GMN© – Guerilla Media Network LLC – June 18, 2016
KEY WITNESS NOW CLAIMS
HE MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED
Pete Santilli’s attorney Thomas Coan, has filed a motion to suppress the key prosecution testimony of a man who claimed he observed Santilli at a Harney County Committee of Safety meeting on December 22, 2015. The man, who is a member of the committee, told the FBI that not only did he observe Mr. Santilli at the meeting, he also heard him actively participate in a conversation where initial plans were made to take over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.
Pete Santilli denies being in Harney County on December 22, 2015. The prosecution’s own evidence backs Mr. Santilli up; Bank debit/transactions, internet activity – of his live streamed Morning Show – from the IP address of his studio in Cincinnati, and eyewitness accounts – all put Santilli in Cincinnati, Ohio – when the Tuesday night meeting in Harney County, Oregon was said to have taken place.
The witness told defense investigators, he may have been confused when he spoke to the FBI and now he isn’t sure if Pete Santilli was there or not. “I may have been wrong about Pete being there. I may have gotten the meeting confused with the “public” meeting I saw him at in January, after the takeover.”
The public meeting the witness is talking about in January, was nearly a month after the supposed December meeting, and was live streamed to the public.
This admission may also raise questions as to whether or not the witness’s testimony will be reliable if he is testifying for the Prosecution against Santilli’s co-defendants.
It is possible this witness’s testimony could prove to be an even bigger problem for the Prosecution if his testimony was used to help secure the Grand Jury indictment for Mr. Santilli’s subsequent charge and arrest.
Under United States v. Basurto, the government has a constitutional obligation to inform the court, counsel, and the grand jury about false statements, and that its failure to do so requires dismissal of the indictment. In Basurto, the Ninth Circuit held that:
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated when a defendant has to stand trial on an indictment which the government knows is based partially on perjured material, and when jeopardy is not attached. Whenever a prosecutor learns of any perjury committed before the grand jury, he is under a duty to immediately inform the court and opposing counsel – and, if the perjury may be material, also the grand jury – in order that appropriate action may be taken.
The grand jury’s historic role has been to serve as a protective buffer standing between the ordinary citizen and overzealous prosecutors. The reality that grand jury proceedings are “secret, re parte and largely under the control of a “federal prosecutor” should magnify counsel’s concern regarding the propriety of the investigation or usurpation of power by the prosecutor is called into question. Trusting that the system will always work without judicial interference or that any problems can be addressed later in litigation is naive. Source Article
Did the Government knowingly allow a witness to make false statements to a Grand Jury that secured an indictment against Pete Santilli? It is hard to believe otherwise considering the government, through it’s own admission, obtained a search warrant to surveil Mr. Santilli since before last December and knew exactly where he was on the 22nd.
If the witness did not testify to the Grand Jury, were his statements used in an argument to get the indictment? And why, after knowing Pete Santilli couldn’t have possibly been in Harney County on the 22nd, did Prosecutors allow the false accusation to stay in the discovery, possibly tainting the Judges view of Mr. Santilli’s role in the January occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge?
Judge Anna Brown was advised of the findings on Wednesday by Defense Attorney Amy Baggio, who was temporarily representing Pete Santilli during the monthly progress hearing in Portland, Oregon. The Government has asked for a week to look into the new findings before the Judge rules on the matter.
Along with the Motion to Suppress, Tom Coan is now considering his clients full options after this discrepancy was revealed in discovery and presented to the Court.
Please donate at the top of this page to Guerilla Media Network – Your main source for accurate information