Trent Goodbaudy is truly an AMAZING man, of incredible intelligence, who is out there on the front lines fighting for FREEDOM and educating us ALL (EVEN including the brainwashed police) about the natural rights of man on a DAILY basis — not only peacefully TRAVELING with his “Bait Cars” (of which one has now already been STOLEN by the so-called “authorities” in Clackamas County, Oregon — youtube.com/watch?v=cFkSA9ADwqM
Trent ALSO is a quite capable tutor who imparts needed extra knowledge to anyone having trouble with virtually any subject matter … and he has even helped ME (twice!) when I became stuck trying to learn and operate the video editing software, Final Cut Pro X, making short work of my own lightweight-minded video-editing challenge!
Trent’s philosophy and demeanor is beyond reproach. In this well-organized and concisely-presented FREEDOM ESSENTIALS lesson, Trent stresses, “We need to find peace. Like it, or not, agents of government are our brothers and sisters. It is time to find peace.” Mr. Goodbaudy adds: “Our strength comes from love — not from negative energy,” and asks the audience, “What is honor?” as well as “How do I act honorably?” and more important, “How do I act as king?” The key is PRACTICE, he says, and concludes by urging us ALL to: “De-register, divest, withdraw all support from the war-machine, because it’s being going on for too long . . . ” and also, to “Tell someone.” — and then: “Feel the power of true freedom!” ~ Max
New Video Slow motion from the Assassination of LaVoy.
This is the BEST Proof EVER til now, in slow Motion that LaVoy Finicum was ASSASSINATED By the FBI and Ambushed….CONFIRMED FROM THE FAMILY.. SHOT 9 TIMES….There is NO Sound on the FBI Video for a REASON!!
Please also see the following for more information on this:
It is time to dispel a few myths about what is going on.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown sat in her office Jan. 20 and drafted a letter to the U.S. attorney general and the director of the FBI. She wrote that negotiations with the “radicals” occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge had failed and insisted on a “swift resolution to this matter.”
Local officials, including Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, made similar demands. On Jan. 26, they got what they asked for.
Authorities, including the FBI, ambushed and arrested Ammon Bundy and others on their way to a meeting in neighboring Grant County. They shot LaVoy Finicum dead. He was not holding a weapon.
Awful. Grasty and Brown knew what might happen should the FBI decide negotiations had failed. Few have forgotten the standoffs at Waco and Ruby Ridge and that “swift” federal action often means people die — in many cases, indiscriminately.
It’s ironic, but the behavior of the judge and the governor goes a long way to make the refuge protesters’ case for them. Blind devotion to federal authority is terribly dangerous to lives and to liberty.
The protest in Harney County will certainly not be the last over federal overreach. Here is hoping people find reason next time, before demanding dangerous federal intervention.
To that end, it is time to dispel a few myths about what is going on.
Myth 1: The armed people at the refuge were threatening violence. You wouldn’t know it by watching TV news, or reading Brown’s hysteric letter, but the refuge wasn’t an armed compound full of violent people. To find that, you needed to drive by the airport in Burns, Ore., where federal agents staged behind fences and a floodlit perimeter, with military vehicles, equipment and weapons.
Yes, the occupants at the refuge were armed and reserved the right to defend themselves. The difference between them and any other citizen claiming their Second Amendment right is they did so from inside public, and previously unoccupied, federal buildings.
They got little credit for doing virtually everything possible to minimize threats and interruptions to the community. They could scarcely have chosen a more remote location.
It was more like an open house than a compound. Locals could, and did, visit to see what the standoff was about. The protesters invited anyone who wanted to have an honest conversation.
For Oregonians, the much larger threat is their high officials writing letters and urging the feds to “swift” action.
Myth 2:Only nutty, right-wing militias from outside would stoop to such tactics. Brown and Grasty must know the protest included state and local residents. Plenty of community people were sympathetic enough to bring food and supplies. The storeroom overflowed, and locally grown beef had to be kept frozen in a snow bank outside for lack of adequate freezer space.
If they had visited, they would have found people there ready to talk calmly, rationally and intelligently about the issues. Tragically they felt there had been too much talking already. Now one of the most calm and rational leaders in the group is dead.
Federal supremacists like to marginalize anyone advocating local control as radical and dangerous. They want you to believe these people are motivated by crazy ideology.
They don’t talk much about history. These issues have been simmering for decades. The Sagebrush Rebellion made headlines in the 1970s and ’80s. There are smart folks stretching back to the nation’s founding who question the legitimacy of federal control over public lands.
Given how economically devastating the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service management has been for rural communities around Oregon, Brown and Grasty should be asking questions, too.
Myth 3:Anyone opposed to federal control of lands hates conservation. The philosophy of the national conservation groups is irrational. They insist the best way to protect public lands is to put unelected bureaucrats headquartered thousands of miles away in charge. That position is hard to fathom. Many conservationists see the value in “buying local” when it comes to food and services. Local is great, except when it comes to government?
It is a bit reminiscent of war. The propaganda department dehumanizes the enemy, branding ranchers and loggers as foolish and blinded by greed. And local citizens as if they are too inept to stand up to them and govern responsibly.
The truth is, there are wise people who care for the environment living right in Harney County. Included among them are cattle ranchers and forestry professionals. Many simply believe management decision-making would be better if it was done much closer to home.
Myth 4: Ranchers just want a free ride. It would be far more accurate to say ranchers want fair, not free. Many Western ranches have a federal grazing allotment attached. Most of the time ranchers acquire the permit when they buy a ranch, though they can also buy and sell them independently. The point is, cattlemen pay big money upfront for a right to the grass.
On top of that, they pay grazing fees annually. Some argue the fees are set way below the market rate to rent private pasture. But they don’t account for ranchers maintaining fences and water systems. These are key differences versus renting private pasture.
In any event, practically no rancher is complaining about the dollars involved.
They object to paying federal agencies who have a long history of treating them like tenant farmers and disrespecting legitimate property rights. Most support the idea of paying fees locally, and getting more accountable range management in return.
Myth 5: The federal government’s prerogative to own and manage the majority of lands in Oregon is beyond question. Now we get to the crux of the matter. Everyone raised in the U.S. is taught federal laws are supreme. What’s more, we learn the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on whether a law is constitutional. Those arguing for state and local control of lands had their day in court. They lost. Case closed.
Not so fast. What we were all taught is nonsense. In fact, the States (capital S) are sovereign and supreme. They have the power — make that the sacred duty — to nullify unconstitutional laws and defend the liberty of citizens.
The kicker is that Brown herself already acknowledged this truth in another context. She signed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana last summer, in complete disregard of federal laws. She didn’t send a letter to Washington begging for federal storm troopers to batter the doors in at pot dispensaries. On the contrary, she determined Oregon’s authority trumps federal dictates and acted accordingly.
What a “radical.” May she and Grasty find that spirit of independence before calling on the FBI to crush the next protest.
Clint Siegner is a director at Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals dealer in Eagle, Idaho. He grew up in a cattle ranching family in Fields, Ore.
It is my understanding that no one in the two vehicles at the time of the traffic stop had committed a violent crime.
It is my understanding that Mr. Finicum had a spotless record, was an outstanding US Citizen at the time of the traffic stop.
It is my understanding up to the time of the traffic stop, the FBI and Oregon State Troopers already knew the backgrounds of these travelers and for the most part who was in the two vehicles and where it was they were going.
It is my understanding that from the time Mr. Finicum departed the traffic stop and up to the time he ditched his vehicle into the impassible snow of the highway borrow ditch, he had only committed Misdemeanor Evasion.
It is my understanding that the fixed position of the road block vehicles and combined with a blind corner made this a Deadly Force road block that is also illegal. Normally an opening would have existed and would have been spike stripped.
It is my understanding that excessive and superior forces were used to effect the stop of non-violent US Citizens.
It is my understanding that the State Police and or FBI had absolutely no fear for their lives when they left the safety of cover and executed Mr. Finicum out in the open.
It is my understanding that the State Police and or FBI had absolutely no fear for their lives out in the open while a vehicle Mr. Finicum had exited nearby still remained un-cleared.
It is my understanding that the officers placed other officers lives in a cross-fire situation when they executed Mr. Finicum.
The cold hard truth is the Government committed a violent act against a non-violent Free Man and it once again confirmed to us that this segment of government employees in our system of government are not going to defend and protect your individual right to life, liberty, and property.
Remember Ruby Ridge Idaho, Waco Texas, Elion Gonzales of Florida, No new taxes, most transparent administration ever, you can keep your doctor, the patriot act is for spying on terrorists, monsanto protection act, 18 trillion in debt, social security lock box filled with IOU’s, Chinese paratroopers in the hills of Western Montana, FEMA concentration camps list, red and blue list, secret Chinese base just across the border in Mexico ready for invasion, UN troops in Alabama, Marshall Law (misspelled intentionally) just about every month, secret symbols on the back of road signs for foreign troop navigation, secret dots on mail boxes, Walmart detention centers, Jade Helm is gonna get us, and so much more that I can’t remember from the past 2 decades.
Please also see the following for more information on this:
One of the most egregious infractions by authorities in the Finicum shooting besides the shooting itself is the roadblock with which he was forced off the road.
Having run driving tests at the site at the same specific time of day as the actual incident in the same weather and road conditions, I could not stop before the point of impact where the vehicles were parked blocking the road. I attempted three times and was unsuccessful each time. It is worth noting that my vehicle was smaller and lighter wieght. I also had 400 lbs less cargo.
This is appropriately deemed a Deadman’s Roadblock because there was no alternative course of travel and the Roadblock was placed at the end of a blind turn in which the driver could not see the roadblock with sufficient time to react and effect a stop before colliding with the components of the roadblock.
A roadblock in and of itself is use of deadly force and in some cases unlawful seizure. In the eventual civil trial and hopefully criminal trial against the officers responsible, It will definitely be argued that the roadblock was either ;
1. In violation of Police policy
US DEPT OF JUSTICE – Restrictive policies for High Speed Pursuits
“Fixed roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.”
“…As can be seen from appendixes A through D, the four departments severely restrict, if not prohibit, these tactics.”
“Roadblocks are dangerous and difficult to properly establish. No roadblock may
be established until both dispatcher and pursuing officer have been notified.”
Stationary Road Block — The placement of one or more police vehicles in the traveled portion of the roadway, in order to partially block the road, and to indicate a denial of passage to the violator’s vehicle. Although not absolutely necessary, officers frequently leave a restricted route through the roadblock. When the road is totally blocked, so that even a slow moving vehicle cannot go around—or through—safely, the degree of risk is heightened. When a complete blockage of the roadway is undertaken, officers should ensure that the oncoming suspect has a clear view of the roadblock, and has ample time to stop safely, should he or she decide to do so. This complete blockage usually represents a higher level of control, and could be constitutionally unreasonable unless properly managed.
Pursuits will be immediately terminated when:
• A sworn supervisor orders pursuit terminated.
• Suspect is known to officer and offense is traffic infraction, misdemeanor. or
2. In violation of his 4th amendment rights ( Search and Seizure)
Legal Aspects of Law Enforcement Driving Objective 1.4
Chapter 6 – Module 1 – Page 50
Case Thirty-One: Deadman’s Roadblock
BROWER v. CONTY OF INYO, 489 U.S. 593, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).
The family claimed that police had erected a “deadman’s roadblock” by positioning an 18-wheel tractor-trailer across both lanes of the driver’s escape route, concealing the roadblock behind a curve in the road and leaving it unilluminated…
…roadblock can result in a fourth amendment seizure if it can be established that it was an unreasonable seizure. Thus, the trial court was directed to reconsider critical fact…
Fourth Amendment Seizure, by Roadblock: The court noted that the Brower Estate alleged that Mr. Brower’s death was caused by a concealed roadblock installed by the police whereby the suspect was stopped by crashing into the road block, the very instrumentality put in place to achieve that result. Since a 4 Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied,” the Court concluded that the Complaint state a valid constitutional claim that had to be decided by a jury. Brower v. Inyo County, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).
3. So offensive and egregious as to “Shock the conscience”
BROWER v. CONTY OF INYO, 489 U.S. 593, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).
“Police pursuits that “shock the conscience” may not only expose the pursuing officers to liability but also may expose the governmental employer and the pursuit supervisor to liability.”
“ An employing town, city, or county may be directly responsible under 42 U.S.C. §1983 when an employee executes a governmental policy or custom that inflicts Constitutional injury. “
This allows a Judge some latitude in a finding on a case where statutes may not exist or are inappropriate to the graphic nature or a particular case. The Judge may impose the shock the conscience rule to establish merit in his or her decision.
Such was the case in the original Hammond sentence when Judge Hogan said that to impose the mandatory minimum sentence of five years would shock the conscience thereby giving him authority to impose a lighter, more appropriate sentence. Even though his sentence was overturned in the 9th circuit it was still and is still a viable rule in assessing fault or findings.
From all which is seen in the video, he clearly applied brakes and kept them on until his vehicle came to a stop 40’ past the point of intended impact with the vehicles used to block the roadway. His brake lights come on midway between the two sign posts and stayed on. He simply could not stop and averted a horrific impact which would have injured and killed the other occupants of the vehicle as well as the officials standing behind and around the trucks.
It caused not only physical Injury to Mr Finicum but also Constitutional injury by violation his 4th amendment rights regarding search and seizure, in particular the unlawful seizure of himself and the occupants of the truck.
Beyond all of the laws and regulatory infractions on behalf of the FBI and OSP in this boondoggled mess of a pursuit, they were in graphic violation in the court of common sense and rationality IF their cause and objective was to detain Mr. Finicum and try him under due process.
The preponderance of evidence in this incident gives credence to the notion that they willfully and purposefully violated his rights with the predetermined intent to kill him and his passengers. Intent is a challenging pursuit against members of law enforcement and the likelihood of a much lessor plea bargain if any charges at all. But this is just the issue of the roadblock. The shooting itself in my opinion, will have good standing for a charge of murder and or a host of other criminal charges against those who surrounded him with gunfire and shot him to death unmercifully, unlawfully and with no regard to the lack of threat that he posed to anyone.
This has cost us the public trust of our law enforcement. Rarely a day goes by since this shooting in which I don’t hear someone portraying fear of their “protectors” It doesn’t seem to matter which branch, we all tense up when seeing a police vehicle near us and subconsciously view it as a threat. This for many is a new and uncomfortable experience. It breeds the sensation that we are no longer free at all. We are subject to slaughter or imprisonment if we are bold enough to exercise our bill of rights.
The mere mention of a tyrannical Government can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Bundy) Starting a controlled backburn fire to protect your home from a wildfire can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Hammonds) Reporting on a story with truth can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Santilli)
Are we nearing a place where teaching the constitution will also be an act of terrorism? Talking to your neighbor over the fence?
Voicing an opinion on Facebook?
Some will say this is just spreading fear. Less than a month ago, the thought of FBI shooting you for protesting them seemed far fetched. Now, we know otherwise. There was no risk to officers that they didn’t wrongfully impose upon themselves such as diving in front of Mr. Finicums truck and shooting at him or placing themselves in a Deadmans Roadblock around a blind turn, or firing upon a group of gospel singers hiding their heads with their arms in the truck.
There was intent here plain and simple, and it was not intent to prosecute him under due process.
US Department of Justice
The Police Policies Study Counsel
NCJRS – National Criminal Justice Reference Service
1] Graham v. Connor, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989) — In Graham, the Court set forth standards for evaluating the reasonableness of the use of force. There were three criteria stated: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing.
 Tennessee v. Garner, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985) — In Garner, the Court opined that deadly force could be used to protect officers or others from the immediate threat of serious physical harm, or to prevent the escape of dangerous individuals, after other means have been exhausted, and a warning has been given, where feasible.
 Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor, 417 Mich. 461 (1983) — In Fiser, the Michigan Supreme Court provided guidelines for evaluating the reasonableness of a police pursuit.
 National Driver Training Reference Guide — International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1989.
 Brower v. County of Inyo, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (1989) — The Brower Court held that a seizure is a, “…governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied…” (emphasis added), and further opined that a seizure has occurred when force is used. The Court defined force as an intentional act which leads to a stop or an arrest.
Please also see the following for more information on this: