Navarro Grants Govt Everything, Defendants Nothing – Bunkerville Trial

BRIEFS AND PLEADINGS BY THE DEFENSE TEAMS MAY HAVE CAUSED NAVARRO TO ADJUST HER RULINGS SLIGHTLY.

Redoubt News Staff – October 26, 2017

On Tuesday, October 24, Judge Gloria Navarro issued a number of rulings in the Bundy case, granting the government almost everything they asked for while denying the defense almost any means to defend themselves in the upcoming trial.

With a sweep of her pen, Navarro has wiped multiple motions off the docket with arbitrary rulings that only benefit the government.

Shockingly, Navarro even ruled that the prosecution can introduce Cliven Bundy’s 2014 speech in which he reportedly said “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. . . .” Cliven’s remarks were taken out of context from a wide-ranging discussion of over-regulation, the negative impacts of welfare policy, and benefits of hard work. Many economic studies of welfare policy are in agreement with Cliven’s (poorly worded) remarks. But the publication of Cliven’s speech in the aftermath of the 2014 Bunkerville standoff caused many supporters to abandon him at that time.

The biased judge also ruled that prosecutors may introduce evidence about Jared and Amanda Miller, a married couple who briefly camped near the Bundy Ranch in 2014 area and later went on to kill two Las Vegas police officers. And, said Navarro, prosecutors may introduce claims that Bundy cattle harmed the environment, wildlife, or even sacred Indian artifacts even though the Bundys themselves are barred from even mentioning that the government killed or harmed their cattle.

Astoundingly, Navarro even ruled that the government may play hearsay statements to the jury by now-deceased journalist Michael Flynn claiming that the protest on April 12, 2014 was “illegal.”

Navarro’s one-sided rulings make clear that in the Lloyd George Federal Courthouse, Courtroom 7C, in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Constitution is not welcome. The defendants in Judge Gloria Navarro’s courtroom do not have constitutional protections.

In the pattern of her previous rulings, Navarro granted almost all of the government requests to prohibit the Bundys from mentioning the following:

1. Self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property;

2. Third-party/lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations, including operations on April 6, 9, and 12, 2014;

3. Opinions/public statements of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM impoundment operations;

4. Allegations of workplace misconduct by the SAC (Special Agent in Charge) of the impoundment (Dan Love), or regarding those who worked for, or with, him.

5. Allegations that officers connected with the impoundment acted unethically or improperly by the way they were dressed or equipped during the impoundment, or that they improperly shredded documents during or after impoundment operations;

6. References to mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operations;

7. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions that the federal government does not own the land or have legal authority or jurisdiction over public lands where impoundment operations were conducted, or that the land was or is otherwise owned by the State of Nevada;

8. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions regarding infringement on First and Second Amendment rights, including any effort to confuse the jury that there is some form of “journalist” or “protest” immunity for the crimes charged;

9. References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses;

10. References to the Oregon trial of United States v. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and Ryan Bundy., or the results in that trial;

11. References to the outcomes in the previous two trials in this case; and

12. Legal arguments, explanations, or opinions advancing defendants’ views of the U.S. Constitution, including claims that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior have no constitutional authority, that “natural law” or other authority permits the use of force against law enforcement officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has no jurisdiction or authority under the [C]onstitution to order the removal of cattle from public lands.

But the precise wording of Judge Navarro’s orders may offer a ray of hope. Some of Navarro’s sentences are worded in such a way as they may allow some defenses. For example Navarro denied a portion of the government’s motion in limine regarding evidence of third-party state of mind. Navarro also ruled that the government’s request to exclude all reference to government misconduct is too broad. Navarro concluded that “a blanket exclusion of these topics is inappropriate at this juncture.”

Thus, although Navarro’s rulings continue her pattern of assisting the prosecution and shutting down the defense, it appears that Navarro’s rulings may be slightly more fair for this upcoming trial than they were in the previous two trials (of Parker, Drexler, Lovelein, Stewart, Burleson and Engel). Briefs and pleadings by the defense teams of Cliven Bundy and Ryan Payne—which argued that the Judge’s previous rulings were unlawful—may have caused Navarro to adjust her rulings slightly.

Redoubt News

The post Navarro Grants Govt Everything, Defendants Nothing – Bunkerville Trial appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Bunkerville Protesters On Trial – for Protesting

by Shari Dovale  August 2, 2017

The retrial of four Bunkerville defendants is underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

It is known that the jury favored acquittal in the previous trial with 2 of the defendants receiving 10-2 votes in their favor.

Additionally, the jury forms showed marks indicating acquittal, which were later scratched out over confusion on legal points.

However, the government has learned a few lessons since then. They have attempted to change their narrative to reconcile with, what they hope will be, a more popular view of their prosecution.

During the first trial, the prosecutors, including AUSA Steven Myhre, and Judge Gloria Navarro, spent considerable time calling the large group of protesters “unindicted co-conspirators”. They stressed to potential witnesses that their testimony on behalf of the defendants could result in their own prosecution. This resulted in claims of witness intimidation and more.

Judge Navarro has also taken an unusual step in the second trial by allowing the jurors to ask questions of the witnesses. This was, apparently, in hopes of changing the course of their prosecution to conform with what they believe the jurors wanted to hear.

The jury questions have shown that the members have been paying attention and are not completely on board with the government’s narrative. This has prompted changes from the government to alter their strategy.

Through the beginning of the trial, they did not make too many changes from the strategy of the first trial. I heard “unindicted co-conspirator” a couple of times, including from Judge Navarro.

All of a sudden, the prosecution witnesses are using new, yet specific, buzzwords during their testimony You will now hear “Constitution” and “Second Amendment” used on the witness stand, though it has yet to be announced that the defense will be allowed to use these same terms.

The most prominent witness to attempt the change of narrative was Ranger Edwin Whitteaker and his repeated use of these buzzwords. It was still obvious, however, that he had never read the Constitution, nor does he understand it’s concepts as he referred to the 2^nd Amendment as the right to “Free Speech”.

Why are these points so important?

Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, “Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.”

Remember that the government is now calling the people in the wash “Protesters”. This gives them First Amendment protection. They have the right to assemble. They have the right to question their government.

They utilized their Second Amendment protections during this protest, as has been noted by the prosecution witnesses. Nevada is an “Open Carry” state.

“Open carry” refers to the practice of carrying firearms in plain view in public spaces. Though most states continue to require a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in public, most states now place few to no restrictions on open carry.

Therefore, the government’s big push to keep these right-wing dissidents in custody is all about a show of force to the general public that they cannot protest their government.

The Federal government has not placed the same restrictions on liberal groups, as is noted from the “Occupy Wall Street” and related protests. You will also note that the Ferguson riots were written off as the rights of free speech. However, the violence and destruction that were considered breaking the law were not prosecuted and the business owners were left to deal with these issues through their insurance companies.

The Bunkerville Standoff is noteworthy in that there was no violence on the part of the protesters. There were no shots fired though there were many firearms visible. There was no rioting, brawling or other altercation. The only “beef” you would see was Cliven Bundy’s cattle.

The government would have you believe, as per the testimony given in this trial, that the protesters came with violence in mind. The law enforcement officers were caught unawares and by surprised, therefore, they were in fear for their life. This is completely not true.

The officers knew that the protesters were coming. They had already begun negotiations to release the cattle. There were hundreds of law enforcement, from multiple agencies, on scene. They were not dressed in “riot gear” but in full battle gear and fully armed. There were snipers on the high mesa aiming their weapon at the men, women, and children in the wash and on the bridge.

Law enforcement showed aggression on April 12, 2014 in Bunkerville, Nevada. They sent a message to the world that right-wing, Constitution-citing, dissidents will not be tolerated.

Redoubt News

.