Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 1 of 10

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE




DISTRICT OF OREGON




PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)

Plaintiff;

Case no. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-7

Vs.

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COXS REPLY

Shawna Cox, et all

TO COURTS ORDER DATED 9/20/16

Doc. # 1308

________________________________)

Defendant

BY DECLARATION OF SHAWNA COX

10

I Shawna Cox swear under the penalty of perjury the following is true and correct.

11

I am compelled to respectfully request this motion for reconsideration because

12

there are significant factual errors and conclusions of law based upon these factual

13

errors contained in the order that is the subject of this reconsideration and my future

14

and the domestic tranquility of our society depends on accurate findings of facts and

15

conclusions of law. Out of necessity to protect myself, I took liberty to explain my

16

presumptions of why the court omitted to address significant issues and failed to make

17

accurate finding of facts. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be

18

imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously1.

19

Your Honors first paragraph is nothing more than an effort to subject me to

20

prosecutorial misconduct and set up a situation to provide the prosecution with

21

opportunities to create additional answers to documents 1186 and 1196, so they can

1

In 1928, Supreme Court Justice Brandeis: "Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that
government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.
In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law
scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the
whole people by its example." Olmstead vs United States 277U.S. 438

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 2 of 10

avoid my admissions and omissions arguments and stipulations. It is another action by

Your Honor to prosecute us from your bench that exposes how biased you are against

us.

"When the responsibilities of lawmaker, prosecutor, judge, jury and disciplinarian

are thrust upon a judge he is obviously incapable of holding the scales of justice

perfectly fair and true." Fisher v. Pace, 336 US 155 at 167

Your Honor documents the negligence problem I, Shawna Cox am having with my

attorney pg. 1 & 2 1, whereas as on 4/11/2016 doc # 389 Your Honor ordered my

stand by council to provide me with the communications with the prosecution, other

10

defendants, and the Court and my Stand By Council Tiffany Harris admitted she has

11

not done this yet in your order you blame me for her faults. Furthermore the Court is

12

fully aware that I am not on Pacer and the record shows that I have never been

13

properly served with any documents from the prosecution. Your Honor is fully aware

14

there are no certificate of services that shows I was properly served with anything, and

15

you need to document this very serious fact on the record whenever you attempt to

16

blame me for not responding timely.

17

Your Honors 1st is an effort to use word smithing skills by Your Honors court

18

administrators to try to show the court is providing me with lenience (and justify

19

providing the prosecution with another bite at the apple) when in reality it is taking

20

advantage of me and my situation and ignoring the negligence on the part of the

21

prosecution and my court appointed council. I ask Your Honor to accept my offers of

22

proof that I have submitted to you, take judicial notice of my arguments, start acting

23

respectful and stop attempting to punish me for negligent actions of individuals on the

24

governments payroll who are more interested in protecting their careers than

25

protecting me, and essentially scheming against me.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 3 of 10

"Lack of counsel of choice can be conceivably even worse than no counsel at all, or

of having to accept counsel beholden to one's adversary." Burgett v. Texas, 389 US

109

Your Honors statement Cox also raises numerous other issues, many of which are

not directly relevant to the pending Motions (pg. 2, 2) is false and misleading and an

attempt by the court to fully evade addressing the specific issues that I raised to witt:

The responsibility of Your Honor to provide me with a fair and unbiased jury of my

peers. Your Honor needs to stop beating around the bush on this issue and state

plainly in a manner an average person can understand; Either I have protections in

10

the law to be brought before a fair and unbiased jury of my peers or I do not have

11

protections from unfair and biased jurors. In Your Honors pg. 3, 3of your order

12

you intentionally ignore the fact that your conclusion of law regarding Federal Rule

13

of Criminal Procedures Rule 18 collides with18 USC 3232. Since there is a

14

controversy here I am asking you to shepherdess 18 USC 3232. Your Honors

15

conclusion of law in on pg. 4 1 (and footnote 1) is seriously flawed whereas all the

16

evidence before you shows the majority of the jury pool summoned by the

17

administrator was summoned from liberal areas and all the evidence shows the

18

majority of the jury pool in the Pendleton division are conservatives. There is no

19

evidence introduced that shows otherwise, and as such your finding of facts in this

20

matter is not based on the evidence and is based on your personal beliefs. The

21

courts have a duty to error on the side of caution instead of earring on the side of

22

bias2.

Connally vs. General Construction Co. 296 U.S. 385, 391 (`1926) [ A] statute [or rule not in
evidence], which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates
the first essential of due process of law.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 4 of 10

person can understand no warrant was issued before we were detained and no

probable cause statement was filed by an arresting officer who was on the scene of

our detainment. Your Honor is simply playing the role of the prosecution when you

evade making accurate findings of facts that respond to the issues raised. It is using

word smithing to take advantage of defendants and avoid making accurate findings

of facts and conclusions of law. It is fraud upon the courts by officers of the courts,

for which there is no statutes of limitations, res judicata, latches or collateral

estopple that applies. 3The only thing fraud upon the courts by officers of the courts

It is Your Honors responsibility to explain in a manner that an average

10

accomplishes is providing economic opportunities for State and Federal Bar

11

members. Your Honor needs to stop providing pecuniary benefits for your fellow

12

state and federal Bar members and start responding with accurate findings of facts

13

and responsible conclusions of law4.

14

15

the fact the government did not respond to the issues that I raised in document no.

16

1186. Since the government did not respond to the issues by omission on their part

17

they were lawfully stipulated to and Your Honor has taken the position of

18

prosecuting from the bench in your personal star court and decided a non answer

19

by the prosecution is sufficient for you to create an answer that is detrimental to all

Your Honors entire 3rd is nothing but an injustice. It does not document

Appling v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 340 F. 3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003) ( quoting United

States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 46 (1998) ). The ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of fraud upon
the court provided by Professor Moore: Fraud upon the court should , we believe, embrace only
that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by
officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task
of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.
4
th
Alexander v. Robertson , 882 F. 2d 421, 424 (9 Cir. 1989) ( quoting 7 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moores
Federal Practice 60.33 92d ed. 1978) ) . It includes both attempts to subvert the integrity of the court
and fraud by an officer of the court.
th
In re Intermagnetics Am. , 926 F. 2d 912,916 (9 Cir. (1991). The moving party must show an
unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 5 of 10

defendants and damages all of us5. This is clearly biased and an accurate finding of

fact, is the stipulations I presented in my reply to the prosecutions response were

written word for word to the issues I originally raised and the prosecution did not

respond to, therefore by omissions of the prosecutors the stipulations are

stipulated to Anything less is an outright effort to directly assist the prosecution in

the prosecutorial misconduct involved in attempting to railroad us.

Civil conspiracy exists when two or more combine to accomplish an unlawful

purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Sound Mind and

10

Body Inc. V. City of Seattle122 Wn. 1074 (2004)

11

12

In Your Honors last paragraph on pg. 2 and the 1st & 2nd on pg. 3 you intentionally

13

twist my illegal detainment argument in order to evade the facts and fit into an

14

argument you and the prosecution can attempt to justify. In your 2nd on pg. 4 you

15

ignore the illegal detainment issue a leap to an after the fact probable cause argument

16

implying that the indictment and superseding indictments ratified the probable cause

17

statements, despite the facts that all of this was ex post defacto law, and an attempt

18

to create law as we go situation that is intended to justify the ambush. The very real

19

problem is that we requested the Grand Jury transcripts from you to show that the

20

prosecution withheld explicatory evidence from the Grand Juries and you refused to

21

allow us to review the Grand jury transcripts. All of these actions by Your Honor are

22

efforts on your part to provide special privileges and immunities, and pecuniary

23

benefits to the individuals who ordered us to be ambushed, instead of addressing the

24

situation in a lawful civil manner then proceeding from the resolution of the civil

5

Roadway Express v. Pipe 447 US 752 at 757 (1982) Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical
advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices.... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds
frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 6 of 10

proceedings with criminal charges if they were so warranted6. It is an intentional

evasion of the truth on Your Honors part that shows you have a pattern of engaging in

falsities in attempts to justify your actions. In Your Honors last sentence of 2 pg. 3

you imply even if the federal government negligently failed to accomplish its duty to

return the Malheur to the people of Oregon, (as such no federal employees should

have been there), it still does not matter. Obviously Your Honor believes the federal

government can do as it pleases whenever it pleases, it can ignore its duties at will

create ex post defacto law whenever it needs to, ambush, assassinate and prosecute

First Amendment protesters whenever it has a desire to do so7. The governments

10

argument that the government did not have a duty to address our adverse possession

11

of the Malheur in a civil manner is false, misleading and is a direct attack on our

12

constitutional rights8.

13

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime."

14

Miller v. U. S., 230 F 486 at 489

15

Essentially it is subversive attacks on our constitutional form of government. The worst

16

thing is Your Honors biased attitude is attacking our societies domestic tranquility and

17

fueling the Anti- Government Movements instead of repairing our domestic

Due process requires that when government adjudicated or make binding determinations which
directly affect legal rights of individuals, they use procedures which have traditionally been associated
with the judicial process. Amos Treat and Co. V. Securities & Exchange Commission 306 F2d 260 (1962),
113 US App. D.C. 100.

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert
another." Simmons v. U. S., 390, US 389(1968)

The Fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. The right to be
heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for
himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest. When notice of a persons due process
which is a mere gesture is not due process. Grannis v. Ordean 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S. Ct. 779, 783, 58 L.
Ed, 1363.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 7 of 10

tranquility. If individuals are unable to address lawful situations in a civil manner their

civil rights are violated and they are left with what is known as a Hobsons Choice

A Hobsons Choice occurs when a person is offered what is equivalent of no choice

at all. Cited in part at (31) State v. Chen 119 Wash. App. 1013 (Wash. App. Div. 2

11/13/2003)

Your Honors 2nd on pg. 4 relates directly to the fact the Grand Jury Transcripts that

you prevented us from obtaining would show there was no reasonable Grand Jury

investigation undertaken in the original indictment and the prosecution urged the

Grand jury to rubberstamp their indictment because of how the ambush and unlawful

10

detainment played out. In reality Your Honor is attempting to sell this scenario to the

11

people: the prosecution made us the Grand Jurors that indicted these defendants,

12

fully aware that the Bundy defendants were challenging the lawful ownership of the

13

Malheur and despite the fact the government and law enforcement had multiple of

14

opportunities to serve the Bundy defendants with a civil quiet title and ejectment

15

action they did not do so. In addition the prosecution made us, the Grand Jurors, fully

16

aware of the fact that harassing, threatening and interfering with witnesses and

17

informants attempting to testify to situations is considered felony crimes on its own,

18

so without investigating the ownership interests the Bundy defendants were

19

attempting to expose and address in a civil manner we ignore the fact that the federal

20

officers who were allegedly impeded may have wrongfully been assigned to the

21

Malheur in the first place, so in an attempt to prevent the Bundy defendants from

22

testifying about the clouded title of the Malheur we threaten these individuals with

23

criminal charges and indict them as we were instructed to do so by the federal

24

prosecutors.

25

Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that

26

infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." Smith v. U.S. 502 F 2d 512

27

CA Tex(1974)
7

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 8 of 10

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of

Constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 2d 946(1973)

Your Honors argument in your 2nd on pg. 4 is entirely an irrational argument that is

prohibited by 18 USC 1512 and 18 USC 1513, and the fact the only way the

prosecution was able to obtain indictments in the first place was to keep exculpatory

evidence, law and arguments from the Grand Jurors.

If Your Honor can continue to bring me before a biased jury, censor and suppress

the arguments, evidence and witnesses a defendant is allowed to present to the jury

then the government can convict anyone they want to, of any crime they want to, and

10

we are living in the exact same society that was present in Nazi Germany during

11

Hitlers build up to World War II9.

12

Thank God we still have Courts of record10 so we can document the atrocities and

13

eventually our society may be able to hold these individuals responsible for their

14

crimes against humanity. The railroad job that is happening to us is the exact same

15

railroad job that happened to the Hammonds that we were protesting to, and the

16

problem is because of violations to the separations of powers the federal government

17

has no real way to address Federal and State Judges who are bias and prejudicial.

18

The violations of the separations of powers by members of the judiciary infiltrating

19

the legislative and executive branches has allowed the judicial branch to totally over

9

"the jury...acts not only as a safeguard against judicial excesses, but also as a barrier to legislative and
executive oppression. The Supreme Court...recognizes that the jury...is designed to protect Defendants
against oppressive governmental practices." United States ex rel Toth v. Quarles, 350 US 11, 16 (1955)

The Jury has "an unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions of the
law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

10

"The common law right of the jury to determine the law as well as the facts remains
unimpaired." State v. Croteau, 23 Vt 14, 54 AM DEC 90 (1849)
8

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 9 of 10

take control of our entire country and do as they please with their subjects. It is an

organized subversive attack on our constitutional form of government that has created

the oligarchy and tyranny we are being subjected to that has attacked our countries

domestic tranquility.

Since Your Honor refuses to allow me to present our quiet title argument to your

jury, and Oregon State law required the federal government to file a civil action as

described in ORS 1.12.050 Action To Recover Real Property11 the moment we took

10

CONCLUSION

adverse possession of the Malheur12. Oregon State law allows me a Jury trial13 to Quiet

11 12.050 Action to recover real property

An action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, shall be
commenced within 10 years. No action shall be maintained for such recovery unless it appear that the
plaintiff, an ancestor, predecessor, or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 10
years before the commencement of the action.

12 105.005 Right of action

recovery
damages

(1) Any person who has a legal estate in real property and a present right to the possession of the property, may
recover possession of the property, with damages for withholding possession, by an action at law. The action shall
be commenced against the person in the actual possession of the property at the time, or if the property is not in
the actual possession of anyone, then against the person acting as the owner of the property.
(2) In an action brought under subsection (1) of this section or in a separate action for damages only, a person
who, throughout the vesting period, used or occupied land of another with the honest and objectively reasonable
belief that the person was the actual legal owner of the land shall not be liable for:
(a) Double or treble damages under ORS 105.810 (Treble damages for injury to or removal of produce, trees or
shrubs) (1) to (3) or 105.815 (When double damages are awarded for trespass); or
(b) The value of the use or occupation of the land by the person throughout the vesting period. [Amended by 1989
c.1069 2; 1991 c.109 1; 1999 c.544 3]

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1362

Filed 09/28/16

Page 10 of 10

the title to the Malheur I am compelled to file a civil Quiet title action in Harney

County District Court with a Jury demand and serve Your Honor and the prosecution

with the action, which I am doing to do Monday, September 26, 2016.

"Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of

jurisdiction." Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335 (1871)

Beightol v. Kunowsky D.C. Pa. 1974 382 F. Supp. 98 (the Court held) Absent highly

unusual circumstances defenses of Executive Immunity and Good Faith by public

officials in carrying out duties should be submitted to jury

10

"When Constitutional rights have been violated, remedies for violations are not

11

dependant upon fictionalized distinctions." Kelly v. U. S., 379 F Sup 532

12

Ed 1165: "In determining whether...rights were denied, we are governed by the

13

substance of things and not by mere form;" ID., Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177

14

US 230, 20 Sup., Ct.,620 44 L Ed 747

15

Dated this 23rd day of September 2016.

16

17

Shawna Cox, pro se All Rights & Protections Reserved

18

/S/ Shawna Cox

13 52.570 Right to jury trial

When a cause is at issue upon a question of fact, if either party then demands a jury trial and deposits with the
justice such trial fee as is required to be paid in advance by ORS 52.420 (Trial fee payable in advance) and 52.430
(State or county exempted from prepaying trial fee), the issue must be tried by a jury and not the justice; but
otherwise it must be tried by the justice.

10