State v Strickland Appeals Court Ruling: Antifa Wins Authority To Attack Journalists

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Michael Strickland’s response to the Oregon Court Of Appeals opinion. 

Greetings! Michael Strickland here. Some of you may remember me as the
news videographer who was attacked by a gang of masked thugs while I
was at work, filming a protest in downtown Portland on July 7th, 2016.
This gang, dressed in black with masks over their faces and sticks in
hand, encircled me from behind, led by a 400 pound multi time federal
felon by the name of Benjamin Kerensa. They began to push and shove me
while shouting “YOU NEED TO GET THE F*** OUT OF HERE!” In response to
what I perceived as unlawful physical force, and further imminent
unlawful physical force as I attempted to retreat and avoid an
altercation, fearing that I was about to be beaten and robbed, I chose
to act in what I believed to be self defense, in accordance with
Oregon’s self defense laws. With no police to be seen, I was left to
fend for myself. I drew my legally carried firearm, pointed it at
several individuals whom I perceived as threats, and issued verbal
commands for them to get back and leave me alone. The mob of thugs
finally backed off, and they ceased to be threats, so I reholstered
without firing a round or harming so much as a fly. This was based off
of the numerous firearms training courses I had attended over the
years, included instruction from DPSST instructors, the same people
who train and certify police officers.

Everything that I did was in reaction to what others were doing to me.

I was the one arrested and charged with multiple felonies, while the
violent thugs who instigated the entire altercation are considered to
be the innocent victims. As much as people cite the 2nd Amendment in
my case, I think this is a 1st Amendment case as its core. Does a
person have the right to be in a public area, filming a public event,
in exercise of their 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press, or
does a gang of masked terrorists have the right to use physical force,
threats, and intimidation to prevent a person from being in a public
area, filming a public event?

Unfortunately for the community, I was found guilty of 21 counts,
including 10 felonies, for not wanting to be beaten and robbed.

Throughout the ordeal, I witnessed deputy district attorney Kate
Molina cite false police reports from prior events that were untrue,
lying to judges, in an effort to further punish me. During pre trial
hearings, Judge Thomas Ryan ruled that we do not get a change of venue
based on the untrue and defamatory things that Molina said about me
that were parroted by local media. Judge Ryan also ruled that any
mention of a prior event from 2015 when violent “documentarian” Skye
Fitzgerald had stolen two video cameras from me and body slammed me to
the pavement, shattering my arm and leaving me partially disabled is
inadmissible in this case, with Judge Ryan saying that that incident
does not play into ones mindset, which is untrue because it certainly
did play into my mindset. How a judge, or anyone, can tell someone
else what was going through their mind is impossible to ascertain. My
statements to the detectives were also ruled to be inadmissible, as I
had stated to them how the gang had attacked me and how I was in fear.
One of the things I was being charged with was “Unlawful Use Of A
Weapon” which has multiple definitions, and the judge ruled that
prosecutors Molina and Todd Jackson don’t have to state which part of
the law they were charging me with, thus leaving me with an impossible
defense because I didn’t know what I was defending myself against.
Perhaps most egregious of all was the fact that Molina and Jackson
claimed there were ten “victims” yet could only produce two of them;
the aforementioned Ben Kerensa and Malcolm Chaddock, who served as a
distraction by being yet another individual who was circling me from
behind, leaving Kerensa free to make a run up along my blind side. I
was denied the right to face my accusers. Judge Thomas Ryan also
allowed the DA’s to put on an ambush “expert” witness after both sides
had rested. This “expert” witness, Gresham police officer Ryan
Rasmussen, was not listed on any witness list. Rasmussen was not a
witness to the incident, but rather he was there to testify as to how
someone is trained in the use of firearms. Rasmussen has no experience
with firearms in the civilian world, has no certifications to train
civilians, and has never had an Oregon Concealed Handgun License. His
testimony was only applicable to how police officers are trained.
Furthermore, Rasmussen testified that police cannot draw their
firearm, point it at hostile individuals, not shoot, and then
reholster. Officer Rasmussen testified under oath that the only time a
police officer should draw their firearm is when they are shooting.
Rasmussen was also caught lying on the stand by claiming that police
do not use any sort of use-of-force continuum or chart, which is
untrue because he himself had previously referenced one such chart.
Throughout the trial there were multiple witnesses who lied about a
variety of things on the witness stand, including how many times I
drew my firearm (which was only once), when I had drawn it, in what
manner I was carrying, how many police were present, and more. These
were proven to be lies by the copious amounts of video evidence.

You can view videos of the altercation, including a mutli angle video
with my commentary, along videos of people’s testimony showing how
they lied, and some of the other outrageous things that happened
during this experience on my youtube channel,
www.youtube.com/LaughingAtLiberals . Victoria Taft has also done
several blog articles on the case at www.victoriataft.com .

By declaring me guilty, Judge Thomas Ryan has essentially ruled that a
person does not have a 1st Amendment right to be in a public area,
filming a public event, and that a gang of violent thugs have the
legal right and lawful authority to use force to eject a person from a
public area.

To make matters worse, throughout various different time periods since
I was attacked, I have been banned from engaging in numerous different
1st Amendment activities, which had the effect of banning me from
working. That’s right, I’m threatened with arrest and imprisonment if
I engage in what used to be our 1st Amendment rights. That should send
shivers down the spines of everyone in Oregon, especially other
members of the media. Not only is the 1st Amendment now nullified, but
self defense in Oregon is now a thing of the as well.

Since my actions were solely in self defense, I appealed the ruling.
My attorney on the appeal, Robert Barnes, cited all of the above
errors and more in our written appeal. The appeal centered mainly
around my mindset, since all evidence relating to my mindset, my
experiences, my training, my knowledge of how protests can sometimes
turn violent, and my knowledge of antifa and anarchist groups were all
ruled to be inadmissible. The “reasonableness” of me acting in self
defense is certainly based on all of those things. The reasonable man
standard must include the subjective aspect, what’s reasonable to me
with my experiences, my training, and my knowledge. We cited several
different case laws that pertain to these things and more.

Even the DA’s ambush expert witness was forced to concede that I had
properly assessed some of those individuals as threats and that I was
justified in drawing down on at least some of them.

Today, April 1st, 2020, appropriately enough on April Fools Day, the
Oregon Court Of Appeals released their opinion on State v Strickland,
affirming the lower court’s finding of guilt. The text of their
“opinion” can be found at
https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll5/id/26442/rec/1
. These are the same appeals court judges who have sided with rapists
and murderers in past cases over the years, overturning their cases,
giving preference to those who prey on the weak, leaving them free to
strike again.

This ruling legalizes mob violence. Applying the same standard, the
KKK now have the legal right and lawful authority to attack people of
color on the street and chase them away from public areas, and it’s
the person of color who is guilty of crimes if they try to stop the
KKK from attacking them.

What’s more, all of these legal standards of what prosecutors can and
can’t do and what is and isn’t admissible can be applied to anyone
else just the same. Now prosecutors can cite false police reports and
claim someone is part of a gang, when in fact the person is not. They
can claim someone is racist, or a child molester, or a bank robber,
when if fact the person is not. Prosecutors no longer need to produce
victims in crimes, as merely vague descriptions without names is now
sufficient. Prosecutors are now allowed to put forth ambush witnesses
after both sides rest. Judges and pre trial release officers can now
ban people from engaging in 1st Amendment rights, be it to protest,
engage in free press, or other aspects of free speech. Prosecutors can
now successfully move that all evidence relating to a defendant’s
mindset, training, and knowledge is inadmissible.

I have little doubt that corrupt district attorneys have been pulling
these sort of unethical stunts on countless people over the years.
These disgusting tactics are used every day to go after the poor, the
disadvantaged, people of color, those in the LGBT community,
immigrants, those with mental disorders, people suffering from
addiction, and more. My appeal is the community’s best chance at
getting these shady practices overturned.

In the appeals court ruling, Judges Armstrong, Tookey, and Shorr
erroneously summed up the circumstances of the incident by making
claims that: A ) I was open carrying at the event, which is untrue. I
was concealed carrying as I didn’t want to draw attention to myself. B
) That it was only four people who ganged up on me when in fact it was
initially seven, and that number varied as people were running in and
out of the scene, as seen on video. Perhaps they need to frame it as
fewer than five, since five or more people engaging in that kind of
behavior constitutes the crime of RIOT on their part. And C) They
claim that Kerensa got physically aggressive with me after seeing that
I had a gun, which is untrue, as I did not reveal the gun until after
he had begun his violent attack on me. Perhaps they are trying to
frame it as though Kerensa was the one acting in self defense after he
deliberately staged a fight with me that I wanted no part of.

All of these things were disputed during the trial, so I don’t know
how these judges are able to state these things as “undisputed” facts.

In my continuing efforts to clear my name, I will now be taking this
case to the Oregon Supreme Court for further review. I have no
intention of giving up this battle until the rulings are reversed, I
am vindicated, and I get my rights back, regardless of whatever court
I need to take this to and however long it takes.