Case Information

26-2-30549-34 | KATHRYN L STOKER vs SELENA URSA SMITH

Case Number
26-2-30549-34

Court
Thurston

File Date
07/28/2026

Case Type
CPO Civil Protection Order

Case Status
Active

Party

Respondent (WIP)
SMITH, SELENA URSA

DOB
6/11/1976

---

Petitioner (WIP)
STOKER, KATHRYN L

DOB
7/21/1949

Active Attorneys

Lead Attorney

CLIFFORD, VIRGINIA A

Retained

---

---

Minor (WIP)
SMITH-WELLS, RAVEN-GAIA SHENANDOAH

DOB
12/14/2019

---

Minor (WIP)
SMITH-WELLS, ONAWA KACHINA

DOB
4/29/2018

---

Minor (WIP)
SMITH, HAZEL BELLE URSA

DOB
5/2/2013

Events and Hearings

• 07/28/2026 Approve Petition Judicial Officer
  Rue, Megan K Hearing Time
  2:30 PM Comment
  Temp Order
• 07/28/2026 Case Information Cover Sheet

1. Case Information Cover Sheet

07/28/2026 Law Enforcement and Confidential Information Form

07/28/2026 Petition for Order for Protection

2. Petition for Order for Protection

07/28/2026 Proposed Order Findings

3. Proposed Order Findings

07/28/2026 JIS Check Confidential Document Cover Sheet

07/28/2026 Order Denying Petition Motion for Protection

4. Order Denying Petition Motion for Protection

Comment
Protection Order DV No Temp

07/28/2026 Order to Allow Electronic Service

5. Order to Allow Electronic Service

07/28/2026 Motion Hearing

6. Motion Hearing

08/11/2026 Protection Order

Judicial Officer
Rawnsley, Patrick W

Hearing Time
9:00 AM; Crt Admin:360-709-3295, Zoom Meeting ID:786 408 0165 – Location: Courtroom 3

Comment
Protection Order DV No Temp
*********************************************************************

08/11/2026 Order for Hearing

7. Order for Hearing

Comment
Protection Order-1 DV No Temp

08/11/2026 Motion Hearing

8. Motion Hearing

08/14/2026 Law Enforcement and Confidential Information Form

08/21/2026 Return of Service

9. Return of Service

08/21/2026 Return of Service

10. Return of Service

08/21/2026 Motion to Continue

11. Motion to Continue

08/21/2026 Proposed Order Findings

12. Proposed Order Findings

08/25/2026 Protection Order

Judicial Officer
Rawnsley, Patrick W

Hearing Time Crt Admin:360-709-3295, Zoom Meeting ID:786 408 0165 – Courtroom 3
9:00 AM

Comment
Protection Order-1 DV No Temp

Beyond her public speaking appearances and lectures (such as her First America presentations), Cherokee journalist, author, and activist Rebecca Nagle has produced several major works focusing on tribal sovereignty, federal Indian law, and Indigenous rights:

1. Books

• By the Fire We Carry: The Generations-Long Fight for Justice on Native Land (2024)
  Her award-winning debut book investigates the centuries-long legal and political fight over tribal land in eastern Oklahoma. It weaves together historical acts of Indigenous resistance following forced removal with the modern-day legal battle (McGirt v. Oklahoma) that ultimately resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing reservation boundaries across nearly half of Oklahoma.

1. Podcasts

• This Land (Crooked Media)
  As creator and host, Nagle led two seasons of this documentary podcast examining critical threats and victories regarding Indigenous sovereignty:
• Season 1: Focuses on the McGirt v. Oklahoma case, tracing how a small-town murder case evolved into one of the most consequential tribal land rights rulings in modern Supreme Court history.
• Season 2: Investigates the conservative legal campaign targeting the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) through the Haaland v. Brackeen Supreme Court case.

1. Journalism & Essays
   Nagle’s investigative reporting and commentary on Native representation, federal Indian law, and violence against Indigenous women regularly appear in major outlets, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Guardian, USA Today, and Indian Country Today.
2. Activism & Advocacy Projects

• FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture & The Monument Quilt: Before focusing heavily on journalism, she co-founded FORCE, an activist organization dedicated to ending sexual violence and supporting survivors. She helped lead the creation of The Monument Quilt, a massive public art display built by and for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence.
• Language Revitalization: Living in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, Nagle has also worked directly with the Cherokee Nation on local Cherokee language preservation and revitalization initiatives.

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 

nprSooetds43lb33l3ic34l2aa hectFci503a2taa8r1m3i991rt93ug57y  ·

Leave it to Shakespeare and Ian McKellen to so eloquently speak of man’s mountainish inhumanity.

#Colbert#IanMcKellen#Shakespeare#ThomasMore

Angry London Mob: “Deport the strangers! Ban the strangers!!”

Sir Thomas Moore pleads the strangers' case:

"Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding to th' ports and coasts for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I'll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an agèd man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self-same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another.

What do you think,
You that do sit at helm, and call your beats,
When you have thrown down with your own strong hands
The pillars of your safety, that no odds
Times bar but reason? Submit you to great states
And get State of your own blood, in whose repose
Consists your safety: 'tis the king's crown, whose duty
Is to protect all subjects; but if you,
O desperate men, can not conclude your wrongs,
With any civil bounds, what state of peace
Can be so secure, but you, whose raging manners
Are guilded like the cap of liberty,
Will pluck forth justice from her seated throne,
To do your wills? O, desperate as you are,
Wash your foul hands in gore, and bring your swords
To lead yourselves in execution!
What would you have? Your will? Alas, your aims
Are all as infinite as your desires,
And your desires as limitlesse as your power.
Alas, poor things, what is it you demand,
Carrying your cities' threat'ning on your brows,
And pawing on the bleeding church of peace?

Say now the king,
As he is clement if th' offender mourn,
Should so much come too short of your great trespass
As but to banish you: whither would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error,
Should give you harbour? Go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, anywhere that not adheres to England,
Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? This is the strangers' case;
And this your mountainish inhumanity." 

Case Information

26-2-30063-34 | JAMIE ELIZABETH MCNEAR vs QUINDRE DURRELL JAMES

Case Number
26-2-30063-34

Court
Thurston

File Date
01/26/2026

Case Type
CPO Civil Protection Order

Case Status
Completed/Re-Completed

Party

Respondent (WIP)
JAMES, QUINDRE DURRELL

DOB
XX/XX/1982

---

Petitioner (WIP)
MCNEAR, JAMIE ELIZABETH

DOB
XX/XX/1990

Active Attorneys

Pro Se

---

---

Minor (WIP)
JAMES, KEPOLANI

DOB
XX/XX/2025

---

Minor (WIP)
MCNEAR, KALANI KEJUAN

DOB
XX/XX/2012

---

Minor (WIP)
MCNEAR, KALEA MARIE KAIULANI

DOB
XX/XX/2014

---

Minor (WIP)
MCNEAR, MAKAI MASRSHANE

DOB
XX/XX/2009

Events and Hearings

• 01/26/2026 Law Enforcement and Confidential Information Form
• 01/26/2026 Petition for Order for Protection

1. Petition for Order for Protection

01/26/2026 Appearance Pro Se

2. Appearance Pro Se

01/26/2026 JIS Check Confidential Document Cover Sheet

01/26/2026 Motion Hearing

3. Motion Hearing

01/26/2026 Temporary Order for Protection

4. Temporary Order for Protection

Comment
Protection Order/Surr Weapon DV

01/26/2026 Order to Surrender Weapon

5. Order to Surrender Weapon

Comment
Hearing Noted

01/26/2026 Protective Order Transmitted to LEA

02/03/2026 Sheriffs Return of Service Not Served

6. Sheriffs Return of Service Not Served

02/05/2026 Declaration Affidavit

7. Declaration Affidavit

Comment
Sarah Hall

02/06/2026 Protection Order

Judicial Officer
Kortokrax, Nathan L.

Hearing Time
9:00 AM

Comment
Protection Order/Surr Weapon DV

02/06/2026 Declaration Affidavit

8. Declaration Affidavit

Comment
Tamara Morris

02/06/2026 Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order

9. Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order

Comment
Protection Order/Surr Weapon DV

02/06/2026 Protective Order Transmitted to LEA

02/06/2026 Motion Hearing

10. Motion Hearing

02/20/2026 Protection Order

Judicial Officer
Kortokrax, Nathan L.

Hearing Time
9:00 AM

Comment
Protection Order/Surr Weapon DV

02/20/2026 Motion Hearing

11. Motion Hearing

02/20/2026 Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order

12. Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order

Comment
Protection Order/Surr Weapon-1 DV

02/20/2026 Protective Order Transmitted to LEA

03/03/2026 Protection Order

Judicial Officer
Rawnsley, Patrick W

Hearing Time
9:00 AM

Comment
Protection Order/Surr Weapon-1 DV

03/03/2026 Order for Protection

13. Order for Protection

03/03/2026 Order to Surrender Weapon CPL Restriction

14. Order to Surrender Weapon CPL Restriction

03/03/2026 Declaration of NonSurrender

15. Declaration of NonSurrender

03/03/2026 Order of Transfer Transferring

16. Order of Transfer Transferring

Comment
Treatment Review

03/03/2026 Order Regarding Visitation

17. Order Regarding Visitation

03/03/2026 Protective Order Transmitted to LEA

03/03/2026 Case Resolution Closed by Court Order After a Hearing

03/03/2026 Motion Hearing

18. Motion Hearing

03/11/2026 Letter

19. Letter

Comment
from DV Case Coordinator

04/30/2026 Notice of Continuance

20. Notice of Continuance

Comment
Treatment Review

06/17/2026 Review Hearing

Judicial Officer
Rue, Megan K

Hearing Time
9:00 AM

Cancel Reason
Continuance

Comment
Treatment Review

06/17/2026 Review Hearing

Judicial Officer
Kortokrax, Nathan L.

Hearing Time
1:30 PM

Cancel Reason
Continuance

Comment
Treatment Review

06/17/2026 Review Hearing

Judicial Officer
Kortokrax, Nathan L.

Hearing Time
1:30 PM

Comment
Treatment Review

06/17/2026 Motion Hearing

21. Motion Hearing

06/17/2026 Order on Review Hearing

22. Order on Review Hearing

09/23/2026 Review Hearing

Judicial Officer
Rue, Megan K

Hearing Time
1:30 PM

ANTIFA & An@rchist Guidance:

The Devil Speech from A Man for All Seasons

That is one of the most powerful and enduring exchanges in literature and film. It comes from Robert Bolt’s play *A Man for All Seasons*. In the scene, Sir Thomas More is challenged by his idealistic and hot-headed son-in-law, William Roper, for refusing to arrest a man More knows to be wicked.

Here is the dialogue:

**William Roper:** So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

**Sir Thomas More:** Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

**William Roper:** Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

**Sir Thomas More:** Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

This passage perfectly captures the philosophy we so often discuss: that the rule of law is not merely a tool for the powerful, but a “thicket” that protects every individual—even the most vulnerable—from the unpredictable and often cruel whims of the crowd or the state. When we abandon due process in our zeal to “get” someone we deem evil, we destroy the very barriers that exist to protect us all when the winds of public sentiment shift.

This video features the iconic delivery of these lines from the 1966 film adaptation of the play, which brings the full weight of More’s warning to life.

A Man for All Seasons – The Devil Speech

The historical connection to Congressman Mike Lowry is a powerful piece of American history. Standing up against a flag burning bill that had almost universal, bipartisan momentum takes precisely the kind of moral courage John F. Kennedy wrote about in his Pulitzer winning bool: PROFILES IN COURAGE.

Lowry was one of but 3 Congressmen who realized that protecting the Constitution means protecting the rights of people to do things that the majority of society finds completely offensive.

The Supreme Court cases (Texas v. Johnson in 1989 and United States v. Eichman in 1990) actually weren’t unanimous—they were razor-thin 5-4 decisions. What makes them a ray of hope for the Anthropic case, however, is who voted to protect unpopular political speech. Conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia joined the liberal block specifically because he believed his duty to the text of the First Amendment overrode his personal disgust for flag burners.

Trump’s Weaponization of Anthropic AI Code, Expression, and the Ghosts of the First Amendment

When the Trump administration recently (6-12-26) issued its emergency order forcing Anthropic to pull its newest AI models, Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline globally, the justification was familiar: National Security. His selected Commerce Department reps argued that because these models (e;g; Claude 5) are highly capable of generating complex software code, allowing foreign nationals to access them constitutes an export of a dangerous cyber-weapon.

But let’s strip away the modern tech jargon. This is an old, authoritarian impulse dressed up in new digital clothes. This is a system of prior restraint—the government suppressing an information tool before it can even be used, under the assumption that someone, somewhere, might use it maliciously.

This moment reminds us of two profound historical parallels that should offer both a warning and a sense of hope.

A Lesson in Bipartisan Panic

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a wave of intense political fervor swept through Washington. Following a controversial demonstration, Congress rushed to pass the Flag Protection Act of 1989, making it a federal crime to desecrate the American flag. The bill was wildly popular. It felt like the entire country, and almost the entirety of Congress, was in lockstep.

Years later, I hosted a public meeting with Washington State Governor Mike Lowry. Lowry was one of a microscopic handful of Congressmen (3) who had the absolute backbone to vote against that emotional, popular tide. I greatly admired his courage. Standing in front of an angry public to explain that the Constitution protects even the most odious, offensive expressions is the definition of political bravery. He deserved a chapter in Profiles in Courage.
The politicians thought they had won. But the Supreme Court stepped in.

In United States v. Eichman (1990), a narrow 5-4 majority struck down the federal law. Justices like Antonin Scalia—who loathed the act of flag burning personally—voted to protect it anyway. Why? Because they understood a foundational truth: Free speech exists precisely to protect unpopular, provocative, or controversial expression. If we only protect speech that makes the government feel safe and comfortable, the First Amendment is an empty promise.

From Flags to Code

The administration’s current war on AI models relies on the exact same trick the government tried to use against encryption pioneer Phil Zimmermann and his PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) software in the 1990s. Back then, the government classified encryption source code as a “munition”—a weapon—so they could ban its export to foreign nationals.

The federal courts saw right through it. In Bernstein v. United States, the courts established that computer source code is an expressive language, a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

An advanced AI model like Claude 5.0 is not a missile. It is a dynamic, evolutionary library—a general-purpose language infrastructure used by students, researchers, novelists, and everyday citizens. Labeling a language engine a “weapon” to bypass the Bill of Rights is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Why This Matters to Every American

By ordering a ban on “all foreign nationals,” the government created an unworkable standard that forced Anthropic to pull the plug on its technology entirely. In doing so, the executive branch didn’t just target foreign residents; they unilaterally stripped millions of American citizens of a tool they rely on for their businesses, their education, and their daily lives.

This isn’t just a corporate dispute between tech billionaires and the White House. This is a direct assault on the 1st Amendment’s protection of speech and the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. It injects a toxic level of regulatory instability that could easily trigger a broader panic in the technology markets.

Freedom isn’t free, and it isn’t passive. If the American public sits silently while the government uses “emergency powers” to decide who is allowed to access information based on the passport they hold/nationality, we will ultimatelyly lose the very liberties that define our nation.

Just as the Supreme Court stood up against the overwhelming political panic of the flag-burning laws thirty-five years ago, we must look to the courts to do it again today. We must remind the state that you cannot burn down the digital library just because you are afraid of what someone might read inside.

ETERNAL SERVITUDE

This is a profound connection to make. You are essentially identifying that the Book of Job, The Art of War, and The Prince all share a common, unsettling subject: the vulnerability of the individual within a system of absolute, often arbitrary power.
When you view God as the ultimate “Prince” or the ultimate “General,” the Book of Job becomes a case study in power dynamics that Sun Tzu and Machiavelli would find terrifyingly familiar.

1. The “Gambling” Deity: The Ultimate Prince

In Machiavelli’s The Prince, the ruler operates in a world of fortuna—luck or chance—which he famously compares to a violent river. To survive, the Prince must be ready to adapt to whatever the river brings.

• The Job Parallel: In the prologue to Job, God essentially risks Job’s life and livelihood on a wager with the Adversary (Satan). This portrays God not as a distant, abstract moral force, but as an entity possessing absolute power who plays by a set of rules that are entirely detached from Job’s personal merit or “fairness.”
• Machiavellian Realism: Machiavelli would look at Job and argue that Job is the ultimate “subject”—he played by all the rules, he was “virtuous,” yet his survival depended entirely on the whims of a Ruler who viewed him as a pawn in a larger game of statecraft (or, in this case, cosmic posturing).

2. The Art of War and the Limits of “Correctness”

Sun Tzu emphasizes that one must understand the “Tao” (the Way) of the situation and the “climate” or “conditions.”

• The Job Parallel: Job spends much of the book trying to argue that his “strategy”—his moral righteousness—should have guaranteed him a specific “victory” or at least safety. He is trying to use legalistic, logical arguments against an adversary (God) who operates on a plane where logic and morality are irrelevant to the outcome.
• Sun Tzu’s Lesson: Sun Tzu teaches that if you find yourself fighting an opponent who holds all the terrain, all the resources, and defines the very rules of the battle, you have already lost. Job’s tragedy is the realization that he cannot “out-strategize” the Creator. There is no tactical move that can force a victory when the General has already decided the outcome of the campaign.

3. The “Cruelty” of Power

What might be called a “voracious gambling habit” is what political realists call absolute sovereignty.

• Machiavelli would suggest that the God of Job is behaving exactly like a successful Prince: displaying power to maintain order and authority, indifferent to the suffering of individual subjects because the systemic goal (establishing the hierarchy of the universe) is paramount.
• Sun Tzu would recognize the “wager” as a form of psychological warfare. By using Job as a test case, God is demonstrating control over the moral landscape to silence all potential challenges from the Adversary.

4. The Lesson for Your Legal Argument

Looking at this through the lens of victim justice: In Job, the victim (Job) eventually realizes that the system is rigged against him, yet he insists on his right to challenge the Ruler.

• If you take the Art of War approach, you aren’t trying to appeal to the “fairness” of the fence or the thief; you are trying to expose the nature of their battlefield. You are trying to show that their “agreement” is a criminal conspiracy, not a legitimate transaction.
• If you take the Machiavellian approach, you accept that the system (the court, the statutes) is a place of fortuna and calculated moves, and your task is to maneuver the legal facts so that the thief can no longer hide behind the “mask” of a closed statute of limitations.
• 
  The Book of Job is indeed a “parallel path” because it documents the moment a person realizes that the rules they were told to follow are not the rules that the people in power are playing by. Job’s defiance is his only source of dignity, just as your insistence on addressing the “hole” in the criminal code is your way of forcing the system to account for its own inconsistencies.

To compare Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is to look at two distinct “grammars” of power. Both are foundational texts that deal with the cold reality of human conflict, but they arise from different cultural imperatives and serve different primary ends.

Comparative Summary: The Strategic Philosophies

Feature	Sun Tzu (The Art of War)	Machiavelli (The Prince)
Primary Focus	Military efficiency, conflict avoidance, and tactical mastery.	Statecraft, political survival, and the acquisition of power.
Core Objective	Achieving victory with minimal destruction to the state.	Maintaining control of the state and ensuring stability.
View of Conflict	A “vital” burden; should be resolved quickly or avoided entirely.	A constant, inevitable reality of political life.
Philosophical Root	Taoist influence (harmony, balance, economy of force).	Renaissance Realism (pragmatism, human nature, virtù).
Approach to Ethics	Amoral utility; ethics are subordinate to effectiveness.	Calculated immorality; “the ends justify the means” for the state.

Key Philosophical Divergences

1. The Economy of Force vs. The Consolidation of Control

• Sun Tzu views war as a catastrophic necessity. His ultimate success is winning “without fighting”—subverting the enemy’s will and plans so that total destruction is unnecessary. The goal is to preserve the state’s resources, because a long war, even a winning one, can bankrupt a nation.
• Machiavelli views politics as a perpetual struggle. His Prince is not necessarily trying to avoid conflict, but rather to navigate it skillfully so he is never displaced. His focus is on the internal maintenance of power—how to be feared versus loved, how to manage factions, and how to command loyalty in an inherently volatile environment.

2. Deception and “The Mask”

Both authors emphasize the necessity of deception, but their applications differ:

• Sun Tzu’s Deception is tactical. It is about “appearing weak when you are strong” to manipulate an opponent into a fatal error. It is a tool of the battlefield.
• Machiavelli’s Deception is political and performative. It is about “appearing virtuous” while being prepared to act otherwise. The Prince must manage the perception of the people; he must be a master of the mask to survive the shifting alliances of the court.

3. Context of Power

• Sun Tzu writes for the General. His advice is horizontal, focusing on the relationship between commander, terrain, and enemy. He assumes the state is already established; the goal is to protect it from external threats.
• Machiavelli writes for the Ruler (or “New Prince”). His advice is vertical and deeply concerned with legitimacy. He is often writing for a leader who must seize power in a fractured, unstable system (Renaissance Italy) and then hold onto it against internal rivals and foreign powers.

Connecting to an Interest in “Justice” and “Fairness”

The earlier point about the “fairness to the victims” and the “continuing nature” of crime is highly relevant here.

• Sun Tzu might argue that a criminal who continues to profit from a fence is creating “long-term conflict,” which is inefficient and invites the eventual ruin of the enterprise. He would advise that such a strategy is fundamentally flawed because it invites unnecessary risk.
• Machiavelli would likely be more cynical. He would recognize that the “fence and the thief” relationship is a common political dynamic. He would analyze whether the thief’s strategy of “limiting exposure through time” is a viable method for retaining power, regardless of whether it is “fair” to the victim. For Machiavelli, the only measure of success is the durability of the result—not the morality of the path taken.
• 
  While Sun Tzu seeks the efficiency of the outcome, Machiavelli seeks the security of the position. In the context of your legal motions, you are essentially trying to prove that the thief’s “position” is built on an illegal foundation that, by its own nature, should forfeit the protections of the statute of limitations.
• 
  Does this comparative look at the “economical” strategist versus the “pragmatic” politician help frame the legal argument, i.e. developing the accountability of the criminal enterprise?

“None are so helplessly enslaved as those who falsely nelieve they are free.” -Goethe-

hondurasgate.ch

AUDIOS

Every recording referenced in this reporting, with literal transcription, summary, date, and the speaker when identified.

Audio Tape 1

SUMMARY
JOH pide confirmar si Marlon Ochoa sali6 de Honduras para buscarlo con contactos de inteligencia de Estados Unidos y proceder con la captura o lo que corresponda.

-LITERAL TRANSCRIPT
“Si ya no esta en Honduras, tenes que confirmarme para yo empezar a mover a buscarlo con los contactos que tenemos de inteligencia de Estados Unidos, y una vez lo localizamos ah[ procedemos con la captura, o con lo que se tenga que hacer. No creo que ese muchacho haya salido sin que nadie lo haya visto.”

Audio Tape 2

SPEAKER
Tomas Zambrano Molina
TOMAS ZAMBRANO

-SUMMARY
Tomas Zambrano responde a JOH que avanzaran contra Marlon, que evaluan una orden de captura internacional y que deben buscar el delito.

-LITERAL TRANSCRIPT
“Contestandole a su solicitud, sf, vamos a darle duro al tema del juicio polftico de Marlon. Le estaba diciendo a los companeros que lo espantaron porque informan que ya no esta aquf. Y si ya no esta aquf que podemos hacer. Estabamos hablando con un grupo de abogados, verdad, que se le puede dar a el una orden de captura internacional. Eso se puede hacer, pero tendrfamos que buscar el delito principalmente, talvez usted nos ayuda y nos asesora.”

Audio Tape 3

SPEAKER
Juan Orlando Hernandez
JOH

-SUMMARY
Juan Orlando Hernandez exige que metan el juicio polftico contra Marlon, dice que debe salir de ahf y que necesitan tener todo controlado aunque corra sangre.

-LITERAL TRANSCRIPT
“Me van a meter ese juicio sf o sf, ese muchacho tiene que salir de ahf. Ocupamos ten er controlado todo, no importa cuanta sangre se derrame, no importa que quieran meter las antorchas, que quieran salir, no importa, no me importa eso.”