Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 968

Filed 08/02/16

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAWNA COX,
Defendant.

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

MOTION TO JOIN AND AMMEND
BUNDYS MOTION TO INSPECT, COPY
& REPRODUCE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE SLECTION OF
GRAND JURY IN FINDING THE
INDICTMENT AND SUPERCEDING
INDICTMENT (Dkt. # 925)
(FRCrP 6(b)(1) & (2) and FRCrP
6(e)(3)(E)(ii))

Certification of Conferral
I certify that I conferred with the Government through my standby counsel,
Tiffany Harris. The Government asserts that this motion is moot in light of the Courts minute
order (Docket no. 951) of July 28, 2016. I disagree.
COMES NOW DEFENDANT Shawna Cox and swears under the penalty of perjury the
following is true and correct.
Defendant Shawna Cox, respectfully joins Defendant Ammon Bundy MOTION TO
INSPECT, COPY & REPRODUCE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION OR
BOTH THE GRAND AND PETIT JURIES IN THIS CASE: (No., 3:16-cr-00051-BR, Dkt.
#925) and expands the authorities and arguments as identified in this motion.

Page 1 of 6 - DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MOTION TO INSPECT, COPY GRAND JURY RECORDS

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 968

Filed 08/02/16

Page 2 of 6

Defendants Certificate of Conferral: The undersigned defendant has not discussed this
motion with prosecutor Ethan Night since Mr. Night has opposed defendant Ammon Bundys
motion that Shawna is supplementing herein. The government opposes defendants motion
regarding grand jury materials.
part:

Additionally, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(b)(1) & (2) provides in pertinent
Either the government or a defendant may challenge the grand jury on the
ground that is was not lawfully drawn, summoned, or selected, and may
challenge any individual juror is not legally qualified.
Further Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(E)(i) & (ii) provides:
The court may authorize disclosureat a time in a manner, and subject to any
other conditions that it directsof a grand-jury matter: (i) preliminary to or in
connection with a judicial proceeding; (ii) at the request of the defendant who
shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter
that occurred before the grand jury . . ..
I.

ARGUMENT

1) The SUPERCEDING INDICTMENT (Dkt. #250) as filed on March 08, 2016 fails to
provide a factual basis for the Defendant, and / or the Court to make a factual finding as
to the lotus delicti1 necessary for the Clerk to properly select a Grand or Petite Jury from
the correct venue2 and vicinage3 in the Portland Division of the United States District
1

Locus delicti. The place of the offense; the place where an offense was committed. State
where last even necessary to make actor liable occurs. Hunter v. Derby Foods, C.C.A.N.Y.,
110 F2d 970, 972. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed., (1990) pg. 941, col. 1)
2
Venue. Formerly spelled visne. In common law pleading and practice, a neighborhood; the
neighborhood, place, or county in which an injury is declared to have been done, or fact
declared to have happened. 3 Bl. Comm. 294.
In federal cases the prosecutor's discretion regarding the location of the prosecution is
limited by Article III, 2, U.S. Const., which requires trial in the state where the offense
"shall have been committed," and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees an impartial jury
"of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." See also Federal
criminal cases, below.
Federal criminal cases. Except as otherwise permitted by statute or by the rules, the
prosecution shall be had in a district in which the offense was committed. The court shall
fix the place of trial within the district with due regard to the convenience of the
defendant and the witnesses. Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 et seq. Venue facts. Facts to be established
at hearing on plea of privilege. Central Motor Co. v. Roberson, Tex.Civ. App., 139 S.W.2d
Page 2 of 6 - DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MOTION TO INSPECT, COPY GRAND JURY RECORDS

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 968

Filed 08/02/16

Page 3 of 6

Court, for the District of Oregon as distinguished from the Pendleton Division or the
Grant and Harney County Judicial District.
2) Upon a diligent search, the defendant finds that the correct district and division under
Title 18, Section 3232 is either the Pendleton division in Federal court or the counties in
and around Harney county in Oregon State Court.
FRCrP sec. 18 clearly states "Proceedings to be in the district and division in
which offense committed". [Bolding and underling added]
3) Defendant brings this challenge of Grand Jury (15-01) wherein said jury is alleged to
have conducted a fair and unbiased investigation and found a true bill in the
INDICTMENT and SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT.
4) Defendant specifically avers the Grand Jury #15-01 seated on February 03, 2016
wherein it found the INDICTMENT to be a True Bill and subsequently reseated on
March 08, 2016 wherein the SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT was also found to be a
True Bill was not properly drawn as set out in Title 18, Section 3231 and 3232 and
FRCrP Rule 18 which provides the proper venue is in the Pendleton division.
287, 289. Facts which by statute constitute an exception to the general right of a defendant to
be sued in the county of his residence. Crawford v. Sanger, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 115,
116.Venue jurisdiction. Power of the particular court to function. Brand v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., D.C.Pa., 22 F.Supp. 569, 571.
(Blacks Law Dictionary 6h ed., (1990) pg. 1557, col. 1)
3

Vicinage. Neighborhood; near dwelling; vicinity. In modern usage, it means the county or
particular area where a trial is had, a crime committed, etc. At common law, accused had the
right to be tried by, jury of the neighborhood or "vicinage," which was interpreted to mean the
county where the crime was committed. People v. Goldswer, 39 N.Y.2d 656, 385 N.Y.S.2d
274, 350 N .E.2d 604, 606.
Vicinage. A concept related to, but distinct from, venue, vicinage refers to a defendants
right to be tried by a jury drawn from the area where the crime occurred. It springs from the
Sixth Amendment guarantee of a criminal trial by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law. The [United States Constitution] Sixth Amendment right to a jury from the
vicinage applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The common law concept of vicinage was that of neighborhood. The Founding Fathers
greatly valued the right and incorporated it into the Bill of Rights, since the right was frequently
abridged in the original colonies when defendants were transported back to England for trial.
(C.J.S., Juries 248, 268 to 269, 278)

Page 3 of 6 - DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MOTION TO INSPECT, COPY GRAND JURY RECORDS

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 968

Filed 08/02/16

Page 4 of 6

Proceedings to be in the district and division of which offence was committed.

(FRCrP 18 See U.S. Rodriguez- Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279, (1999).
5) Defendant believes there may be evidence that a malicious Prosecutor or Prosecutors
sought a forum non conveniens4 to the defendants, their families, friends and support
network; by choosing the Portland Division, which was at the opposite corner of the
state; a forum far from the actual venue and vicinage of the actual acts, and void of
individuals with direct knowledge of the area.
6) Defendant avers that the government has deliberately forum shopped, in order to avoid a
jury pool made up of jurors with similar conservative beliefs, life-style and professions
(i.e. farmers and ranchers) which is distinctly different from the jury pool from which
Grand Jury 15-01 was drawn according to the declaration of Teresa D. Glover (See
Glover Declaration, Dkt #538, page. 3, 14-21). See U.S. vs Health , D.C. Hawaii
1952 103 F. Supp 1. " If jury list is not legal cross section of those in community
qualified to be considered for jury duty, list is invalid, and Grand jury drawn from
such list is invalid".
7) Defendant presumes that the government has deliberately forum shopped, in order to
avoid a jury pool made up jurors with similar beliefs, life styles and professions (i.e.
farmers and ranchers) which is distinctly different from the jury pool from which Grand
Jury 15-01 was drawn from according to the declaration of Teresa Glover ( see Glover
declaration , Dkt #538 page 3 lines 14-21.
8) Defendant was not given an opportunity to voi dire the prospective jurors prior to
convening Grand Jury 15-01 thus protections against bias and prejudice were not

Forum non conveniens. Term refers to discretionary power of court to decline jurisdiction
when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action were brought
and tried in another forum. Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp., 87 Wash.2d 577, 555 P.2d 997,
999, 1000. See 28 U.S.C.A. 1404. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed., (1990) pg. 655, col. 1)

Page 4 of 6 - DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MOTION TO INSPECT, COPY GRAND JURY RECORDS

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 968

Filed 08/02/16

Page 5 of 6

provided. Defendant does not voluntarily waive, consent, acquiesce or tacit consent to
give up defendants right to challenge the jurors and to secure the proper jurisdiction
venue and vicinage of trial.
II DEFENDANTS REQUESTS
9) Defendant requests oral argument.
10) Defendant requests policy and procedures manual showing how Federal Grand Jury
wheel or index was created.
11) Defendant requests disclosure of records setting forth the method by which Grand Jury
15-01 was empanelled.
12) Defendant requests disclosure of the community of residence for each Grand juror
impaneled in Grand Jury 15-01.
13) Defendant requests disclosure of the profession, employment, or lack thereof, of each
Grand juror impaneled in Grand Jury 15-01.
14) Defendant requests disclosure of each commencement and termination dates for any and
all Grand jury duties of each Grand juror impaneled in Grand Jury 15-01.
III.

AUTHORITES

Letters sent among the prosecution team, or between counsel for the government and
counsel for requester were not protected by Rule of Criminal Procedure prohibiting,
with exceptions, the disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury, and thus the
letters were not protected by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption for
records exempt from disclosure pursuant to a separate statute, where the letters were
sent well after requesters indictment and did not reflect any grand jury material. Boyd
v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, D.D.C.2015, 2015 WL 7720461.
Information requested by defendant from grand jury materials, dealing with material
exculpatory evidence in the government's possession, had to be disclosed to defendant.
U.S. v. Oakar, D.D.C.1996, 924 F.Supp. 232, affirmed in part, reversed in part 111
F.3d 146, 324 U.S.App.D.C. 104.
Defendants' requests for disclosure of records setting forth the method by which grand
jury was empanelled did not fall within the bar of rule preventing persons present at a
grand jury proceeding from disclosing matters occurring before the grand jury, where

Page 5 of 6 - DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MOTION TO INSPECT, COPY GRAND JURY RECORDS

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 968

Filed 08/02/16

Page 6 of 6

their disclosure would not reveal anything of substance about the grand jury's
investigation. U.S. v. Diaz, N.D.Cal.2006, 236 F.R.D. 470.
Disclosure of commencement and termination dates of grand jury term would not
reveal essence of what took place in grand jury room and, thus, dates are not shielded
from disclosure by grand jury secrecy rule. In re Grand Jury Investigation, C.A.3 (Pa.)
1990, 903 F.2d 180.
An indictment returned by grand jury or a verdict of guilty returned by petit jury in a
criminal case cannot stand if representatives of certain racial, economic or social
groups of the community were systematically and arbitrarily excluded from the list of
persons from which such grand or petit jury was chosen. Bary v. U.S., C.A.10
(Colo.) 1957, 248 F.2d 201.
Where indictment is returned by racially tainted [where economical, professional or
social groups of the community of vicinage purged] grand jury, petitioner need show
nothing more to quash indictment and set aside subsequent conviction, and later
finding by petit jury that defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt will not render
prior improper indictment harmless error. Villafane v. Manson, D.C.Conn.1980, 504
F.Supp. 78, affirmed 639 F.2d 770, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 3066, 452 U.S. 930, 69
L.Ed.2d 431.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Defendant concludes for the reasons and authorities stated supra, and substantial justice
requires the Court to grant the Defendants motion and the request as stated therein.
Date: August 2, 2016

/S/ Shawna Cox

Shawna Cox, Pro Se, All Rights and Protections Reserved

Page 6 of 6 - DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MOTION TO INSPECT, COPY GRAND JURY RECORDS