may ... become the Seat of the
Government of the United States ... Places purchased ... for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings," 7 or "Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States."8
7. Constitution, Article 1 8, cl. 17.
8 Ibide, Article 4 3, cl. 2.
The term "United States," as used in this title is a territorial sense, includes all places
and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except
the Canal Zone. (18 U.S.C 5: June 25, 1948, P.L. 80-772, 62 Stat. 685)
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government." (Kitchens v.
Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383
"The United States is located in the District of Columbia." Uniform Commercial Code
9-307(h)
Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides that, among other things, "[i]n
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial
jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed." (State v. Mills, 354
Or. 350, 351 (2013)) [Bolding and underling added]
Generally speaking, within any State of this Union the preservation of the peace and the
protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no
part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of Congress in respect to
Page 40 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
Filed 10/19/16
Page 41 of 43
those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force
only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the national government. (Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211
(1894)) [Bolding and underling added]
X.
Denial of a Republic Form of Government-Principal

We the People Are Governed by Our Consent
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. A government in the republican form; a

government of the people; it is usually put in opposition to a monarchical or aristocratic
government.
2. The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that the United
States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The
form of government is to be guaranteed, which supposes a form already established, and
this is the republican form of government the United States have under taken to protect.
See Story, Const. 1807. (John Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856), Vol. II, pg. 462,
col. 2)
94)
This trial, if it were to be had at all, should have been in the Oregon state court in the 24
Judicial District which was comprised of Grant and Harney County.

Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides that, among other things, "[i]n
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial
jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed." (State v. Mills, 354
Or. 350, 351 (2013)) [Bolding and underling added]
95)
Cleary, there is a conflict between the state law and federal law.
96)
The key difference between facing criminal charges in Federal Administrative Court with
quasi-judicial officer's subject under the theory ofResoundeat superior to the EXECUTIVE MASTER
exercising limited or special jurisdiction as distinguished from the several state Courts with general
jurisdiction is that being tried locally in the state courts the officers are true elected judicial officers
serving for specific limited terms of office.
97)
The Judge, the Clerk, the Reporter, the Sheriff and the District Attorney are all locally elected
public officers.
98)
The Complainant employers, Respondeat Superior would not be subject to the same power and
authority as the Judge, the Clerk, the Reporter, the Sheriff and the District Attorney.
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANNA
J. BROWN FOR GOOD CAUSE
Page 41of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
XI.
99)
Filed 10/19/16
Page 42 of 43
Prayer
Defendant Shawna Cox, Prays for Judge Anna J. Brown to do the Honorable thing to do at this
point in time and that is to except the recusal; or in that alternative

100)
Defendant Shawna Cox prays for an order of disqualification from a neutral disinterested Judge
after a full evidenduary hearing regarding the matters asserted herein.

101)
Additional Defendant further Prays for and ORDER declaring a MISTRIAL and all defendant's
names in the SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT be released forthwith!
Respectfully Submitted this 19th Day of October 2016.
Cox~ ~,.
/S/ Shawna
Shawna Cox
Affiant/Declarant
Page 42 of43
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1471
XII.
Filed 10/19/16
Page 43 of 43
Verification
State of Oregon
County of Multnomah
Solemnly Subscribed and Affirmed
Shawna Cox, being duly sworn, deposes, and says:

I am an accused defendant in error and the affiant in the above-entitled action. I have read the
foregoing "MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANNE JAEGER BROWN
FOR GOOD CAUSE [As outlined herein]; VERIFICATION, AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION" and
knows the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge and, except as to matters therein
stated and provided on information and belief; and as to those matters, I believe them to be true also.
/S/ Shawna Cox

Shawna Cox
Declarant
XIII.
Jurat
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of October _ _.
Notary Public-Oregon
Notary Seal
My commission expires: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
[Note the Notary may choose to attach the Notaries own Jurat page in the alternative to is page.]
Page 43 of 43

10-19-2016 ECF 1471 USA V SHAWNA COX - Motion and Memo For Order Disqualifying Judge Brown

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

10-19-2016 ECF 1471 USA V SHAWNA COX - Motion and Memo For Order Disqualifying Judge Brown

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

FILED190CT '16 U:45USDCORP

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE

Rule 2.1. Promoting confidence in the judiciary .............................................................................. 7

Judge Anna Brown Has Systematically Blocked Our Defense ............................................... 10

Substantial Ties Creating Conflict and I or Potential Conflicts ............................................... 26

Once Challenged Jurisdiction Must Be Addressed .................................................................. 30

The Honorable Judge Robert E. Jones ........................................................................................... 33

Officers Violates "Separation of Powers Doctrine" in the Several States ......................................... 37

Denial of a Republic Form of Government-Principal We the People Are Governed by Our

Equally important, Judge Anna J. Brown has made it

**** OBNIXIOUSLY CLEAR**** she

Rule 2.1. Promoting confidence in the judiciary

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(D) Remittal of Disqualification. Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a judge

Judge Anna Brown Has Systematically Blocked Our Defense

"Every Litigant Has Right to Expect an Impartial Judge

reflective of problems related to Judge Anna J. Browns handing of this case.

"The Queen Has Ruled - Off with Their Heads"

Judge Brown Conspires Against Defense in Oregon Standoff Trial

Deck Against the Bundy's". (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/08/22/judge-brown-stacking-deck-

and a belt," Ryan Bundy plainly told Brown.

said a criminal defendant is entitled to wear whatever they want at trial.

defendant," the judge ruled.

"Let's get going folks." Brown said. "You're wasting time."

Prosecution Shenanigans in Malheur Protest Trial

In a story posted in REDOUBT NEWS the caption, reads "Prosecution Shenanigans in

Why is it The Trial of the Century?

Verboten. adj. forbidden, as by law; prohibited. (Random House Webster's Dictionary,

not want the Jury to hear what he had to say.

Recusal is proper if a court determines that a reasonable person would perceive a

USA v. Bundy trial in Portland Oregon reads:

(https ://www.facebook. com/ 100011813 922844/videos/vb. l 00011813922844/191683014 568 82 8/?

"She [Anna Brown] is a prosecuting attorney, she is not a Judge"

AMMON BUNDY: "OK, um, well, since the Sagebrush. .. "

Maxine Bernstein a reporter for the Oregonian on October 5, 2016 tweeted:

(https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/785916766362808320) (See Exhibit 013, a

(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants,

Maxine Bernstein a reporter for the Oregonian on October 5, 2016 tweeted:

Substantial Ties Creating Conflict and I or Potential Conflicts

A judge should recuse himself or herself if the judge's impartiality might

page 5, col 2.)" [Bolding and underlining added]

Oregon Women Lawyers" (Summer 2010),page 5, col 2.)

Serious FAILURES TO DISCLOSURE by Judges Aiken, Brown & Beckman Regarding

Involvement in the Oregon Women Lawyers ("OWLS")

the full five-year sentence.

defendants) protested against regarding the resentencing of the Hammonds.

Judge Stacie F. Beckman. (See 3:16-ms-0004, Minutes of Proceeding, Dkt. 15)

action. (See 3: 16-ms-0004, Dkt. 91)

Once Challenged Jurisdiction Must Be Addressed

"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of

jurisdiction in this case.

courts of the several states.

TO QUASH VENIRE DRAWN FROM WRONG, DISTRICT-DIVISION and I or VICINAGE AND

and 2) challenge the jury venire is verbatim copied herein:

authorities raised in defendant's motion.

Motion (#1196) to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Judge Anna J. Brown and Judge Robert E. Jones

The Honorable Judge Robert E. Jones

Judge Jones was to offer testimony relevant to the charges?

statement that were apparently made out of a court.

attorneys testifying and was blocked both times.

OBNIXIOUSLY CLEAR she