Category Archives: Michael Strickland

Antifa Wins, Self Defense Loses in Oregon Appeals Court

First he was beaten by the mob, then he was ‘beaten’ by the so-called “justice” system in Oregon.

More from me later, but the Oregon Appeals Court has ruled against Mike Strickland’s self defense case after an Antifa mob beat him and came back for more at a public protest in July of 2016.

What a travesty.

Next step is the Oregon State Supreme Court.

This is what Mike is saying today about the disappointing ruling.

 

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.

I am available for interviews, presentations, and other appearances.
For your articles I hope you use this picture of me
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16FH1zlAFKAXTYkC4ePu_M5QYWGoEHiPt/view
or this one https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R42xs3Rn-0KSjda0xfGvRvpD19lQ972Z

Video: Portland PO Demands Strickland & “Third Parties” (Me) Stop Talking About Two Players in 2016 Antifa Attack

Mike Strickland was summoned Wednesday to his Multnomah County Parole and Probation Officer (PO). As Strickland tells it, his PO demanded that the Portland man cease mentioning two people who were involved in the melee in July 2016, which resulted in Strickland drawing his legally possessed pistol to back off a converging crowd of Antifa and other protesters. Read about Strickland’s case here.

Strickland says that his PO gave him two choices, 1) Sign revised parole and probation conditions which forbid him from speaking about convicted hacker, police impersonator, bomb hoaxer, and conspirator against Strickland, Ben Kerensa, and self-described ‘peacemaker’ Malcolm Chaddock. Chaddock attempted to distract Strickland while the 400 pound Kerensa ran at him on the other side. Both men testified against Strickland at his trial.

Photo Credit: Screengrab/YouTube

Or, 2) Go before a Multnomah County judge and try to retain what’s left of his First Amendment rights.

Strickland once again will take his chances with a judge sometime in August.

But here’s the kicker. Strickland’s new gag order condition also included “third parties.” Since I’m the one who’s been chronicling his case since it happened, it appears that I’m the target of the PO’s ire. I can’t imagine that a document Strickland would sign would in any way extend to me. Good luck with getting me to shut up.

Here are some examples of Strickland talking about these two:

The PO told Strickland that this kind of talk represented “psychological abuse” of the two people. Strickland told me that on the list of psychologically abusive things was ‘using one’s size to intimidate and/or threaten another person.’ This is precisely what the two men attempted to do to Strickland.

Strickland would know something about what’s psychologically abusive. He was threatened with a 50 year prison sentence after being charged. That’s certainly “psychologically abusive.” Instead, he spent 41 days in jail – certainly “psychologically abusive.” His First and Second Amendment rights were stripped and therefore his ability to make a living. That’s “psychologically abusive.” His right to speak was eventually restored though he can’t video political events anymore which is most certainly “psychologically abusive.”

Strickland told me that his former PO said his behavior on Twitter did not rise to the level of intimidation of the two people. He has operated under those rules for the past two years. Now, with ten months left in his probation, Strickland is threatened with more punishment for using his freedom of speech.

Organizers of the anti-gun march and rally admitted at Strickland’s trial that they conspired to kick the videographer out of the rally, one of dozens that Strickland had covered in his role as an independent journalist.

His phalanx of attackers were magically transformed into ‘victims.’ Here are some of Strickland’s ‘victims’:

Only two of Strickland’s ‘victims’ were identified at trial because they were masked up or hid their faces.

Read about Strickland’s case here.

See Strickland discuss what happened here:

Strickland’s case is under appeal at the Oregon Appeals Court.

Here Are 12 Quick Take-Aways From Portland ‘Man Versus Antifa’ Case in Oregon Appeals Court

What are the stakes in the Mike Strickland versus Antifa case out of Portland, Oregon?

The City of Portland, prosecutors, police and judiciary have, so far, sided with Antifa protesters over Strickland, a videographer whose job it was to chronicle the radical mob which has preyed upon Portlanders for years.

As I explained here:

“Before they chased old men in cars and canceled parades; before Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yianoppolous and Charles Murray were silenced by mob violence; before Professional Paid Protesters, Incorporated™ screamed at Senators, overturned cars or set a ‘deplorable’s’ limo on fire; there was Michael Strickland.
Strickland is believed to be Antifa’s ‘victim zero.‘”

The videographer and concealed carry permit holder was covering a Don’t Shoot Portland/Black Lives Matter protest on July 7, 2016.  Strickland was surrounded and beaten by the Antifa mob (read about their conspiracy to do so here) and when they couldn’t bully him out of the protest on public property, the mob came back to finish him off.  I reported  on the clash: 

“Strickland drew his licensed concealed handgun that Antifa knew he had (I know, I asked), a Glock semi automatic pistol. Strickland, showing amazing trigger discipline – never allowing his finger to come close to the trigger – held off his attackers as he backed away from the mob. To be clear,  Strickland was the only person hurt that day. No shots were ever fired.”

One question remains: Is the judiciary  even aware of the violence and vandalism perpetrated by a group that the Department of Homeland Security has designated a domestic terrorist group?

Strickland’s attorney, Robert Barnes, worries that they have no clue, telling VictoriaTaft.com and others on Friday:

“The judges haven’t ‘got’ what’s happening – the Judiciary as a branch. The judicial branch hasn’t figured out – other than Justice Brett Kavanaugh experiencing it personally – the rest of the judicial branch hasn’t deduced what’s happening in the public arena, what’s happening in these protests, what’s happening at these social gatherings, what’s happening in these tactics – these mob tactics –  that are being utilized.
The reason why the press is nervous about the use of the word ‘mob’ is because of how accurate it depicts their tactics and techniques over the past two years. Tactics they experimented a little bit with at Occupy Wall Street but that went sideways because everybody was busy assaulting everybody inside, so they’re going, returning, back to those roots and those are dangerous roots for political expression. It’s going back to the street violence of the 1920’s and 1930’s as a technique and a tactic and the court system doesn’t realize it’s happening.”

After arguments in the case of Oregon V Strickland held Friday in a Oregon Appeals Court tribunal,  Barnes summed up the high stakes involved in the outcome of the case.

Here are 12 quick takes from Barnes:

The appeals court tribunal has taken the case under consideration.The court’s decision could take months to hand down.

Strickland Case at Oregon Appeals Court: If Verdict Allowed to Stand, “Nobody Is Safe” From Antifa

The case of the Portland, Oregon man, forced to pull, but not fire, his legally concealed weapon to ward off a mob of Antifa protesters, has been heard before the Oregon State Court of Appeals.

Photo: Laughing at Liberals

Michael Strickland’s conviction on 21 counts against him, stemming from a July 7, 2016 protest,  was appealed in oral arguments Friday morning before a three judge panel of the Oregon Appeals Court.

Photo: Victoria Taft

Robert Barnes represented Strickland while Susan Howe was the attorney for the state of Oregon.

The case was heard by Douglas Tookey (appointed by Gov. Kitzhaber), Scott Shorr  (appointed by Gov. Kate Brown) and Rex Armstrong (elected to six year term in 2018) in a hearing that lasted less than an hour on Friday morning.

Strickland summed up the proceedings in a news release (see below):

“We raised several assignments of error regarding the admissibility of certain evidence, denial of change venue that was based on defamatory and untrue statements made by Multnomah County deputy district attorney Kate Molina to media, the 1st Amendment restrictions that have been placed on me by the courts, and the fact that I was denied my Constitutional right to face my accusers.”

He added:

“If the courts can do this to a privileged, straight, white, male in Portland, then just imagine what they can do to an underprivileged, transgender, immigrant of color in a rural county.”

Barnes, who practices law in California and Nevada, worked with local co-counsel, and traveled to Oregon to argue the case.

Barnes agreed that Strickland is Antifa’s ‘Victim Zero’ and asserted that judges all over the country are woefully ignorant of the violence committed by this group. He said Strickland’s case has sent a message to Portland and beyond:

“[R]ight now if you’re in the black bloc what do you think? I can harass somebody and get them arrested if they try to defend themselves. And then they want people not to defend themselves so that they feel terrified, so that the feel scared, so that they feel frightened, so that their behavior can be publicly and privately coerced. And that’s the danger. And that’s why this case is bigger than one person. This battle will be just the beginning of a long extended battle. If this can happen to him here it can happen to anyone, anywhere, and it means that nobody is safe. And that’s why this case is so significant.”

“This battle will be just the beginning of a long extended battle. If this can happen to him here it can happen to anyone, anywhere, and it means that nobody is safe. And that’s why this case is so significant.”

Barnes told VictoriaTaft.com,  and others gathered outside the court house, that it’s easy for an appeals court to simply rubber- stamp the trial verdict, but he wanted to remind the judges of a higher legal principle:

“[W]e were trying to force the issue back into the legal terrain to sort of the high plains of what the law is ‘cause that’s what protects everybody and it needs to be equally applied. And it’s forcing them to face that when they don’t always want to face that when the easy political decision for them to make is just to affirm the case and not to overturn the police; not to overturn the prosecutor; not to overturn the judge not to enhance and expand the protection of ordinary individuals against the black bloc of Portland.”

“[T]he easy political decision for them to make is just to affirm the case and not to overturn the police; not to overturn the prosecutor; not to overturn the judge not to enhance and expand the protection of ordinary individuals against the black bloc of Portland.”

After the conclusion of the hearing on third floor of the Oregon Supreme Court building, Strickland told those gathered:

“I think at its heart that it is a first amendment issue. And I hope that the judges realize that a person has a first amendment right to be a public area, filming a public event and that a mob of thugs do not have the right to use force to prevent that person from doing such and that my actions were solely in self defense on this case.”

Strickland issued a press release (below) and a YouTube video about the hearing:

“LaughingAtLiberals
Published on Oct 12, 2018

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The Oregon Court of Appeals heard oral arguments this morning, October 12th, 2018, regarding the matter of State Of Oregon vs Michael Strickland, appeals case number A165019. I, Michael Strickland, am hopeful that the honorable Judges of the appeals court will recognize the dangerous case law precedent that was set in this case and that they will vacate my conviction.

We raised several assignments of error regarding the admissibility of certain evidence, denial of change venue that was based on defamatory and untrue statements made by Multnomah County deputy district attorney Kate Molina to media, the 1st Amendment restrictions that have been placed on me by the courts, and the fact that I was denied my Constitutional right to face my accusers.

If the courts can do this to a privileged, straight, white, male in Portland, then just imagine what they can do to an underprivileged, transgender, immigrant of color in a rural county.

At its heart, I believe my case is a 1st Amendment matter. As of the verdict of finding me guilty, the courts have essentially ruled that a person does not have a right to be in a public area, filming a public event, in their capacity as a professional news journalist, and that a mob of aggressive thugs have the right to use physical force and intimidation tactics to prevent a journalist from engaging in free press, and if the journalist tries to stop the thugs from assaulting and robbing them, then it’s the journalist who is guilty of crimes, while those who perpetrate and instigate violence become the victims.

This should strike fear into every journalist in the state.

Representing me on the appeal is LA-based Attorney Robert Barnes, who says “Right now if you’re in the black bloc [anarchists, antifa], what do you think? I can harass somebody and get away with it. I can harass somebody and get them arrested if they try to defend themselves. And that’s what they want. They want people to not defend themselves. And then they want people not to defend themselves so that they feel terrified, so that the feel scared, so that they feel frightened, so that their behavior can be publicly and privately coerced. And that’s the danger. And that’s why this case is bigger than one person.”

As we saw in the viral videos from last weekend, mob violence has been legalized. This is due, at least in part, to the ruling in case. Political violence is now encouraged and the mob is emboldened to attack people on the streets because they know they can legally get away with it, and anyone who opposes them or finds themselves in a position where they have to defend themselves against direct physical threats is guilty of crimes.

This puts everyone in Oregon at risk of being robbed, injured or worse. For example, a group of KKK members now have the legal right and lawfully authority to attack people of color in the street. Everyone’s rights to free press, to be safe from mob violence, and to defend one’s self are in the hands of the Honorable Judges of the Court of Appeals”

Strickland Attorney Robert Barnes Drops a Truth Bomb About Antifa & Portland ‘Justice’ and It’s a Stunner

Before they chased old men in cars and canceled parades;  before Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yianoppolous and Charles Murray were silenced by mob violence; before Professional Paid Protesters, Incorporated™ screamed at Senators, overturned cars or set a ‘deplorable’s’ limo on fire; there was Michael Strickland.

Strickland is believed to be Antifa’s ‘victim zero.

July 7, 2016 was just another day for the videographer who filmed Portland, Oregon’s protest scene for his YouTube channel “Laughing at Liberals.”

Unbeknownst to Strickland, his very success on YouTube and in placing his videos on national news outlets, would be kryptonite to the balaclava clad wing nuts of Antifa. As one Portland anarchist admitted to me, Antifa didn’t like how Strickland held up a mirror to the mob and made them look stupid.

A previous attempt to ruin his video by calling him epithets and getting in his face at a candlelight vigil for the Orlando shooting victims didn’t work. By July, Antifa had contrived a way to shut him up for good.

As admitted in court, Antifa and Black Lives Matter/Don’t Shoot Portland agitators conspired in advance to throw the journalist out of ‘their’ protest, which was being held on public property.

The mob surrounded Strickland, roughing him up, hitting him with their flag staffs (a typical weapon) and punching him as he recorded their protest.

Here’s a typical cache of weapons from Antifa ‘protests’:

Portland Police Bureau

A few minutes later, angry that Strickland hadn’t acceded to their violent tactics, the mob came at him again, attempting to surround him like a pack of jackals.

Laughing at Liberals

One of his attackers was 400 pound Benjamin Kerensa, a convicted bomb hoaxer, hacker, law enforcement impersonator, fabulist and Antifa ally.

Laughing at Liberals

Strickland drew his licensed concealed handgun that Antifa knew he had (I know, I asked), a Glock semi automatic pistol. Strickland, showing amazing trigger discipline – never allowing his finger to come close to the trigger – held off his attackers as he backed away from the mob. To be clear,  Strickland was the only person hurt that day. No shots were ever fired.

Screenshot/Laughing at Liberals

People stunned to hear about the old man chased down the streets of Portland by the mob were equally shocked to learn that the Portland Police Bureau stood by and did nothing. Worse, the Bureau  has invited the mob to file complaints against the old man in the car. Not a typo.

Twitter

Indeed, in Portland, self defense has been turned on its ear. For being targeted, beaten and forced to draw his weapon to save himself, Strickland was prosecuted. Members of the mob, which had beaten him once already and were running in to finish him off, were magically transformed into victims.

Laughing at Liberals’ ‘Victims’

The book was thrown at Strickland. A perjurious ‘police report’ issued by one of the protest organizers and the guy who conspired to get Strickland tossed from the July protest  was used by Leftist prosecutors  to enhance the videographer’s bail to $250,000 – nearly that of a murderer.

Strickland’s case was heard by a Portland judge who found him guilty of all charges, which included ten felonies (for his ten ‘victims’).

People are just getting wind of Portland ‘justice’ after the car chasing caper:

Comedian Tim Young couldn’t believe that the victim was being transformed into the perpetrator in the car chasing attack,

“Are you supposed to sit in your car until they’re finished?”

Robert Barnes, noted defense attorney and Strickland’s appeals attorney, had a ready answer for Young:

He laid out a few more truth bombs on ‘justice’ in Portland:

Michael Santella summed up what appears to be wrong with the Peoples Republic of Portland – no leadership or political will to stop the mob:

Portland’s laissez faire attitude toward thugs on the streets has taken a toll on the city’s reputation and on the citizens’ sense of equal justice in Multnomah County:

Roy Batty put it a different way. Antifa taking over the streets is simply “government sanctioned anarchy:”

Batty will get his wish. Strickland’s appeals case will be heard soon.

Go here for some necessary background on the Strickland case.