A court date is set for Dec. 29 for a decision on whether or not Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and Ryan Payne will be re-tried. A tentative new trial date is February 26.
This video is by John Lamb, who was in the courtroom this morning and provides details of today’s court session.
The post Bunkerville Trial – Mistrial for the Bundys and Ryan Payne appeared first on Oath Keepers.
By Bryan Hyde 11/18/17
The mainstream press is waking up to the reality that they no longer control the narrative in reporting on the Bundys. Here’s why that is a good thing.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.
You can donate HERE.
The post Mainstream media can no longer control the narrative on the Bundy Trial appeared first on Oath Keepers.
By Shari Dovale
Monday morning began the jury selection in the Bunkerville Standoff Trial-Of-The-Century in Las Vegas, Nevada.
For several months, I have been in Las Vegas covering other proceedings in this case. I was present during the previous trial, in which a jury could not convict four defendants of the same charges the current defendants are facing.
I was in the courtroom throughout the previous month for every hearing and motion the public was allowed to watch. But, I have always been present as a part of the general public, never as authorized media.
The US Marshals have seen my credentials on multiple occasions and have consistently refused me media-status. The only reason I have ever been given is that I am “alternative” media and not “Main Stream”.
Well, that proved to be more of the government’s deceit towards the people today, when Redoubt News was the only credential-carrying news source that was denied entry as media. Redoubt News was barred from the official priority media seating, however, all other alternative media outlets were allowed entry.
These outlets included Left-wing radical Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and another left-leaning enviro site, High Country News. The Federal court has made it clear that the left-wing radical alternative media is acceptable, as they will push the agenda the government wants the public to hear.
Redoubt News, however, forces transparency by printing what they do not want you to see. The truth of this trial needs to be open for the country to see.
Redoubt News has published, by far, the majority of articles on this issue and these trials, even to the point of being cited in a motion concerning public perception of Judge Gloria Navarro.
We have shown the bias of the government, and they are showing their fear of the truth and transparency.
They can refuse to recognize Redoubt News, but we are going to keep reporting what happens in the courtroom.
The post Is the Bunkerville Prosecution Afraid of Redoubt News? appeared first on Oath Keepers.
by Redoubt News Staff – 10/26/2017
Judge Gloria Navarro surprised the defense teams in the Bunkerville standoff trial by allowing them three days of testimony in an evidentiary hearing, with a fourth day promised.
The hearing has focused on the shredded documents found after the protest in 2014. These documents are thought to contain exculpatory evidence, or evidence that would aid the defense.
In a surprising ruling, Judge Navarro allowed disgraced BLM agent Dan Love to be questioned for a full day on Monday. Love was obviously upset at the officials in the DOJ overriding his authority as the Incident Commander.
Love dropped a bombshell implicating former US Attorney Daniel Bogden in the decisions to release the cattle, bringing an end to the protest of the BLM cattle impoundment in 2014. However, the implications were that Bogden may have been planning to entrap the defendants into this prosecution.
Tuesday brought testimony from Kent Kleman , investigator for the Bureau of Land Management. Kleman was in charge of the investigation of the shredded documents.
During Kleman‘s testimony, it was revealed that Acting US Attorney, Steven Myhre, not only asked Kleman to investigate this issue, but set the parameters and directed the course of the investigation. This puts a large “Conflict of Interest” stamp on Myhre’s forehead.
Myhre made repeated attempts to shut down this testimony, calling it ‘privileged’, yet it continued with more details.
It would seem that when the original motion was filed by the defense in October 2016, Myhre called Kleman at that time to determine what happened. Kleman then spoke with Myhre at least weekly for the next year, discussing all aspects of the investigation.
During the investigation, Kleman admitted that he did NOT talk to all the principals involved in the event. This investigator testified that he was told of a “hurried shredding event” yet never bothered to ask WHY they were doing the shredding, though he was told that Command Staff were assisting. In light of this knowledge, it is amazing that Kleman never bothered to ask WHO directed them to shred the documents.
Myhre continued grasping at straws in his attempts to shut down this testimony, as he played with semantics in his attempts to protect the witness and distract from the facts.
BLM Communications specialist Toni Suminski testified that there was no shredding done on April 12th, as the personnel just grabbed their stuff and left the area. She also testified that “Nadia” came with Kleman to question her. Suminski nodded towards AUSA Nadia Ahmed, seated at the prosecution table, when she said her name.
This would indicate even deeper involvement by the US Attorney’s office into this quagmire of deception. How far did the US Attorney’s office go with this? Did they set the specific events to directly allow for prosecution of the protesters?
At the end of the 3-day hearing, Attorney Ryan Norwood (who represents Ryan Payne) pointed out that the testimony of Kleman disagreed with the testimony of Suminski. Kleman testified that some of the shredding took place in a harried and panicked manner on the last day of the BLM’s operation; while Suminski testified that the shredding on the last day–if any–had been quite calm and limited.
This led Judge Navarro to order YET ANOTHER DAY of factfinding on the subject. The evidentiary hearing will continue on Friday November 3 with additional witnesses. Thus, the hearing on the motion to dismiss the entire case will continue AFTER the jury is selected (on Monday through Wednesday, October 30-November 1).
How deep does this swamp go?
Photo: First Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre is depicted, with U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in the background, during his opening statement to jurors in the first Las Vegas trial against associates of rancher Cliven Bundy. (David Stroud/Special to Las Vegas Review-Journal)
The post US Attorney Myhre Sinks Deep in the Swamp – Bunkerville appeared first on Oath Keepers.
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.
The post Navarro Grants Govt Everything, Defendants Nothing – Bunkerville Trial appeared first on Oath Keepers.
