Is the Bunkerville Trial of the Century Finished?

THE COURTROOM WAS CLEARED OF SPECTATORS SO THEY COULD IMMEDIATELY GO INTO ANOTHER OF THE NOW INFAMOUS SUPER-SECRET SEALED HEARINGS.

By Shari Dovale   12/11/2017

The Las Vegas trial of Cliven Bundy, and others, began this morning after a long break of over a week. However, only about an hour and half into the hearing saw Judge Gloria Navarro release the jury for the remainder of today and tomorrow, later extending the time. She made comments indicating the jury may not be coming back at all. “The jury won’t be called back before [December 20th], if they are needed,” Judge Navarro said.

What brought this on?

Judge Navarro discussed in open court the numerous violations made by the prosecution and the agents of the BLM and FBI in relation to this case.

Multiple Brady violations topped the list, with many exculpatory items not being turned over to the defense teams. Items such as the Threat Assessment reports, names of potential witnesses, reports from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reprimanding the BLM for not enforcing the court orders for years, and many more.

There are at least seven Brady violations the judge referred to in court today. Additionally, there were violations of evidence not being turned over in a timely manner, which are referred to as ‘Giglio’ violations, pointing to the court decisions of Giglio v. United States .

After the jury was sent home, the courtroom was cleared of spectators so the principle players could immediately go into another of the now infamous super-secret sealed hearings.

This court trial has become known for their overuse of the sealed hearing rules. A majority of the evidence has been sealed from the public view, bringing questions as to why the government is hiding so much information from the citizens. Our Constitution guarantees public trials, yet the government does not hold themselves accountable to the US Constitution, as their representative so testified.

They seem to only believe in transparency when it suits their agenda, and the Bundy Ranch Protest trial is quickly falling far from their agenda.

Before long, several defendants and defense attorneys exited the courthouse with news that the court is in recess until December 20^th. The sealed hearings are over for the day and the prosecution has been given over a week to prepare their responses to the plethora of motions filed by the defense.

Many of these motions have been sealed, as they refer to bad acts by the government, and this judge continues to try to hide those facts from the public. She has made it her mission to not allow the government to look bad in front of the jury, and she hopes, in the public perception.

Redoubt News

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 Is the Bunkerville Trial of the Century Finished? appeared first on Oath Keepers.

US Attorney Myhre Sinks Deep in the Swamp – Bunkerville

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 12^th, 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)

Redoubt News

The post US Attorney Myhre Sinks Deep in the Swamp – Bunkerville appeared first on Oath Keepers.

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.

The Bunkerville Prosecution Panic Attack

AUSA MYHRE AND JUDGE NAVARRO ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION THAT THEY CONTINUE TO WORK THEMSELVES INTO A FRENZY.

by Shari Dovale

Late night filings by the Bunkerville Prosecution team has shown there will be a repeat performance of an Unconstitutional trial taking place beginning October 10^th in Las Vegas.

As in the previous two trials, of which the jury acquitted the defendants of the majority of charges, the prosecution has filed a last minute 26-page motion to exclude any type of defense these men might attempt.

The prosecution has motioned to force the defense, from the beginning of jury selection, into opening/closing arguments, and including all direct and cross examination of witnesses, to NOT bring up anything they deem to not have any foundation in the law, including Self defense.

Judge Gloria Navarro has previously stated in court that there is no time when the average citizen is allowed to defend themselves against any Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). She has even stated that the legal carrying of a holstered sidearm in an open-carry state, such as Nevada, is considered assault on any LEO that happens to see it.

This is obviously a political ploy for this activist judge. No one has achieved the desired gun control, so Navarro has declared it in open court.

Additionally, they are demanding that no one mention the US Constitution, as they believe no citizen is qualified to understand it. This includes the jury members.

If this were true, then how is it legal for the NFL to protest during their games, as they cannot possible understand the First Amendment? How is it legal for AntiFa or Black Lives Matter to protest a Donald Trump event, as they are not legally authorized to interpret the Constitution? Why do we have a legal holiday celebrating the work of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. if the citizens cannot possibly understand the legal doctrine?

Because this court is using the US Constitution as a weapon, and they are setting legal precedent to use it against the citizens in the future. Is the ultimate goal to destroy and rid this country of the documents that gave us Freedom? If allowed to continue, this court will succeed where no one has before.

If the prosecution thought that the BLM was correct in everything they did on April 12, 2014, then why are they so afraid to tell the jury the facts? If they can claim the BLM acted properly, why not explain that to the jury? Why do they believe the jury is not intelligent enough to sort through the hyperbole and come to their conclusions?

They know that the average citizen, of which the jury is comprised, is not going to believe that the BLM was correct in preparing for a war with these ranchers. They are not going to see several hundred fully militarized armed agents as anything but overkill.

They will not see the ‘First Amendment Zone’ as legal under the Constitution. They will not see the manhandling of citizens, such as Margaret Houston, as being appropriate. They will not see the placement of ‘snipers’, and their willingness to shoot civilians holding a protest, as anything but an over reach of their authority.

This entire misleading motion seems to be just another panic-attack by AUSA Myhre and Judge Navarro. They are so concerned about jury nullification, which they know is perfectly legal, that they continue to work themselves into a frenzy.

Maybe they should just take a Xanax and call it a day.

Redoubt News

Bunkerville Retrial – Innocence is Irrelevant

OATH KEEPERS:
ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

Click here to read full length version.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
.

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.


4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.


5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."


9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Click here to read full length version.

---

Judge Navarro vs. the Jury – Bunkerville

by Shari Dovale   August 20, 2017

Judge Gloria Navarro has had a difficult time getting the defendants and spectators to understand that Jury Nullification is, well… a bad thing. She has made her rulings. She has given her orders. She has specifically forbidden nullification from being used in the case of US v. Bundy et. al. She has not, however, said that jury nullification is illegal.

In fact, Nullification is legal. As much as Gloria Navarro would like the jurors to believe otherwise, and that they can be punished for not returning a verdict she approves of, the standard has been in place for nearly 350 years.

A 1670 English ruling in a case against William Penn and William Mead, the jury refused to convict Penn and Mead. This infuriated the panel of judges, who locked up the jury without food or water until they arrived at a “correct” verdict. The jury refused to change their verdict, resulting in Penn and Mead’s acquittal.

The justices were not satisfied. They fined the jurors and sent them to prison until the fine was paid. Edward Bushell was one of the jurors who refused to pay the fine, and remained in prison as a result. He appealed his case, where a higher court overruled his punishment.

The judge’s ruling established the enduring principle that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation for which they have been charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is wrongly applied to the defendant.

There have been several noteworthy cases over the years of jury nullification. The most famous case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

In 1920, The Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a majority who did not drink wished to impose their morals on the minority of citizens who did. Juries howevernullified alcohol control laws about 60 percent of the time.

The fact that most juries would not convict on alcohol control laws made the use of alcohol widespread throughout Prohibition. Ultimately jury nullification led to the adoption of the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition. If juries had obeyed the judge’s instructions that “the law is the law,” alcohol might still be illegal today.

In 1971, 28 anti-Vietnam war activists were arrested for breaking into and stealing records from a draft office in Camden, NJ. These activists later became known as the “Camden 28”. Though all 28 defendants were initially offered a deal which would ultimately allow them to walk away with minimal penalties or jail time, each of the 28 refused the deal.

Every defendant openly acknowledged their actions before the jury. From the beginning, nullification was seen as the primary defense.

On 20 May 1973 the jury declared each and every one of the defendants Not Guilty on every count against them. This jury exercised its right of nullification to vacate more than 100 charges en masse in this single trial.

Navarro declared a mistrial in the first go around this past spring when the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on most of the charges. The jury later came out to say they did not believe the government had proven their case. However, Judge Navarro and AUSA Myhre have seemed to nearly panic at the thought the jurors may have actually been practicing nullification.

In light of the jury having been deadlocked, Judge Navarro changed the rules of the game in the government’s second bite at the apple. She has made it much easier for the prosecution, in that she has ruled nearly 100% in their favor on all major motions presented. She sustains their objections and allows them to present any evidence they feel is necessary.

In contrast, this same evidence cannot, necessarily, be refuted by the defense, as ruled again by Judge Navarro. The defense is limited to a short 40 minute window within their case, though they have been charged with acts as far out as two years later. The defense cannot bring in evidence and witnesses to prove their defense, as Judge Navarro has ruled against this, as well.

In fact, the judge has only allowed the defense to present what is called the “mere presence” defense, in which the defendant basically claims they just happened upon the scene of the crime. This, of course, is no defense in the case of the Bunkerville standoff.

The defense has attempted to impeach the government’s witnesses, and again, Judge Navarro does not allow this. She practically stamped her foot and threw a tantrum at the thought of defendant Eric Parker telling his version of events on the witness stand, and ultimately had him removed with his testimony stricken from the record.

Navarro has interpreted the law in such a way that the government cannot be wrong in any of their actions and the average citizen is never allowed to defend themselves against any government agent. Additionally, the average citizen cannot avail themselves of the Constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment, without risk of prosecution by the Federal government, as clearly stated by Judge Gloria Navarro.

We must assume that Judge Navarro is of average, if not above average, intelligence. She must see that her rulings have been perceived as dictatorial. She has told the jury they cannot use the US Constitution and cannot even use their own understanding of the law.

She has allowed the jury to ask questions of all the prosecution witnesses, yet she has disallowed most of the questions to the only defense witness she allowed to take the stand, Scott Drexler.

She continues to poke this bear by telling the jury not to ask some of the questions they have, such as asking about the Bill of Rights, or asking about BLM behavior. They have even been told they do not need to know why the FBI was even involved in this case.

The jury is not allowed to judge the law itself, according to Navarro, only the defendants violation of the law, as she explains it to them. She has gone out of her way to instruct the jury, or make them believe, they have no choice but find these defendants guilty.

But, I would bet that the jury has been paying attention. They have seen the defense get shut down. They have seen the prosecution given favored treatment. They have witnessed the wrath of Judge Navarro. There have been a few jury questions that indicate the jury is not happy.

If it is true that the jury has noticed what a sham this trial has turned into, then Yes, Judge Navarro is correct to be concerned about the verdict.

Bunkerville, Nevada 2014

Redoubt News

.

Judge Navarro in Bunkerville case has finger on the scales of justice

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth a la 1984.

(Las Vegas Review Journal) – August 15, 2017 –

Justice is blind, objective and impartial — unless U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro sits on the bench. With her thumb heavy on the scale of justice, the defendants being retried for their participation in the 2014 armed standoff in Bunkerville have little chance of acquittal.

In their first trial, jurors deadlocked on all counts involving these men. Their defense focused on First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, as well as Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Before the current trial commenced, Judge Navarro barred the defendants from using these constitutional rights in their defense. Evidently, this defense was compelling.

The prosecutor in this retrial knows the defense strategy and can prosecute accordingly. Usually the prosecution prevails in retrials. Does Judge Navarro doubt the ability of U.S. Attorney Steve Myhre to overcome this defense?

The term “kangaroo court” comes to mind. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a “process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Judge Navarro’s rulings violate this protection. As defendant Eric Parker testifies on his own behalf, he cannot reference his constitutional rights or strong “witnesses in his favor.” Previously, she prohibited Mr. Parker from referencing anything negative to law enforcement and had his testimony stricken from the record when he used the word “sniper” to describe the scene.

Additionally, four witnesses to the standoff offered testimony via Skype, and the judge decreed that the jurors will not hear it. The jurors hear only what Big Brother permits.

Mr. Parker cannot defend himself. He was present at the standoff, armed and consequently guilty of interfering with the government’s roundup of cattle on public land. His motives and intents and rights do not matter. No one was injured. In fact, no shots were fired.

This trial is a sham. There is no impartial justice. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth a la 1984.

Redoubt News

.

Navarro Cuts Defendants Rights to TWO – Bunkerville Retrial

THE BEDROCK OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS UNDER ATTACK IN THIS LAS VEGAS FEDERAL COURTROOM.

by Shari Dovale

During the first trial of the Bunkerville defendants, this past March, Judge Gloria Navarro made the specific point to Todd Engel that, in her courtroom, defendants have only three rights.

In happened after Engel, who was representing himself as was his right to do, asked the unforgivable question, “Is it true that [Special Agent In Charge] Dan Love is under criminal investigation?”

The prosecution threw fits, yelling objections. Navarro not only sustained their objections, but stripped Engel of his right to self-representation. Navarro told Engel that he had lost his privilege to self-representation and was no longer allowed to talk in her courtroom.

She went on to say that, “As a defendant, you have only THREE rights.”

She said that he had the right to:

1. Plead Guilty


2. Testify on his own behalf


3. Appeal his conviction

This same judge has banned the US Constitution in her courtroom.

• These men have been incarcerated for over 18 months.


• They have been denied bail.


• They have been denied a speedy trial.


• They have been denied the right to face their accuser (Dan Love).


• They have been denied the right to present witnesses in their favor.


• And so much more.

Navarro has ruled that an affirmative defense is not allowed in the case. That means the defendants cannot claim self defense, defense of others or provocation by the government.

The are not allowed to mention the First Amendment or the Second Amendment.

They are not allowed to portray the BLM, FBI or any other alphabet agency in a negative light. They are are not allowed to show emotion on the stand and say they were afraid of the government.

This is after the Federal Agents were allowed to testify that they were afraid of the protesters, cry on the stand and completely misrepresent the events of April 12, 2014.

And now, they are not allowed to testify in the own defense, on their own behalf.

Eric Parker was removed from the witness stand on Thursday, August 10^th. Parker had mentioned the “First Amendment Zone” and alluded to seeing government “snipers”. After objections by prosecutors were sustained, he continued saying he looked “up and to the right.”

That was it. Navarro was afraid that he might tell the jury that he had seen the snipers up on the mesa, since the mesa was up and to the right of where he was standing.

Navarro had Parker removed from the witness stand, denied him his right to testify on his own behalf, and struck his entire testimony from the official record. She then dismissed the jury for the weekend, and left the courtroom.

The jury was left speechless.

Navarro has stripped the defendants down to 2 rights remaining: The right to plead Guilty and the right to appeal their conviction. Everything is based on their guilt, with no mention of innocence until proven guilty.

The bedrock of our judicial system is under attack in this Las Vegas Federal Courtroom. The Constitution is under attack. Judge Gloria Navarro has stated from the Bench that defendants have no rights but the 2 she has dictated.

Redoubt News

.

Bunkerville Retrial – Is the Prosecution Case Collapsing?

NAVARRO IS MAKING EVERY ATTEMPT TO SHUT DOWN THE DEFENSE BEFORE THEY START.

by Shari Dovale   August 8, 2017

The Bunkerville retrial in Las Vegas has several interesting updates today.

The prosecution has stated that they have finished presenting their witnesses, however they will not formally rest their case until the next time they see the jury, which is expected at 9am Thursday morning.

The jury questions for the final witness, Special Agent Willis, were very interesting and seemed to show that the jurors are getting a bit annoyed at the behavior of the judge.

Some examples of the jury questions include a juror wanting to know why the FBI was involved in this case at all, since it was a BLM operation. Judge Navarro refused to ask that question in open court and told the jury that it was not relevant for them to know the answer.

Another question referred to whether or not defendants Drexlar and Stewart had had any direct communications with anyone (outside of the current defendants) prior to April 12, 2014.

AUSA Myhre was at a loss when he heard of this question, knowing that he should object but not quite sure how to do it for the jury. After dancing around the answer, it was a clear “No”.

The reason that the jury has been given the day off is that Judge Gloria Navarro wants the defense to ‘proffer’ their witnesses first to her so that she may rule whether or not their testimony is relevant. Navarro wants to know what they have to say, so she can decide if the jury will be allowed to hear the testimony.

Navarro is making every attempt to shut down the defense before they start. This includes the testimony of Dennis Michael Lynch, former FOX News reporter. Lynch was called by the prosecution in the first trial this past spring, though the testimony did not go quite as well as they had hoped.

Lynch had video, as well as personal testimony, that showed the excessive force by the BLM to the protesters. The prosecution has made the decision not to call him during this trial, as expected, so the defense has called him. Navarro seems to be trying to find a way to keep him from testifying.

Rich Tanasi, attorney for Steven Stewart, wants to put witnesses from the wash up to testify. The prosecution has objected, though the defense argument is that the government has brought into question the mood of the crowd. This point was made several times.

During the arguments, the prosecution made the statement that they had never alleged conspiracy of the 410 people in the wash. However, they forgot the fact that they have been threatening everyone as “Unindicted Co-conspirators”.

They have made the claims during this trial, as well as the previous trial. They used these threats to keep witnesses from testifying. These claims were made outside the presence of the jury.

This goes to show that the prosecution wants to eat their cake and have it too. They use the claim that everyone is an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” to get around heresay objections.

We know that Judge Navarro will grant their motions, effectively shutting down the defense.

Another way that Judge Navarro seems to be going out of her way to help the prosecution is through her insistence that the defense can file a 29A motion early.

Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

Judge Gloria Navarro made every attempt to get the defense to file a “29A” motion today.

A 29A motion is a motion to acquit the defendants on the basis of insufficient evidence. The charges each have several elements, and all elements must be proven before the charge can be sustained.

For example:

COUNT ONE
Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)

a. Assault on a Federal Officer, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section l ll(a)(l) and (b);
b. Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Section l 15(a)(l)(B);
c. Use and Carry of a Firearm In Relation to a Crime of Violence,
in violation of Title 181 United States Code. Section 924(c);
d. Obstruction of the Due Administration of Justice, in violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503;
e. Interference with Interstate Commerce by Extortion, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951; and
f. Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1952

Under (b) it states: Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. It can be argued that the government did not prove this element as they have multiple videos, Facebook posts, etc that show the defendants desired a non violent resolution. They did not want the altercation with the BLM or FBI.

The government might attempt to argue that the threat was implied. However, it will be up to the defense to argue the point.

The problem with Judge Navarro trying to make the defense file and argue the 29A motion is that the government has not rested it’s case yet. They do not intend to rest it’s case before the jury returns on Thursday.

If the defense files their motion prior to the government resting their case, then they will be giving the prosecution carte blanche to continue presenting evidence against their clients. The prosecution will know every point that the defense can make against them, therefore it will be malpractice for the defense attorneys to file this motion too soon.

But Judge Gloria Navarro is still showing her bias. It is not inconceivable that she will bully the defense in to filing this motion prior to the prosecution completing their case.

She has to see that the government’s case has taken a severe turn towards the South. That could be why she has doubled down against the defense.

Please pay attention to this travesty of justice. This case is a very important case, not just for the other defendants waiting for their turn in court, but to the citizens of this country. Every citizen of this country will be effected by the outcome of this trial.

Redoubt News

.

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!

THE PROSECUTION HAS YET TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF A CRIME.

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?

Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, April 12, 2014

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.

“Sling Your Long Guns”

The jury picked up on several points and asked Shilaikis if anyone pointed a weapon at him. Of course, he had to admit that they did not. The jury also wanted to know about the order to “Sling Your Long Guns” and whether that was meant for just the BLM or all Law Enforcement.

Shilaikis attempted to imply that the order to “Sling” their long guns was more of a suggestion, and that it was a discretionary order. “Each law enforcement officer can make the decision to put away their long gun based on what they perceive as a threat.”

The defense jumped all over that one and the jury did not seem to buy it either.

AUSA Myhre used Special Agent Willis to introduce multiple photos that depicted the same thing. How many times can you see the same picture and not call it “cumulative”? They introduced several photos as evidence that they did not take, but downloaded from various sites on the internet.

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?

Another unusual event this week, when a juror was questioned this week about a text message she received from an outside source concerning this trial. The message said, “You have 2 hours more to finished. Pass death sentence on this prisoner.” The juror immediately brought it to the court’s attention and said it would not affect her ability to be impartial. The court accepted that.

What is an FBI Employee?

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 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.

Thumbs Up

Judge Gloria Navarro has stretched the limit of her lack of knowledge on the law. She continuously relies on the prosecution to give her foundations to admit evidence. She references her books while sitting in court to find ways to admit biased evidence.

An example of this is when the prosecution presented a Facebook “Thumbs Up” as a co-conspirator’s statement. If someone else posts a controversial statement, and you “Like” the post, you can now be prosecuted as a “Co-Conspirator”.

According to the rulings in this case, if you “Like” a post, then you have adopted that statement and taken ownership of it as your own statement.

*On a side note, I personally do not like all of the new social engineering emoji reaction buttons that Facebook has introduced. I general show my protest by only using a “Like”, not for agreeing with the post, but for appreciating people getting involved. I “Like” discussion. I “Like” debate. I want people to be involved. It’s the only way to get the truth to some people.

Bad Acts After The Fact

The prosecution has extended the dates of the “Conspiracy” to March 2016. This was deliberate so they could include information on Operation Gold Rush (Sugar Pine Mine, Oregon) and Operation Big Sky (White Hope Mine, Montana). Both operations took place at least a year after Bunkerville.

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.

Is this for real? Only in Gloria Navarro’s courtroom.

Is the Militia Illegal?

When the questioning is completed by the attorneys, the jurors are given the option of asking the witness questions. After the questions are written down and turned over to the judge, she calls a sidebar in which all of the attorneys go behind a wall and discuss these questions before asking them of the witness.

On this particular day, Navarro allowed the jury to go to lunch while the attorneys discussed the questions in the courtroom. This was notable because the gallery audience could now hear the questions and discussion.

One of the questions was “Are Militias Illegal?” The prosecution went so far as to argue, “Yes, they are illegal in many states, including Montana.”

Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Constitution of Montana — Article VI — THE EXECUTIVE

Section 13. Militia. (1) The governor is commander-in-chief of the militia forces of the state, except when they are in the actual service of the United States. He may call out any part or all of the forces to aid in the execution of the laws, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, or protect life and property in natural disasters.
(2) The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.

This is the false narrative that the government is using against these defendants. Militias are NOT illegal. It is in the Constitution and they are important to our Nation.

Martyrs

These men were prepared to be martyrs on April 12, 2014. This was evidenced by a video from Steven Stewart taken that day. In it, he states that, “They were threatening us with chemicals earlier, to back down. So we pushed forward. They couldn’t gas us. We were going to be martyrs if they wanted to continue this.” Stewart said on the video.

Somebody said they had 104 vehicles

Posted by Steven Stewart on Saturday, April 12, 2014

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 7^th. 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.

Redoubt News

.

Is Judge Navarro Afraid of the Defendants?

THE DEFENDANTS ARE KEPT SHACKLED IN THE COURTROOM.

By Shari Dovale   August 4, 2017

Judge Gloria Navarro is presiding over the Bunkerville retrial in Las Vegas, Nevada. She has continued to show her bias against the defense in her rulings and her reactions in the courtroom.

She has insisted that they not look around, at all, while in the courtroom, even during breaks and sidebars. Navarro was so concerned, one day this week, that she had Eric Parker removed from the courtroom for an entire segment of the trial because he turned to look at the overheard viewscreen.

He did not talk to anyone. He did not look at another person, though Scott Drexlar was seated behind him. All he did was look at the overhead viewscreen that hangs behind the defense tables.

Navarro was so anxious that, though this time was not serious, it could become a serious issue if she did not react to this immediately. She now has someone watch Mr. Parker, and the other defendants, during sidebars to see if they violate her rules.

Additionally, she has insisted that the defendants be kept shackled in the courtroom. Yes, they are restrained while sitting in their chairs, in front of the jury.

Let’s not forget her clearly prejudicial rulings. She allows the prosecution to paint these men as terrorists, yet does not allow the documented bad behavior of the BLM to be presented to the jury. She almost encourages the FBI agents to cry on the witness stand, but refuses to let the defense talk about the assault on Margaret Houston, or the tazing of Ammon Bundy, or to use it as a reason for the defendants to travel to Nevada.

She denies the defendants their right to choose their defense, in essence, she is forcing them to testify, though it should be their right not to do so. Their attorney’s should be allowed to present the evidence of their innocence, yet Judge Navarro is too afraid of the truth.

And, she forbids the US Constitution from being used in this trial.

This behavior could show one of two things, in my opinion.

First, it could show a paranoid personality, to the point of a disorder. She seems, personally, very afraid of these men, though they are surrounded by US Marshals and other law enforcement. There are multiple security protocols in place, which are designed for minimal security breeches.

The second, more likely, reasoning is that she is going out of her way to portray these men as dangerous to the jury. This goes beyond bias. This actually elevates her reactions to being invested to a higher degree than that of the judiciary.

All persons accused of a crime are entitled to a fair and impartial trial. This is a basic premise of our judicial system. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that defendants have a right to be free of shackles and handcuffs in the presence of jurors, in part to maintain the presumption of innocence and prevent bias.

Judge Gloria Navarro does not believe this should be applied to these defendants. She believes they are far too dangerous to be allowed even a small amount of movement in a room where they are surrounded by multiple law enforcement.

What is she reacting to? Why is she so invested in the verdicts of this particular case? It is not a respect for the law, as is evidenced by her disregard for the higher courts rulings. Fear of acquittal consumes her.

More truth being revealed is inevitable. Gloria Navarro will be held accountable. The only question will be “when?” 

Redoubt News

.

Material Witness Changes Testimony In Bunkerville Retrial

by Shari Dovale

The Bunkerville retrial of four defendants began the second week of testimony in Las Vegas today.

Scott Drexler, Eric Parker, Rick Lovelein and Steven Stewart are on trial for conspiracy and related crimes pertaining to the Bunkerville standoff of April 2014.

Sgt. Shannon Serena of the Nevada Highway Patrol testified today for the prosecution. He stated that he was originally given orders to help with the set up of the K-Rail system (guard rails set up by the Department of Transportation) as they were needed to help the BLM out of the area when the Bundy cattle were released later that day.

Serena then testified that he was in Moapa (about 33 miles from Bunkerville) when he said his orders were changed. He was very specific that his orders were change because “Officers were being held at gunpoint”. Serena testified that he was ordered to go assist these officers.

This is a major change in testimony from the first trial. I have reviewed the testimony from the first trial and cannot find any reference to officers being held at gunpoint.

Additionally, Serena showed dash-cam footage of his travels to Bunkerville, and after he arrived. He stated that there were several hundred people at the protest and that ¾ (three quarters) of them had firearms. He said they were “heavily armed”.

It was noted during cross examination that Serena never included in his report that he was told officers were being held at gunpoint.

Though he claimed to have been fearful at being so outnumbered, he could not remember even if there were any other officers from Nevada Highway Patrol, the Park Service, BLM or Swat. He could only remember about 10-12 metro police being there. He just couldn’t remember anything else.

Serena claimed to have had protesters pointing firearms directly at him. However, none of the dash-cam videos or the still photographs exhibit such behavior. Serena claimed that it was done off camera.

Although three of the four defense attorneys cross-examined Serena, the day came to a close before the fourth attorney, Todd Leventhal (who represents Scott Drexler) was able to cross-examine. Thus, tomorrow will begin with questions by Leventhal. Let’s hope Leventhal reviews transcripts from the last trial this evening. Afterward, the jurors will have their chance to question this witness.

The jury questions have become a highlight in this case. They are paying attention and making every attempt to know what is being kept from them. I am looking forward to them.

Redoubt News

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, 

please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

Bunkerville Retrial – First Week Wrap-Up

by Shari Dovale  July 23, 2017

The retrial of four defendants is underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. Eric Parker, Steven Stewart, Scott Drexlar and Ricky Lovelein are fighting for their lives for the second time. A mistrial was declared by Judge Gloria Navarro in April of this year when the jury could not reach a unanimous agreement as to the guilt of these four men.

The main charges go to Conspiracy between the defendants, and others, as to the purpose of the Bunkerville Standoff in April 2014. The Federal Government, lead by Prosecutor Steven Myhre, are trying to prove there was a conspiracy against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) when citizens around the country rallied to stop the BLM from taking the cattle from the Bundy Ranch.

Finished with the first week of testimony, this retrial has taken a few bizarre twists.

The prosecution is obviously concerned with their case. It is not a strong case, and this has been emphasized when Judge Gloria Navarro made the decision to allow the jurors the option of questioning each witness. Some of the questions that have come from the jurors indicate that there are those that do not quite believe the government’s narrative.

This is not a guarantee, or even a strong indication, of the case being won by the defense. However, leanings toward not believing the government at this early stage are a good sign.

The prosecution has mostly put BLM agents on the witness stand. These men testified to their fear of the men, women, and children in the wash on the day of the standoff. Some tears were even shed on the stand by these agents. However, the defense has been warned, and almost forbidden, from using emotional testimony.

The double standards of this case are blatant. This writer wonders how Judge Navarro is still presiding over this retrial and not having been forced to recuse herself?

Navarro has also warned the defense that they must keep the scope of their case within a 40 minute time period. From about noon to 12:40 on April 12, 2014 is the time frame the defense attorneys can discuss, and only that for the specific actions the judge believes are pertinent to the trial.

Navarro has scaled back the defendants rights tremendously. They are forbidden from discussing why they went to Nevada in the first place. They are not allowed to bring up their constitutionally-protected rights of free speech, etc. The US Constitution is not a defense, so we are told.

On the flip side, Navarro is encouraging, and even helping, the prosecution win their case. She is allowing them the leeway to present their version of the past 20+ years leading up to the standoff. She is allowing them to put Ryan Payne on trial here, though he is not a defendant in this round.

She is allowing the emotional testimony and biased opinion testimony from the government’s witnesses. Again, the defense has been strictly constrained from the same.

A witness last week, Alex Ellis, who was brought in to introduce the videos of Michael Flynn (deceased), was not cross examined. When his time came, prosecutor Myrhe announced that Ellis was at the urgent care clinic.

The jurors do not appear to be all smiles and good cheer for the prosecution. There have been two jurors that have fallen asleep due to the boring monologues thus far. Additionally, there have been so many sidebars that the judge brought in a bowl of candy to pacify the jurors during such times. However, Navarro seemed to slap them later when she thought they were taking the candy out of the courtroom at the end of the day. It seemed a bit nit-picky to this writer.

This case is very high profile, even without the main players from the Bundy family. Judge Navarro is under intense scrutiny. It is a wonder that she has not been admonished by someone to stop the antics in the courtroom that she is not only allowing, but assisting with.

But, one must remember, she is a Presidential appointee. She was appointed to bench for life. She cannot be fired in the normal sense of the word. She cannot be recalled the way an elected judge can. Does she have a boss? Does she have someone she must answer to? These are questions that many people should be asking, and in very loud voices.

Redoubt News

Photo; Protesters outside Lloyd George Federal Building during the first Bunkerville standoff trial on Wednesday, April 12, 2017, in Las Vegas. Bizuayehu Tesfaye/Las Vegas Review-Journal @bizutesfaye

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

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?

Redoubt News, plus video here: https://redoubtnews.com/2017/07/judge-prosecution-bunkerville-retrial/

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

Did the Judge Select the Jury in Bunkerville Retrial?

by Shari Dovale  July 13, 2017

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.

This is how the communists in the former Soviet Union used to run their courts. Blatant rigging of the system. We have now, almost unbelievably, seen it in our own country. The country that is the supposed to be where Freedom Rings.

This has actually happened in the United States of America, in the Year of Our Lord 2017.

God help us!

Redoubt News

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.