Two weeks back in central Missouri, Jeffrey Weinhaus – Inmate #2012-4030 at the Franklin County Jail – was transported to the Franklin County Court. After three days in legaland a group of people there said that Weinhaus was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegations made against him, and suggested that he be caged for over six decades. It was a scenario – the theft of Weinhaus’s computers, the shooting, and the levying of charges against Weinhaus – that never should have happened.
For background: http://CopBlock.org/JeffreyWeinhaus
Excerpts from the three-day legaland venture:
OCT. 08-10, 2013
- Though billed as a “public hearing”, cameras were banned by “judge” Keith M. Sutherland
- Sutherland also claimed that phones were prohibited, though allowed Folsom to text throughout
- One gentleman present to support Weinhaus was asked to leave for what he notes was just looking at Folsom the same way Folsom as looking at him
- After the second day in legaland, once the jurors had existed, Sutherland told the lawyers involved that he was going to throw out a couple few threats levied at Weinhaus – those related to Mertens and tampering with a judicial officer. As it was the latter cited by Folsom for having visiting the residence of Weinhaus and the stealing of his computers weeks before he shot Weinhaus, does it not call into question the subsequent actions?
- Mertens testified that on Sept. 11, 2012, after Folsom had shot Weinhaus, he initially didn’t know if he fired his pistol. Upon his own visual inspection he concluded that he’d shot once – a number later changed to twice based on inspection of his firearm by others. Audio of the Sept. 11, 2012 exchange calls into question when Mertens fired – as a gunshot is heard minutes after the initial hail of gunfire, raising questions of whether Mertens purposesfully discharged his firearm only after conspiring with Folsom and others.
- The clerk working at the MFA gas station testified about the presence of unmarked police cars well before the arrival of Weinhaus. She also stated that Weinahus had his hands raised when he was shot.
- Folsom and Mertens disagreed on the stance of Weinhaus when he was shot. Folsom claimed that Weinhaus had a bladed stance – with one foot forward of the other – but Mertens disagreed. If Folsom is to be believed it would have meant that Mertens could not see Weinhaus’s side on which he was open carrying.
- During legaland recess Mertens wrecked his police cruiser, which he attributed to being upset due to the situation
- Folsom took the stand again and said that his life was ruined due to Cop Block. He admitted that days after the Sept. 11, 2012 incident, he was disallowed from wearing his custom and when on the stand, eluded to the may soon no longer be employed in such a capacity.
- Mertens refused to take the stand due to stress/anguish
- The jurors said Weinhaus was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of assault on a police officer, possession of substances claimed illicit and recommended he be caged 63-years
- At 9am on November 25th, 2013 Suderland is to make his decree about the time he believes Weinhaus should be caged
- Suderland reserved for himself the right to decide if the trial can be retried
At the conclusion of the trial Sarah Johnson wrote Weinhaus Found Guilty — Jury Recommends Total of 63 Years, in which she noted,
Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney Robert Parks called Folsom to the stand one last time to testify how the shooting had devastated his life, family and career.
“I bear no ill feelings for Mr. Weinhaus, his family and his friends,” Folsom said. “But I, myself, have been changed forever. My wife is four months pregnant and stressed really bad. My family life is devastated because of this.”
[It's not too surprising that the incident hasn't sat well for Folsom, who after all, was in the wrong for shooting Weinhau.s]
Parks told the jury that he felt Weinhaus had “no remorse” for what he had done and was a danger to society.
“He has no respect for the law and for no one but himself,” Parks said. “He would have shot those two officers down, all because he has no respect for the law. He does not deserve to be in our society. He needs to be locked up.”
[There is no basis for these claims by Parks - Weinhaus went to the pre-arranged meeting believing he was to receive back his computers. Parks knowingly based his claims on fiction in an attempt to hoodwink the jurors.]
Hugh Eastwood, Weinhaus’ attorney, said Weinhaus has been blogging and writing about government officials for years and although his speech is at times controversial and extreme, Weinhaus never hurt anyone.
“The violence was out of character,” he said.
[Why was Eastwood on the defensive? Weinahus didn't act violent. By accepting the framing by Parks, rather than make clear it was Folsom who was violent, he did a disservice to justice.]
Parks said he had asked Mertens to take the stand, but Mertens declined because he was too emotional after testifying earlier in the trial.
Weinhaus also was charged with armed criminal action and assault on a law enforcement officer in reference to Mertens, but the jury found him not guilty on both those counts.
[Understandable, as Weinhaus had not wronged Mertens.]
Weinhaus, 47, received guilty verdicts on one count of assault on a law enforcement officer and one count of armed criminal action.
[Huh? How did Weinhaus assault or commit armed criminal action on anyone? He was within his rights to open carry. He didn't violate anyone's rights. At most, he's guilty of providing a (factual) recount of the incident that differs from that given by someone wearing a badge.]
The jury also found Weinhaus guilty and recommended two years in the state penitentiary for possession of a controlled substance, and one year in the county jail for possession of marijuana.
[Where's the victim? Also, the emphasis by Parks on these substances said to be illicit was part of his concerted effort to demonize Weinhaus, to paint him as a druggie, when in fact that was not true. The "controlled substance" cited was never fingerprinted - merely found in the home - there was no supporting evidence to tie it to Weinhaus.]
Familiarize yourself with his situation: A good place to start may be CopBlock.org/JeffreyWeinhaus
- Share your thoughts with those responsible:
- Keith Sutherland (the judge) 636.583.7365
- Robert E. Parks (the prosecutor) 636.583.6370
- MSHP Troop I (where Henry Folsom, the shooter, works) 573.368-2345
- MSHP Troop C (where the “investigators” work) 636.300-2800
- Franklin County jail (where Weinhaus is caged) 636.583.2560
- Write him:
#1 Bruns Lane
Union, Mo. 63084
- Ease his time caged:
http://inmatedeposits.com or 1-866-345-1884
There are many holes in the “official story”, some of which are touched on in this Oct. 08 Bambuser update:
Even a short, seeming neutral overview of Weinhaus’s legaland journey from area coverage falls short. Consider the write-up below (interspersed with some of my own thoughts), Weinhaus Trial Began Tuesday, by Sarah Johnson:
The trial began Tuesday afternoon of controversial Internet blogger Jeffrey R. Weinhaus, 47, who is facing multiple charges after a confrontation with police last year.[why not name the 'police officer? why believe that it was a 'confrontation' and not an ambush?]
Weinhaus is charged with interfering with a judicial official, felony possession of a controlled substance as well as resisting arrest and assault of law enforcement officers who were attempting to serve an arrest warrant on the man Sept. 11, 2012.
[why refer to some people as 'official'? why perpetuate the idea that a stranger has the right to control someone else?]
Folsom testified during the trial that he fired his gun after Weinhaus allegedly reached for a pistol that was in a holster at his side.
[why give this recount - a police employee's word against a non-police employee - rather than the inverse - that Weinhaus claims to have never drawn his firearm and that Folsom shot him unjustly? Keep in mind that the holster used by Weinhaus was paratrooper style, which is made to prevent a pistol from being easily dislodged, thus it's considerably more time-consuming to draw from, as compared to other holster styles]
The video, which was on his wrist so it didn’t give a clear visual perspective of the scene, contained audio of Folsom telling Weinhaus to get on the ground.
[yes the pictures aren't too easy to discern but when analyzed it does become clear that Weinhaus was not reaching for his firearm]
Folsom was in the wrong for firing his weapon at Weinhaus. Just as clear is the fact that the pre-arranged meeting should never have been needed as Weinhaus’s computers should never have been stolen from his residence weeks prior by Folsom and his accomplices. Folsom admitted on his own reports that he had told Weinhaus that he was to receive back his computers at that meeting. In fact, he said that was communicated after consultation with two individuals employed at the Federal Bureau of Investigation – Mike Maruschak, Patrick Cunningham.
I have found it very curious that Mr. Maruschak and Mr. Cunningham have remained unmentioned by lamestream coverage of this incident. Why haven’t their incident reports been made public? Why were Maruschak and Cunningham not made to testify?
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2011 incident a post made in a forum by a claimed eyewitness. Eager to bring more insight about the incident, especially one not sanitized via a lainstream media editor or talking head, I cross-posted it to CopBlock.org. Yet, the text soon netted feedback from many who thought it a stretch – that it didn’t meet the editorial integrity the site should maintain, and who recommended that it be pulled from the site.
I also believed the post to contain two major points of divergence. First, that Weinhaus wasn’t carrying a firearm, yet all others familiar say otherwise. And second, that the triggerman was not an employee of the Missouri State Highway Patrol but of a federal outfit (as identified by a badge and a jacked emblazoned with “FBI” on the back) – which I thought untrue as no other source had mentioned yet alone substantiated that claim. Based on those discrepancies and the input that had been received, I pulled the editorial.
Honestly I hadn’t thought of it much until recently when I saw the link from BeforeItsNews.com – after rereading the claimed eyewitness account I now wonder just how far base it is from what actually went down. We now know, based on a report filed by Folsom,that there in fact were two employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation present. On the issue of whether Weinhaus was open carrying – perhaps the writer merely meant that Weinhaus had never brandished a firearm.
Excerpts from Claimed Eyewitness Account Of Weinhaus Shooting:
As we rounded the corner I heard , “Pop, pop, pop, pop” real rapid. At first I thought it was a the guys putting up the guttering using an air nailer, then I saw about 30 yards away a fella fall over on the parking lot, and was bleeding from the chest and shoulder and there was a man standing over him pointing a gun at him. A second man run out from the car that I had been forced to drive around with a gun drawn and at the same time the clerk in side started screaming. I then noticed that both men with guns were wearing brown kevlar vests with big bold letters FBI on the back. I also did not see a gun in the man’s hand, on the ground, or see the agent pick up a weapon of any kind off the ground. I spent a good 30 seconds counting weapons and assessing the situation as was my friend. With there being two armed federal agents and a wounded man on the parking lot I knew there was nothing I could do out there, so I headed in to the store to check on the clerk [who noted of Weinhaus] “he is in here all the time and is a very peaceful man, he was excited that he FBI was going to give him his computers back.”
I smelled a Rat, and a big one at that. I knew the guy they had just shot, not that we were good friends but I had spoken with him on many occasions in that very store. He was a great deal like Mel Gibson’s character in the movie “Conspiracy Theory.” A bit paranoid, a bit off, but completely harmless. He was convinced that his phone was tapped and the Gov was reading his emails, all because he published a little news letter in the local community. I always blew most of his rantings off as delusional paranoia, until today.
I finally saw their badges on their belts, and got a close look at one. On the top it had Federal Bureau of Investigations, in the middle it had the Justice Department seal, and on the bottom it had Department of Homeland Security.
one of the county deputies came up and ask the Trooper if the media could come in, and he nodded his head toward the two Feds and said, “It is not my call.” A few hours later on some of the local news sights it was being reported as the man being shot by the State Troopers, and no reference to the Feds.
A few hours later on some of the local news sights it was being reported as the man being shot by the State Troopers, and no reference to the Feds. On the tele Fox news was reporting it as being the Highway Patrol Drug task force who shot him, and had a spokesman for the State Troopers saying how the man had a gun the troopers told him to put the gun down and when he didn’t comply they had to fire on him . . . there was no, “Put the gun down, ” told to the man like the Highway patrol spokesman said. [This is now known to be factual per the audio documentation of the incident, from the cell phone and wrist watch camera of Weinhaus.
This man was unarmed, period. There are too many people who saw the whole thing go down.
Lastly what do I do with all of this information that I have and know? The few folks that were there, the clerk, and the two carpenters will probably be convinced that it was the Highway Patrol who shot that man just like everyone else who watches the evening news or reads the news paper. Mr X and myself both know better. We know the shooters were FBI from the DOJ, and we know the man was unarmed, and we know there was no warrant being served as the news also stated. That mans children are going to grow up thinking their father tried to kill a state trooper, who was trying to serve a warrant to him on a drug charge. The man was not a doper, or a pot head period. I feel I owe it to his wife and kids to tell them the truth. The man was a nut case, or maybe he wasn’t, but he most certainly is not a cop killer and a drug abuser, and he was shot in cold blood by a couple of thugs with guns and a badge that read FBI and DHS.
We are loosing our country fellas. As I pieced together what the clerk told me and what I saw play out here is some of what I figure happened. The feds took his computers that he was told to meet them there so he could get his computers back. He walked out of the store and the one waved him over. They started talking, and I am sure he realized that he was not going to get his computers back, he had his hands visible and there was no gun. The feds wanted him dead or incapacitated spot on, so they shot him in the chest. There is no reason to have shot this man other than it was politically motivated, and why is the Feds making the highway patrol take the blame for the shooting when it was those two FBI/DHS agents who were the ones who did it.
Weinhaus was outspoken about the corruption and double-standards he saw from the very people who swore an oath or who take a salary under the guise of justice. He did not harm anyone yet he was repeated shot, was caged for over a year, and who may now may be caged for decades. Unfortunately his situation isn't atypical, which is why it's important to bring attention to it in the hopes of greater accountability - both to help him and to deter future rights-violations.
- Weinhaus Trial Began Tuesday by Sarah Johnson on Oct. 08, 2013
- Weinhaus Found Guilty — Jury Recommends Total of 63 Years by Sarah Johnson on Oct. 10, 2013
- “Bulletinman” convicted of four of six charges by Kevin Carbery on Oct. 10, 2013
- Franklin County anti-government advocate convicted of assaulting police, other charges by Lean Thorson on Oct. 10, 2013
- Jury recommends up to 63 years in prison for Weinhaus by Kevin Carbery on Oct. 11, 2013
Stay tuned for more updates, including a post from three people present at Weinhaus's legaland venture.