ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Court Case in Oregon, the facts
Matt Mattson
post Nov 30 2003, 05:55 PM
Post #1


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 30-November 03
Member No.: 31



Please ask people who were at the bar that day for information before parroting any disinformation from the uninformed. Redpaw was there. Jim Shelton (GPAA caretaker at Buchannan Ga) was there. Corky Bales was there. Larry and Mindy Dahl, were there. John Baker, was there. Duanne Brooks, was there. Some of you know these people, many don't, but Redpaw can probably lead you to them with phone numbers if you want to check on what happened and what did not.

Pictures Redpaw took of the trial are here: http://golddredger.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcb...ewmode=threaded
an article is here:
Link: http://www.resourcescoalition.org/ Button at top left -- Mat Mattson wins
News Review article: http://www.newsreview.info/apps/pbcs.dll/a.../NEWS/111130012

Redpaw was personally at the bar and was one of the people (many people) harrassed and threatened by the officers that day. These 3 officers are from the Roseburg Fish and Wildlife office, which has a large plaque on the wall designating that office as the Audubon Societies "Citizen of the Year"

My observations on the whole thing: http://golddredger.com/dcforum/DCForumID5/58.html

Many people were working hard behind the scenes to gain a victory, and many that were named in a disinformation piece on another forum as opposed, etc., were in fact working hard to win it. You only have to go through the posts at goldredger.com to prove it. In summary, thank God we are opening up new souces of information (forums) where truth and light can come out (at last) and hopefully soon they will all be linked. Time for us to work together, not as a manipulated tool of one, but as a toolbox for the many.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Matt Mattson
post Nov 30 2003, 08:17 PM
Post #2


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 30-November 03
Member No.: 31



The closing argument for the trial:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

My young attorney friend has just laid out his argument for why you should convict me on the letter of the law. Indeed, you may choose to do so—but be fully aware that doing so is by choice—for to convict me upon the letter of the law, requires that you overlook two-thirds of the law, both the spirit of the law, and the intent of the law. You must by choice conclude that the law is written to merely hide the truth instead of expose it fully. You must conclude that the law is not for the common man, but merely a means to beat down, or best him when confronted by officials supposedly acting on the law’s behalf.

I have argued this case upon the merits: that this case is, at the very outset ludicrous. Why should police officers, the very people charged with upholding the law, fear videotape in a public setting, unless it is they themselves, in the wrong?

I have argued this case upon the law: that even if you accept it, does not apply on numerous grounds. This officer clearly knew he was being videotaped, the law he quoted was merely a ruse to give excuse to seizing evidence of his own wrongdoing against innocent members of the public, whether that wrongdoing was the result of malicious intent or misinformation makes no difference, it was still wrong. Remember, out of all the members of the public accosted by this officer that day, only one received a ticket: the person who documented misbehavior against the public. Threatening the public is a crime – harassment of the public is a crime – intimidation of the public is a crime. It should scare you to no end that I am being prosecuted for merely documenting misbehavior. How long before you fall victim, should you cement a precedent that police cannot be videotaped in public, even in the midst of wrongdoing? You set in motion today, with your precedent, whether you will have the police, or the secret police in your midst.

We as citizens depend on police officers to be good stewards of the law, and by overwhelming majority they are. Their acts of kindness and good deeds are legendary, of that, there is no dispute.

There were many wrongs done on August 16th, 2003, and all could have been righted with two words: I’m sorry. No one would have thought less of this officer for uttering those words, and all would have been speedily forgiven – indeed, much goodwill would have been the result.

This young attorney wants to win, a checkmark in the appropriate win column is all that seems paramount in continuing this case. A year of my life, a $5,000 fine, and an FBI record, traded for a checkmark in the win column. Before my young attorney friend chalks that mark, I should remind him that there are seven cardinal virtues about which the law, and indeed civilization itself revolve: filial love – reverence for sacred things – courtesy – comradeship – fidelity – cleanness – and patriotism. These are the things worth fighting for, and living for, not some meaningless checkmark in a “win” column that has no purpose, no worth, no honor.

It is around the last virtue: patriotism, that I have based my final argument for my continued freedom today.

We may never be called upon the field of battle to defend our freedom, yet, we never know upon which second, of which minute, of which hour, of which day, we will be called upon to defend it. Whether we are called upon to defend freedom in a foreign land, in an airliner, or in a courtroom, the location does not matter, it is our willingness to act on freedom’s defense that is paramount. You see, freedom is a precious thing, which must always be fought for, and strongly defended once attained, as it is never given freely by rulers, governments, or despots. Freedom is also an elusive concept to quantify: we don’t know how much of it has to be lost to irretrievably throw us into bondage. We may not notice the drips and drabs that are lost as it is taken from us until, at some point, the scale is tipped, the beam of balance overweighed, and the cloak of tyranny, oppression, and slavery be the result.

I will submit to you the jury, that your moment to defend freedom has come. You did not know, when you arrived in this courtroom today, that you would be called upon to defend it, just as I did not know, on August 16th, that my time had come to defend it. My time has passed, and now it is time for you to decide freedoms fate. Do you choose to convict me, and set a precedent that the police and the police alone are free from oversight from the average citizen? Do you choose to make the enforcers of the law unaccountable? Do you choose to take away from the citizens the right to defend themselves with the powerful truth of the moving image – for all time? It is up to you today.

As I close my argument I have several hopes: I hope that the people witnessing in the stands here today will forgive me if I fail to live up to the task at hand, and lose. They, like you and all citizens, will be the victims of my ineptness and failure in warning you of all the dangers of setting a terrible precedent in this case, and will be forever defenseless before the lawless of the law, or those that would use the law merely as a political tool or expedient to a goal.

I hope my father would be proud. Earlier today, as I explained the importance of the citizenry and the judicial system itself being able to rely confidently upon the fact that our police officers are good and noble and doing worthwhile work, I showed Officer Freriches a picture of three officers engages in seizing an illegal netting operation in Florida in 1947. They are all long dead, but their work is the building blocks upon which legitimate wildlife law enforcement continues to be built. On the far left of the picture is William Bauknight – a legend in Florida wildlife law enforcement. In the center is Vernon Gallagher – a legend in Florida wildlife law enforcement. On the right is my father, Carl Mattson – and my sole regret is that he is not here to give these officers and young attorney the speech they deserve – as I am a poor substitute for him in that department.

I hope these miners in the stands will hold harmless both the wildlife law enforcement community as a whole, and police officers in general, for the activities of August 16th, 2003. The officers involved were merely a small fraction of the law enforcement community and they themselves are not necessarily evil in purpose or intent, but merely severely misinformed. It is not beyond the realm that these officers can be brought from darkness into light, with the overwhelming power of truth.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my time for defending freedom is now past and yours has just begun. I wish you well in reaching your conclusion today, as it is an important one for us all.

I have concluded my final argument your honor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
russau
post Dec 4 2003, 06:55 PM
Post #3


russau
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43



that was a great closer matt!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 07:22 AM