Government Allowed Key Witness’ False Testimony against Pete Santilli
Reporter Pete Santilli was indicted on what seems to obviously be trumped up federal charges and an attack on the protections of free speech and freedom of the press found in the First Amendment. He has also been incarcerated following his arrest on January 26 of this year and has been repeatedly denied bail. Now, it appears that a key witness who was involved in his indictment may have been confused and not exactly truthful.
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
According to The Pete Santilli Show:
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.
Here’s the radio show from Santilli on December 22, 2015 demonstrating that he was, in fact, in Ohio on that day.
Attorney Joel M. Androphy writes concerning false testimony and the Fifth Amendment:
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.
A subsequent Ninth Circuit opinion in United States v. Bracy limited the reach of Basurto and questioned its continuing validity, regarding the duty of the prosecutor to inform the court and opposing counsel of all perjured testimony, whether material or immaterial. The Fifth Circuit has never decided whether to adopt the constitutional rule laid down in Basurto or the modified rule of Bracy.
In the hypothetical situation, request for a review of the transcripts of the witnesses you suspect committed perjury. If it is material to the indictment, you may find some relief.
Was it the government’s job to fact check where Santilli was on December 22, 2015? Absolutely, especially in light of the charges they are bringing against him. After all, we know that the government obtained warrants to surveil Mr. Santilli prior to the 22nd.
These findings were presented to Judge Anna Brown last Wednesday and the government has asked for a week to look at these facts.
A motion to suppress is now being considered by Santilli’s attorney along with other options at his disposal.
If you wish to support Pete Santilli and his defense, you can visit ThePeteSantilliShow.com/donate. You will also find information where you can write to Pete and encourage him in this fight. After all, this fight is not just about Pete Santilli and those involved in peaceful protests against a tyrannical government. It is about the rule of law and the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy that are being trampled upon.