Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Good News! Bunkerville trial NOT GUILTY VERDICT!!

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Well you should talk to more progressives. But more importantly, rank and file moderates haven't bought into that narrative. For a smear campaign to be successful it has to cover the entire political spectrum. Compare the number of people who think Bundy is racist to the number of people who think Bannon is racist and get back with me when you realize the truth of what's going on.
    Dude, every progressive I've talked to about Bundy literally thinks that Bundy said slaves were better off during the times of slavery, which is a twisted version of what he said, and they literally think he wants black people to be slaves again.. that is totally white supremacist.. and ya they all think Bannon is racist too.

    Trump campaigned on increased military (defense) spending, but also campaigned on a more non-interventionist (not totally interventionist) foreign policy.. I'm still holding him to that, there is a long ways to go, but of course I'm not totally stoked on the direction it has been going.
    Last edited by dannno; 08-24-2017 at 08:59 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Dude, every progressive I've talked to about Bundy literally thinks that Bundy said slaves were better off during the times of slavery, which is a twisted version of what he said, and they literally think he wants black people to be slaves again.. that is totally white supremacist.. and ya they all think Bannon is racist too.
    And so your experience is the totality of everything? You have become one with the universe and all knowing? Okay. Like I said, you should talk to more progressives. Most haven't even followed every aspect of the Bundy standoff. And frankly, Bundy's statement about slavery was...well...stupid. I don't think he's a racist, just an inarticulate bumblefvck.

    Trump campaigned on increased military (defense) spending, but also campaigned on a more non-interventionist (not totally interventionist) foreign policy.. I'm still holding him to that, there is a long ways to go, but of course I'm not totally stoked on the direction it has been going.
    Trump simultaneously campaigned on being more interventionist and being non-interventionist. Against Trump is the person that pushed for the war in Libya before later coming out against the same war. So far all of Trump's actions have been interventionist from his bombing of Syria to increased military spending to sending more troops into Iraq.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  4. #33

    Default

    Love to see this made into a movie. People forget, but this was a major event in our nation's history, and the fact that they were acquitted is unreal to me. This was a real standoff that had the potential to go WACO and Ruby Ridge were it not for the numbers of patriots and cellphones recording the event.

    Bravo, lady justice..... bravo.

    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  5. #34

    Default Daniel Love getting some attention from Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Everyone needs to look up the BLM agent, Daniel P. Love. At this trial all sides were instructed to not bring up his name. Gee, I wonder why?
    How come we know his name and this guy doesn't?
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/24/ut...g-man-tickets/

    Utah Rep Demands Name Of Fed Who Used His Position To Score Burning Man Tickets
    Ethan barton
    08/24/2017

    House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop asked a government watchdog Wednesday for an un-redacted version of a report showing that a senior law enforcement manager used his position for preferential treatment and threatened coworkers.

    The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Inspector General (IG) released a report in January detailing how the unnamed senior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) official ensured that his family received special treatment during 2015’s Burning Man in Nevada. Local news outlets reported the agent’s name as Dan Love.

    The report concerns the senior manager’s “serious misconduct,” Bishop, a Utah Republican, said in a letter to Deputy IG Mary Kendall. DOI has been without a permanent IG since 2009.

    The agent “violated federal ethics rules when he used his influence with Burning Man officials to obtain three sold-out tickets and special passes for his father, girlfriend, and a family friend,” the January report said.

    Burning Man is a massive festival with “a history of illegal drugs, assaults, violence, and other criminal activity, in spite of its largely peaceful reputation,” the report said.

    The agent used federal law enforcement officers as escorts during the festival and transported his girlfriend, who shared lodging with him in a BLM trailer, in a BLM vehicle, according to the report.

    The agent also tried influencing BLM employees’ interviews with investigators and threatened his coworkers.

    “You will forget you saw that,” he told a colleague who asked about his girlfriend in the vehicle.

    “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit,” the official told a college he thought complained about his potential ethics violations.

    Bishop requested the IG hand over the documents by noon Thursday...

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/24/ut...g-man-tickets/
    Last edited by Valli6; 08-24-2017 at 04:24 PM.

  6. #35

    Default

    This pushes the Bundys' trial back yet again while the sit and rot in jail!

    Prosecutor vows 3rd trial for 2 in Bundy ranch standoff case

    LAS VEGAS
    The top federal prosecutor in Nevada vowed a third trial Wednesday for two men accused of armed assault on a federal officer in a 2014 standoff that stopped a cattle roundup near the ranch of states' rights figure Cliven Bundy.

    "There's no question about us proceeding forward. Just so the record's clear," Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre told Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro a day after a jury acquitted two defendants of all 10 charges but failed to reach verdicts on four charges against Eric Parker and two counts against Scott Drexler.

    "Raising a firearm against a federal law enforcement officer, or any law enforcement officer, is a crime," Myhre declared as he lost a bid to keep the two men in federal custody until the next trial. "That's why we brought (Parker) to trial and ... intend to try him a third time."

    Parker and Drexler were photographed during the standoff on a high Interstate 15 freeway overpass near Bunkerville pointing rifles through concrete sidewall barriers toward heavily armed federal agents in a dry riverbed below. The agents were guarding corrals of rounded-up cattle and facing flag-waving unarmed men, women and children.


    Navarro ruled that Parker, 34, of Hailey, Idaho, and Drexler, 46, of Challis, Idaho, can return to their home state to await trial, which she scheduled Sept. 25. She also scheduled an Aug. 31 hearing to determine if the date will stand.

    Keeping the September date for the two men would mean another delay starting trial for Bundy, four of his sons and six other defendants who have been in federal custody since their arrests in early 2016 despite invoking their rights to a speedy trial.


    The judge had set a schedule to begin trial this year for Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and co-defendants Ryan Payne and Peter Santilli. Another trial for the remaining six defendants would be held next year.

    "I just never expected they'd try them a third time," Bret Whipple, Cliven Bundy's lawyer, said Wednesday when he learned of Myhre's comments. "It's such a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially when they were so close to acquittal."

    In all, the jury of six men and six women reached not-guilty verdicts on 34 of 40 counts. Ricky Lovelien of Westville, Oklahoma, and Steven Stewart of Hailey, Idaho, were acquitted of all charges, even though jurors saw photos of them with weapons as well.

    No verdicts were returned on assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal officer and two related of use of a firearm counts against Parker, and assault on a federal officer and brandishing a firearm charges against Drexler.

    Parker's attorney, Jess Marchese, said Wednesday that a juror who remained at the courthouse on Tuesday told him that votes were 11-1 for acquittal on the six hung charges.

    No defendants were found guilty of a key conspiracy charge alleging that they plotted with Bundy family members to create a self-styled militia and prevent federal Bureau of Land Management agents from enforcing court orders to remove Bundy cattle from arid desert rangeland in what is now Gold Butte National Monument.
    Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...#storylink=cpy
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  7. #36

    Default

    I want to know what the defense's argument was. I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opening and closing remarks in that case. Did he convince the jury that they (the defendants) were in the right, despite a technical violation of law?
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    I want to know what the defense's argument was. I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opening and closing remarks in that case. Did he convince the jury that they (the defendants) were in the right, despite a technical violation of law?
    There really wasn't a closing argument. The defense had been hamstrung at every turn. I think the jury saw what was happening and the collusion between prosecution and Judge Navarro. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-retrial/page2
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    There really wasn't a closing argument. The defense had been hamstrung at every turn. I think the jury saw what was happening and the collusion between prosecution and Judge Navarro. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-retrial/page2
    My POV, as well.
    There is no spoon.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    I want to know what the defense's argument was. I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opening and closing remarks in that case. Did he convince the jury that they (the defendants) were in the right, despite a technical violation of law?
    A VERY unusual "defense" since there really wasn't any allowed. The "judge" basically ruled that they were not allowed to present any of their witnesses and even the defendants were gagged as to what they could say with one of them being shut down mid-sentence and ordered off the stand and all that he'd said stricken from the record. Since there was no defensive evidence allowed the defense lawyers agreed there was no point in closing argument as that would just give the prosecutor another rebuttal and there was no way to win. I've never heard of a defense that didn't even offer a closing argument before but the jury must have seen what a sham this was and ruled accordingly. I would like to know why after all that there was ONE holdout juror who would not vote not-guilty on a couple of the charges when they had just unanimously voted not-guilty on all the others...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    A VERY unusual "defense" since there really wasn't any allowed. The "judge" basically ruled that they were not allowed to present any of their witnesses and even the defendants were gagged as to what they could say with one of them being shut down mid-sentence and ordered off the stand and all that he'd said stricken from the record. Since there was no defensive evidence allowed the defense lawyers agreed there was no point in closing argument as that would just give the prosecutor another rebuttal and there was no way to win. I've never heard of a defense that didn't even offer a closing argument before but the jury must have seen what a sham this was and ruled accordingly. I would like to know why after all that there was ONE holdout juror who would not vote not-guilty on a couple of the charges when they had just unanimously voted not-guilty on all the others...
    Thanks. Sucks the prosecutor wants to waste more time and money on another trial.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    A VERY unusual "defense" since there really wasn't any allowed. The "judge" basically ruled that they were not allowed to present any of their witnesses and even the defendants were gagged as to what they could say with one of them being shut down mid-sentence and ordered off the stand and all that he'd said stricken from the record. Since there was no defensive evidence allowed the defense lawyers agreed there was no point in closing argument as that would just give the prosecutor another rebuttal and there was no way to win. I've never heard of a defense that didn't even offer a closing argument before but the jury must have seen what a sham this was and ruled accordingly. I would like to know why after all that there was ONE holdout juror who would not vote not-guilty on a couple of the charges when they had just unanimously voted not-guilty on all the others...
    //
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    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?
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  13. #42

    Default

    Not Guilty



    and hopefully of the remaining piled on charges as well.

    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





Similar Threads

  1. Bunkerville Trial News
    By phill4paul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 04-24-2017, 07:21 PM
  2. CONSPIRACY, THE PROSECUTOR’S DARLING – Bunkerville Trial
    By phill4paul in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2017, 08:27 AM
  3. George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY!
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 07-16-2013, 12:03 AM
  4. MO man commits suicide in court after guilty verdict.
    By jdmyprez_deo_vindice in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-03-2013, 10:32 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-13-2013, 11:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •