No Justice to be found at Bunkerville retrial....

[phill4paul]

In a retrial not only should there be a new jury, but also a new judge....


Did the Judge Select the Jury in Bunkerville Retrial?

Eric Parker, Ricky Lovelien, Steven Stewart and Scott Drexler are back in a Vegas courtroom for a retrial of charges related to the 2014 Bunkerville Standoff.

Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the case in April when the jury could not reach a consensus for the majority of charges against the defendants.

Two of the defendants, Gregory Burlson and Todd Engel, were found guilty on some of the charges and will not be retried on the remaining charges. They are scheduled to be sentenced later this month.

Jury Selection in the new trial began this week with Judge Navarro immediately taking over the process.

From eyewitness accounts in the courtroom, we were told of the seemingly “rigged” system that the Judge used to select the jury she wanted.

Under Rule 24, The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year. The court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly.

In this case, with four defendants, the defense began with 10 strikes and the prosecution with 6. Each party was given one additional strike. Specifically, each defendant was given an additional strike and the prosecution should have been given an additional strike as well.

Prior to jury selection beginning, the prosecution filed several motions. One of these motions was to have the prosecution receive an equal number of additional strikes as the defense. This is not considered fair to the defense of multiple defendants, and is not normally allowed.

Keep in mind that the “system” is supposed to be set up with the presumption of innocence for the defendants, and the burden placed upon the prosecution.

Judge Navarro, however, agreed with that motion and granted the prosecution 4 additional strikes. She also ruled in favor of the prosecution on every single pre-trial motion!
Her ruling brought the total challenges to 14 for the defense and 10 for the prosecution.

During the course of jury selection, after all strikes for “cause” were completed, the process began to strike members from the jury pool by both sides. This process does not need explanation, as each side has their own criteria to decide who they want removed. The exception to this rule is called a “Batson Challenge”.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. (Wikipedia)

This is important for several reasons. The Batson case itself was a civil rights case. The Supreme Court was ruling on a Prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude people strictly because of their race. This was, again, to keep the trial fair for the defendants.

Therefore, when a Batson challenge is made, the prosecutor needs to explain why his striking a juror was not based on their race. Most prosecutors can easily handle these questions, but it is important for them to put it on the record.

In today’s hearing, the challenges were such that the defense struck 7 men and 7 women. The prosecutions strikes were for 8 women and 2 men.

However, it was the prosecution that made an objection based on a Batson challenge and claimed that the defense was biased against men. They claimed that there were men removed from the jury pool wrongly. They accused the defense of gender-bias.

The defense should not have had to explain their criteria to the court. It is the defense, after all, and they do not have the burden of proof. However, Judge Navarro made the defense cite their reasoning for every challenge they made against the jurors, with one juror receiving what seemed to be special attention.

They explained that they felt an underlying deception from the prospective juror. Their ‘gut’ told them the person was not being honest. They did not want the person on the jury.

“There is a level of deception that has taken place here,” was the response from the defense team.

The judge made comments to the effect that the juror’s answers were what she would expect the defense to want.

They judge did not find any reason acceptable that the defense should have had 5 particular men removed, and she put them back on the jury. She re-seated these jurors despite the challenges from the defense. She effectively told the defense that they cannot have a say in who is kept or removed from the jury.

Not only did she put them back on the jury, but she took the 5 challenges completely away from the defense. They were now down to 9 when the prosecution still had 10. So the advantage again went straight to the government.
The defense, to their credit, then objected to the prosecution for the same Batson challenge, citing the fact that the prosecution used 80% of their challenges against women. Judge Navarro refused to rule on that objection and did not even open an inquiry on it. She completely brushed it under the rug and moved on.

This judge took complete control of selecting the jury by not allowing the defense their challenges. She had particular people she wanted on the jury (specifically juror number 296?) and she was not about to allow the defense to remove him. Could this be considered jury tampering?

Navarro has already shown her disregard for the US Constitution. She has already made it clear that she has an agenda with these defendants. She is clearly not going to allow another mistrial in this case and will do whatever it takes to get the verdict she desires. These citizens, that have been held for 18 months without bail, do not stand a chance.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/judge-select-jury-bunkerville-retrial/

and....


Judge bans defense arguments in Bundy retrial

Government prosecutors have a friend in U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro.

The judge is presiding over the retrial of four defendants charged with various crimes stemming from their participation in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff near Cliven Bundy’s ranch. The first trial ended in April with the jury deadlocked on all counts involving the four men.

On Monday, the judge eviscerated the defense’s legal strategy, putting off limits a whole host of issues that might make it more difficult for the government to win convictions. The defendants will be forbidden from arguing that they were exercising their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and bear arms. They may not highlight the actions of BLM agents in the days leading up to the incident or mention federal gaffes such as the ill-advised “First Amendment” zone created for protesters.

And if imposing these restrictions on the defense wasn’t enough, Judge Navarro ruled that prosecutors may introduce testimony about the four accused men and their associations with so-called militia groups.

Judge Navarro made a similar ruling before the first trial. She is going to extraordinary lengths to address prosecution fears of “jury nullification,” in which jurors refuse to convict based on a belief that the law or potential punishment is unjust. The practice dates to 1734, when a jury ignored statutes and acquitted publisher John Peter Zenger on charges of criticizing New York’s new colonial governor, accepting arguments from Mr. Zenger’s attorney, Alexander Hamilton, that the newspaper had simply published the truth.

Federal prosecutors have encountered unexpected difficulty — both here and in Oregon — in securing convictions against those protesting federal control of Western public lands. But the issue here isn’t whether one believes the Bundy defendants are courageous freedom fighters or zealous lunatics. Rather it’s whether a judge should usurp the rights of the defendants to have a jury of their peers consider their arguments alongside the law, evidence and other testimony.

Judge Navarro’s sweeping order reflects a deep mistrust of the American jury system.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-judge-bans-defense-arguments-in-bundy-retrial/

[pcosmar]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9VgHaey6N0w/hq720.jpg

[FSP-Rebel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyBR4ENQAF8&t=1464s

Klayman Reveals Prosecutorial Misconduct in Bundy Case and Cover-Up of Extortion 17 Afghan Tragedy!
I love listening to this guy, he's a real badass attorney. He pretty much goes over what the OP reported but he has some interesting takes and suggestions on the situation. Also calls on Sessions to get his ass in gear on this.

[phill4paul]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9VgHaey6N0w/hq720.jpg

Damn Straight!

[phill4paul]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyBR4ENQAF8&t=1464s

I love listening to this guy, he's a real badass attorney. He pretty much goes over what the OP reported but he has some interesting takes and suggestions on the situation. Also calls on Sessions to get his ass in gear on this.

His facts at the get go 9@3:00) are not factual to the extent of my knowledge. Harry Reid did not conspire to to take the Bundy's land for the Chinese. They, Harry, just denide him grazing rights for non-FED Gov. payment which should have been state lands not Federal. They, Harry Reid and Co., never raided his ranch.

This misinformation makes it hard for me to continue.

[FSP-Rebel]

His facts at the get go 9@3:00) are not factual to the extent of my knowledge. Harry Reid did not conspire to to take the Bundy's land for the Chinese. They, Harry, just denide him grazing rights for non-FED Gov. payment which should have been state lands not Federal. They, Harry Reid and Co., never raided his ranch.

This misinformation makes it hard for me to continue.
To me, he's implying collusion between the fmr. executive branch/BLM and Reid/potential Chinese interests and thus the raid of Bundy's cattle. Klayman's reputation and all he's done to FOIA the Clinton's and Obama's DOJ precedes his take on this particular issue. His interest in helping the Bundys out is kind of a high profile thing. Even Roger Stone is calling on Trump to issue a pardon if necessary.

886672186366320640

[phill4paul]

Judge Takes Over Prosecution In Bunkerville Retrial

by Shari Dovale

Judge Gloria Navarro has made new rules for her courtroom that (I would bet) stun even the prosecution.

Last week, Judge Navarro shocked the courtroom with her manipulation of jury selection in the Bunkerville retrial in Las Vegas, Nevada. She refused to allow the defense to have their allotted peremptory challenges and selected the jury for them.

She also ruled against the defense on every single pre-trial motion, including shutting down their defense strategy. Things that were allowed in the previous trial will not be allowed in this trial. The defendants will not be allowed to explain why they went to Bunkerville, nor will they be allowed to say the words “First Amendment”, “Second Amendment” or “Constitution”.
Today, during the questioning of the first witness of [then Under-sheriff] Lombardo, Judge Navarro’s control issues took a very bizarre twist.

During the re-direct testimony of Lombardo, the prosecution, reminding him of being questioned about accidental discharge of weapons, asked the witness what factors he was concerned about during the incident on April 14, 2014.

Lombardo responded that he was concerned for officer safety, the safety of the Nevada Highway patrol and also that of the BLM, if there had been a firefight.

Navarro decided, after this questioning was completed, to finish the prosecution’s examination of the witness, eliciting more testimony for the government’s case. She obviously felt that the prosecution did not phrase their questions the way she preferred and asked the witness, since he was asked about ‘accidental discharge’ was he ever concerned with ‘intentional’ discharge?

Of course, his answer was “Yes”.
But, this was not where Judge Navarro stopped. She continued to take over the questioning of the witness by asking the jury to write their own questions and submit them for her to ask Lombardo.

It is not unheard of to have a jury submit questions in lower courts, but it is highly unusual in Federal court. However, asking questions would be one point to discuss, but Judge Navarro took it even further by controlling those questions and answers herself. She read them herself and then decided what answers would be given to the jury.

The jury had many questions, including some that referenced the previous trial. Navarro did not allow much discussion on those questions, basically telling the jury that “there are different hearings in criminal cases with multiple testimonies” and she wanted to leave it at that.

The jurors also asked about the BLM’s prior operation, was the plan to release the cattle or to ship them out of the area? Navarro would not allow an answer for that, stating that this particular witness could not testify to that. However, the jury might get that answer at a later time.

One juror wanted to know if Lombardo knew if everyone’s firearms were “loaded”, and another wanted the definition of “cease and desist”.

This is highly unusual conduct in a criminal case. The judge has turned this entire case into a circus. The defense has been instructed that they cannot present their defense, and the judge has taken over the prosecution’s case. Everyone might just as well go home.

What can possibly happen tomorrow?

https://www.oathkeepers.org/judge-takes-prosecution-bunkerville-retrial/

[Swordsmyth]

This is going to make for one humdinger of an appeal.

[FSP-Rebel]

This so-called judge is just asking for the God of karma to come and bite her in the ass via some unfortunate accident. She needs to be impeached, disbarred and made an example out of.

[phill4paul]

This so-called judge is just asking for the God of karma to come and bite her in the ass via some unfortunate accident. She needs to be impeached, disbarred and made an example out of.

I don't think the judge that sat at the first trial should be allowed to sit at this one. After a mistrial I think both the judge and the jury should be replaced. Navarro did everything she could to convict these guys during the first trial. I'm sure she has colluded with the prosecutor to make sure it goes their way this time around. Her actions pretty much confirm it.

[phill4paul]

Perhaps there might be justice. Seems the jury is smelling something rotten.


Jury Questions Threaten to Derail Prosecution in Bunkerville Retrial

The jurors in the Bunkerville Retrial have been allowed the option to question each witness in the case. They are availing themselves of this option more and more each day.

It is interesting because they have not been directly instructed as to what they can, and cannot, ask the witnesses. This is a direct contradiction of how Judge Gloria Navarro has treated the defense.

The defense attorneys have been instructed they are not to bring up BLM activities, or any possibility of misconduct on their part. Dan Love is not to be mentioned in the courtroom, as he is “not relevant”.

The defense cannot discuss the videos of Margaret Houston being thrown to the ground or Ammon Bundy being tasered. The defense cannot discuss the ‘First Amendment Area” the government attempted to force people into. No mention of Dave Bundy’s arrest or subsequent treatment.

There is to be no mention of Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins statements, including folks from Utah are a bunch of “inbred bastards” and if we are coming to Clark County NV to support Cliven Bundy we all “better have funeral plans”.

There is to be no mention of the BLM destroying Cliven Bundy’s water tanks, and no videos of the massive military-style compound the BLM set up for this operation. There is to be no mention of Federal Cattle Rustling.

The jurors have not heard these instructions. However, they appear to be paying attention and they seem to understand that they are not being given the full story.
Their questions have questioned the truthfulness of some prosecution witnesses, as well as wanting to know who was in charge of this whole operation. And, they have asked about the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the second amendment.

Some of the jurors questions indicated they did not believe Sgt Shannon Serena’s account of “Officers being held at gunpoint.” Additionally, they didn’t seem too impressed with Ranger Alexandra Burke, or her constant tears.

Judge Navarro seems to be understanding the jury’s disbelief because she keeps jumping in to “clarify” testimony and questions for the jury’s benefit. In actuality, it seems that she is just trying to lead them down the prosecution’s path

Navarro does not stop assisting AUSA Myhre, and their latest attempt seems to be finding a way to manipulate the defense into turning over their closing statements to the government for review before they are given. They are going to call it sanctions for bad behavior in court.

Navarro does not want it mentioned that bad behavior is being shown by the prosecutors, including their comments to a witness, in front of the jury that stated, “People with guns got what they wanted!”

What will Myhre and Navarro attempt to slip past this jury tomorrow?

https://www.oathkeepers.org/jury-questions-threaten-derail-prosecution-bunkerville-retrial/

[tod evans]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.

:(

[phill4paul]

Prosecutors Seek Sanctions Against Steven Stewart’s Attorney – Bunkerville Retrial

The U.S. Justice Department is pulling no punches in the “Bunkerville Retrial” of Eric Parker, Steven Stewart, Scott Drexler and Rick Lovelein currently underway in a federal courtroom in Las Vegas, Nevada.

During morning arguments on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre demanded that Judge Gloria Navarro impose sanction and punishment on the defense team, especially Steven Stewart’s court-appointed attorney Richard Tanasi. Prosecutors argued that Tanasi crossed a line during questioning of a witness the day before.

With the jury outside the courtroom, and the audience barely in their seats, Myrhe accused Tanasi of knowingly violating an ‘order in limine’ which prohibits the defense from mentioning forbidden topics. The day before, while questioning a witness named Trey Schillie, Tanasi had asked if Schillie feared being shot by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents. The topic of BLM conduct is strictly off limits according to an order imposed by the Judge just before the start of trial.
Trey Schillie, a tourist on vacation (who happened to be employed by the U.S. Forest Service in Colorado) was driving on I-15 northbound on April 12, 2014 when he found himself in the heart of the famed “Bundy standoff” that day. Schillie parked his car on the roadside and walked over to see what was happening. He took several now-famous photographs of the protesters in the wash below the bridge, and of the crowd on top of the northbound bridge. Among his photos was one of Defendant Eric Parker prone on the bridge with a rifle positioned in a crack between the bridge’s concrete barriers.

At the end of his direct testimony and cross-examination, the jurors asked a series of questions of Schillie, and Schillie responded that he felt fear while standing on the bridge taking pictures. This left an obvious question that badly needed to be resolved: did Schillie feel fear from the protesters surrounding him on the bridge or from the armed BLM agents aiming weapons in his direction down below? The photos show several people (not just Parker) in crouching positions behind the concrete, indicating a fear on the bridge that federal agents might open fire on them.

Attorney Tanasi was virtually compelled to ask the obvious question of Mr. Schillie. Tanasi sought to pin down the witness, first asking if Schillie saw anyone on the bridge pointing weapons at him. Then Tanasi asked Schillie to affirm that the BLM agents at a distance in the Wash below were pointing weapons in his direction. The prosecution objected immediately, and Schillie never answered.

Trial continued with another witness on the afternoon of the 24th. But Tanasi’s ‘source-of-fear’ question was the focus of the prosecution the following morning. Prosecutor Myrhe demanded that Tanasi be punished for asking a forbidden question. Judge Navarro asked Myrhe what punishment he would recommend, and Myrhe responded that the defense (not just Tanasi but all the defense lawyers) should be made to disclose to the prosecution their closing arguments. The prosecution also demanded an instruction to the jury that BLM conduct is not an issue in the trial.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/prosecutors-seek-sanctions-steven-stewarts-attorney-bunkerville-retrial/

[dannno]

Some of the jurors questions indicated they did not believe Sgt Shannon Serena’s account of “Officers being held at gunpoint.” Additionally, they didn’t seem too impressed with Ranger Alexandra Burke, or her constant tears.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c8/c8c61c8b35e78a6d3de80272207631d94d72357461e53981e8 498a02f624bb1f.jpg

[Ender]

:(

Same. :(

[Occam's Banana]

A perfect illustration of the American "Just Us" system at its finest ...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.

[phill4paul]

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!

This has been a very eventful week in the Bunkerville Retrial of four defendants. The prosecution has demonized these good men at every turn. They have portrayed them as lawless militia, anti-government radicals, and immoral propagandists.

by Shari Dovale

“I Guess I Was Wrong”

The week began with more government agents taking the witness stand to tell how afraid they were of these gun-totin’ cowboys. BLM Special Agent Robert Shilaikis took some video of the events on April 12, 2014, because he was expecting a gunfight and wanted documentation. He was afraid that memories would fade over time.

He did not video record any protesters firing weapons. He admitted that some of his commentary of the videos was based on reviewing the footage later, not on what he saw at the time. He had to clarify some of his commentary, and his identification, as he was shown to be mistaken during his testimony.

“I Guess I Was Wrong,” he would say at least twice when confronted with his own video proof contradicting his testimony.

Shilaikis showed his bias repeatedly during his testimony, and the defense called him out on it. Profiling everyone as militia based on their clothing was a point for the defense to grill him on. He testified as to the defendants “ideology” and was asked how he could “see” that on the videos?

Judge Gloria Navarro jumped in on the bias when the defense attempted to compare and contrast the witnesses statements towards the defendants when they began to question the witness about Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, and his dress of camo, tactical gear, and a black hat turned backwards on his head. After all, they had demonized “Black Hat” Eric Parker over these very points. The theory put forth was that, by turning his ball cap around, Parker was ready to shoot his long gun.

Judge Navarro wasn’t having that in her courtroom and refused to allow the testimony.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/love2-262x300.jpg
Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, April 12, 2014



Evidence was introduced from the “Frontline” documentary aired on PBS in May 2017. This brings up questions of how PBS was able to obtain sealed discovery for this show. The court is not addressing this issue, but the people want to know.

The prosecutors do not plan to prosecute PBS for releasing sealed discovery evidence. How about they release the rest of the evidence for the public to review?


A very controversial witness took the stand by name of FBI Special Agent Sarah Gibson Draper, of Idaho. Draper was placed in charge of gathering Facebook evidence on Parker, Drexlar and Stewart.

The posts that she introduced discussed the events, but did not directly show any law breaking.

What was most interesting about her testimony was the dancing around concerning “FBI Employees”. Each time an attorney would ask about an “Agent” she would correct them to say “Employee”.

What is the difference between an FBI Agent and an FBI Employee? Draper is attempting to avoid calling them paid informants. They are employees because they are being given compensation by the government, yet they are selecting their words carefully because of the negative connotations of the word “informant”. Judge Navarro does not want that word brought up in front of the jury, and she is very heavy-handed on this issue.

I have noted there seem to have been at least 5-6 informants referenced in this case.

The jurors are not asleep on this issue. Some of their questions were specifically about whether or not the FBI “provoked” or coerced the defendants. They want to know more about this, yet seem to know that the information is being kept from them,



The McVeigh Connection

Draper introduced a Facebook post of Parker’s that was strategically redacted. They omitted references to the “Miller’s: in which Parker praised the patriots for vetting these unstable people and removing them from Bunkerville.

The post also had redactions that told of the reasons the men crouched down on the bridge as they were being “green-lighted”. This means they identified government snipers that had their weapons aimed directly at them.

What they did not omit was a reference to “McVeigh”. The purpose of the government introducing this vague reference was to get Draper to say her “belief” is that this was referring to Timothy McVeigh, and explain to the jury that he was the “Oklahoma City Bomber” that killed over a hundred people. They intention was to imply that the defendants were either connected to McVeigh himself or at least his ideology.

The Prosecutor argued, “There is really not that much difference between what they did (at Bunkerville) and what McVeigh did.”

Therefore, standing on a bridge in Nevada, where no shots were fired nor any person was harmed, afraid of the government’s hundreds of agents with firearms pointed at them, is not much different from blowing up a building and killing over 100 people?

“We or no one that we know of feel he is a martyr for anything,” said John Trochmann, spokesman for the Militia of Montana. “What would we have had to gain from blowing up public property?” asked Trochmann. “Who would gain anything unless someone wanted to pass some new type of anti-militia legislation?” – ABC News

This was completely misleading to the jury. They have cherry-picked evidence and the judge is allowing this. She sees no relevance to anything positive on behalf of the defense and has ruled it is fine to introduce obscure references and personal negative interpretations of those references.



The government is attempting to show an ongoing agreement to threaten the government. They are attempting to portray these defendants as being so thrilled with their success at Bunkerville, that they formed a group called “Idaho 3%” and went around they country to wave their guns at Federal Agents and keep them from doing their jobs, like take someone’s property unconstitutionally.

They wore camo at these operations, and carried rifles. They conducted security patrols. All are being presented as horrible behavior, and anti-government. The prosecution, and Judge Navarro, have claimed that the ongoing conspiracy included the defendants glorifying the movement and recruiting to their ranks. By sharing the truth of what the government’s alphabet agencies are doing, they are furthering the conspiracy against the government.

The jury is questioning the government’s narrative, shown by the questions of whether or not these defendants are being charged for Sugar Pine or White Hope? Judge Navarro said that they are, as these events are part of the ongoing conspiracy. So now, anyone that was NOT at Bunkerville, yet did participate in Sugar Pine, OR White Hope, are now considered co-conspirators and can be prosecuted.


Conclusion
This entire trial is based on false evidence. They have thrown out the rules of evidence and denied the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Every American should be upset by what is happening in Judge Navarro’s courtroom. If the government is allowed to proceed, and get away with, this mockery of justice, what will stop them from treating every other American the same way.

The prosecution is expected to rest their case on Monday, August 7th. The defense is then expected to take about a week to present their evidence, with the jury receiving the case for deliberations after that.

The target date for the next trial to begin is September 18, 2017. The jury questionnaires were mailed to prospective jurors last week.


https://redoubtnews.com/2017/08/militias-martyrs-mcveigh/

[phill4paul]

Navarro’s Counterfeit Court – Bunkerville Retrial

“THE LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE SELF DEFENSE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.”

by Shari Dovale

The Bunkerville Retrial in Las Vegas has taken yet another turn for the worst. Judge Gloria Navarro allowed the defense to proffer several witnesses via SKYPE today. The testimony was taken out of the hearing of the jury so that she might determine if the testimony is relevant.

Included in this group was former FOX News reporter Dennis Michael Lynch, and a few citizens that were actually in the wash on April 12, 2014.

Each of the witnesses testified to the fear they felt that day watching the multiple law enforcement agencies point guns at them and hearing statements on the loudspeakers that the BLM had been given authority to shoot the protesters.

“If you move forward you can be shot,” Lynch said, reciting the message.

“I thought we might die in the wash that day,” Kenneth Rhoades testified.

The same testimony was repeated throughout the day. However, when it was all said and done, Judge Navarro said that this testimony was not relevant to the case so she will not allow it to be presented to the jury.

The BLM was allowed to testify to their fear of the protesters, as Navarro called them the “victims” in the case.

This is not the only misleading directions that Navarro has given in this travesty of justice. Navarro has ruled that all bad acts by the BLM, or any other law enforcement, will not be presented on the record. She feels that there is nothing relevant about showing this. She has stated that, “The law does not recognize self defense against law enforcement officers.”

Navarro has previously said that anytime a person is open-carrying a weapon and a law enforcement officer happens to see that weapon, then that is evidence of a threat to the officer and is considered assault. She reiterated that there cannot be excessive force for law enforcement. They are allowed to do as they choose, regardless of the law.

The law does not apply to those that enforce it.

Jess Marchese, attorney for Eric Parker, complained to the court that he has been stopped from representing his client. The defense “cannot give the jury the full picture.” Navarro practically mocked him when she said that she didn’t know what to tell him, as she cannot give him guidelines on how to represent his client.

Judge Navarro has ruled that the government can present any, and all, evidence they wish, including what led up to the standoff, and what the defendants did up to two years after the standoff. However, the defense is only allowed to present a limited scope of evidence concerning a 40-minute period on the day of the standoff.

This goes for the defendants testifying, as well. If the defendants choose to testify on their own behalf, they will not be allowed to tell the jury why they went to Nevada, but the jury is supposed to judge them on why they went.

Nevada is an open-carry state, meaning it is legal to carry a firearm within the state. However, the jury is not to be told this fact as Judge Navarro feels it might “confuse” them. But, the jury will be asked to convict the defendants of carrying weapons.

The defendants cannot tell of seeing the ‘First Amendment Zone’ set up by the BLM several miles from the wash. They cannot tell of seeing a grandmother thrown to the ground by law enforcement officers. They cannot mention the tazing of Ammon Bundy.

They are not allowed to talk of the BLM slaughtering and burying the Bundy cattle, or the lies the agents told about doing so. They cannot talk about Special Agent in Charge, Daniel P. Love, who is currently under investigation for his alleged illegal conduct.

Most of the defendants knew nothing about cows or grazing fees. They knew what they saw on the videos, both in the mainstream media and on the internet. The knew their neighbors were in trouble and they came to help. They understood the US Constitution and wanted to defend it.

Judge Navarro continues to recite her mantra, that the full story of the defendants is not “Probative” or “Relevant” therefore it is not admissible in this case.

Navarro, and the prosecutors, repeatedly state that they are very worried the defendants will attempt jury nullification. This seems to be the only option left to them, however, Navarro is cracking down hard against that possibility.

What everything comes down to is this: Judge Gloria Navarro is so invested in this verdict that she is willing to trample on every right these defendants have. She is willing to throw every citizen of this country under the bus to meet her own agenda.

Since the Constitution is not allowed in this courtroom, there is now a precedent set for the rest of the country. If the government, or the judiciary, chooses to deny any and all rights guaranteed by our BILL OF RIGHTS, they will be allowed to do so, because it was already approved of in this case.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has given his stamp of approval, when he praised AUSA Myhre for the job he was doing on this case. That very day, as soon as Sessions made his statement, the court doubled-down on the attacks to the defendants case.

Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, made the same types of statements when he visited Bunkerville recently. He gave his seal of approval on the entire land grab by the BLM, and by extension, this prosecution.

It falls to President Donald Trump to prove his campaign promises to look out for ‘We The People’. His administration has thrown out the Constitution and spat on the citizens. Will he allow this to continue IN HIS NAME?

These defendants have no other options. This dog-and-pony show is an exercise in going through the motions.

This is not a trial. This is a grand jury hearing where no defense is even allowed to be presented. The defendants have been thrown to the wolves by their own government. What happened to our Republic?

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/08/navarros-counterfeit-court/

[TheCount]

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/08/navarros-counterfeit-court/

But... But... Trump's law and order was supposed to be for blacks and Mexicans. :(:(:(

[Swordsmyth]

But... But... Trump's law and order was supposed to be for blacks and Mexicans. :(:(:(

This Judge has nothing to do with Dump.

[TheCount]

This Judge has nothing to do with Dump. Maybe you should have actually read the post.


Attorney General Jeff Sessions has given his stamp of approval, when he praised AUSA Myhre for the job he was doing on this case. That very day, as soon as Sessions made his statement, the court doubled-down on the attacks to the defendants case.

Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, made the same types of statements when he visited Bunkerville recently. He gave his seal of approval on the entire land grab by the BLM, and by extension, this prosecution.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe you should have actually read the post.

[/B]

Approval from two appointees is a slim connection to Dump.
This judge was not appointed by him.

[TheCount]

Approval from two appointees is a slim connection to Dump.There's a slim connection between the president and two members of the president's cabinet?

[Swordsmyth]

There's a slim connection between the president and two members of the president's cabinet?
No between Dump and this judge.

[TheCount]

No between Dump and this judge.


Approval from two appointees is a slim connection to Dump.

How many people is the judge?

[Swordsmyth]

How many people is the judge?
The two appointees are the slim connection, they approved of this judge, they were appointed by Dump.
Your reading comprehension stinks.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Maybe you should have actually read the post.




Maybe you should go back to working in the mailroom.

[phill4paul]

Eric Parker Ripped from Witness Stand

The Retrial of Defendants Eric Parker, Steven Stewart, Scott Drexler, and Ricky Lovelein took a decided twist today in a Las Vegas Federal courtroom.

The defense had already been shot down by Judge Gloria Navarro. Yesterday, the day was spent previewing the defense witness testimony and Navarro refused to allow their witnesses to take the stand. She called the testimony “Not Relevant”.

She has made it clear that there is no such thing as self defense against the government, or that of defending anyone else against the government. Law enforcement cannot be considered to use “excessive” force in this case. She believes that if any of this is brought to the jury, they may acquit for “jury nullification”. Navarro seems to have a pathological fear of jury nullification.

It was left to Parker to take the stand in his own defense.

Within 10 minutes of taking the stand, AUSA Myhre began his objections. Between Parker mentioning the “First Amendment Zone” that was set up several miles away from the wash and his saying that he “looked up to the right” (where the BLM snipers were located), Myhre nearly went into conniptions.

After long side bars, Navarro finally removed Eric Parker from the witness stand. She came back to the bench and, without explanation, told him to step down. He will not be allowed to continue defending himself, there will be no cross examination and no jury questions.

Parker was so stunned that it took him a minute to get back to the defense table where he became very emotional at the thought of not being allowed to fight for his very life.”The jury was also stunned and shocked. When Judge Navarro released them so abruptly, they all sat there for several moments, with at least a few jurors having their mouths hanging open.

Judge Gloria Navarro made several points earlier, outside of the jury’s hearing. Self Defense is not allowed. Defense of another is equally not a valid defense. Provocation by the government is not a defense. All of these are irrelevant and only go to jury nullification.

Navarro has said that a group of protesters that advance on the government are aggressors and the law is clear that the government agents and law enforcement can defend themselves using deadly force.

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/08/parker-ripped-witness-stand/

[Pericles]

Probably impossible to save the defendants at this point, the next best thing is introducing reversible error for the appeal.

[Origanalist]

https://thebernardolcottstory.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/kangaroo-court-1.jpg

[unknown]

The two appointees are the slim connection, they approved of this judge, they were appointed by Dump.

Your reading comprehension stinks.

Regardless, it would have been nice if these two had given the judge shit over her biased handling of the case.

We know where the Left stands on this issue but the Right too?

Yet another example of there being very little real difference between the two sides.

[Swordsmyth]

Regardless, it would have been nice if these two had given the judge $#@! over her biased handling of the case.

We know where the Left stands on this issue but the Right too?

Yet another example of there being very little real difference between the two sides.
I definitely agree with you, "the establishment" is embedded in both ends of the spectrum.

[phill4paul]

Bunkerville retrial goes to deliberation.

Let's say a prayer that these jurists' eyes will be opened to the wickedness of the court and it's representative Judge Navarro.


THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE IS “WE PUSHED THE FEDS BACK ONCE AGAIN!”

by Shari Dovale

The Bunkerville Retrial has gone to the jury to begin their deliberations.

The defense case has been wrought with drama. Judge Gloria Navarro began by forcing the defense witnesses to proffer, or preview, their testimony out of the jury’s hearing. After 4 witnesses testified via SKYPE last week, including a witness that previously was called by the prosecution, Navarro ruled that none of them could testify.

Navarro made the ruling based on her belief that the witnesses were only there to bolster a self-defense claim. She ruled previously that this was not a valid defense in this case.

The following day, Eric Parker attempted to testify in his own defense, as is his right to do. After a few questions, Navarro stopped him from testifying, had him removed from the witness stand, and had his testimony completely stricken from the official court record. She instructed the jury to disregard his testimony, as if he had never been on the witness stand.

Monday brought Scott Drexler to the stand, however, she severely limited him in what he was allowed to say while testifying. He was not allowed to tell the jury why he went to Nevada, nor testify to any of the Constitutional violations that he witnessed.

The jury attempted to question Drexler after his testimony, yet Judge Navarro shut them down as well when she only allowed 4 of 12 questions to be asked. She told the jury that their remaining questions were not relevant and they did not need those answers.

Tuesday began the closing arguments. Nadia Ahmed gave the closing arguments for the prosecution. Some of the highlights from her closing included calling the Bundy cattle “property of the BLM” yet later stating the defendants went to Bunkerville to aid Cliven Bundy in “getting his cattle back”.

Ahmed also accused the defendants of using “travelers to impede officers from eliminating them as a threat.” Well, okay, the defendants did not want to be eliminated, or killed, by the BLM snipers. But the prosecution would have you believe that is the crime.

You are not allowed to defend yourself against BLM snipers?

Several times the defense objected to statements that Ahmed made, and each time Judge Navarro would rule in the favor of the prosecution.

When it came time for the defense to begin their closing arguments, each of the four defense attorneys stood and made the statement, “On behalf of Mr. [Client], we have no closing argument.”

Judge Gloria Navarro never asked the defense to rest their case, and seems to have forgotten the necessity for them to do so. They each sat down and Navarro immediately gave the case to the jury and excused them to begin their deliberations. Now, we have speculation as to the legal issues this brings.

Rich Tanasi, attorney for Steven Stewart, stood after the jury left and requested to make a motion before the official recess, yet Navarro would not allow it. She told him that he needed to file it in writing.

The drama did not end there. It seems that one of the jurors caught the eye of several people, including AUSA Myhre. She was seen ‘blowing a kiss’. She was later brought in front of Judge Navarro, as well as the prosecution and defense attorneys, for questioning.

She claimed that she was blowing a kiss to the alternate jurors, and not any of the participants in the trial. Navarro has allowed her to remain on the jury for the time being.

Speculation is running rampant about the strategy the defense is using by not giving closing arguments. Most believe it was a form of mass protest against Judge Navarro, knowing they would never have gotten through the closings without multiple objections.

Whether or not the jury will understand the protest is yet to be seen. It does seem to resonate throughout the spectators that it was a powerful statement.

The general consensus outside the courthouse is “We pushed the Feds back once again!”

https://www.oathkeepers.org/defense-not-rest-jury-deliberates-bunkerville-retrial/

[dannno]

Speculation is running rampant about the strategy the defense is using by not giving closing arguments. Most believe it was a form of mass protest against Judge Navarro, knowing they would never have gotten through the closings without multiple objections.



https://www.oathkeepers.org/defense-not-rest-jury-deliberates-bunkerville-retrial/

My closing argument:

"The ridiculous limitations that the court has placed on what is allowed to be discussed in this case does not allow me to make a closing argument or convey any relevant, pertinent information to the jurors regarding why my client is innocent. My hands are tied."