Trial-of-the-Century Gets a Jury in Las Vegas

JURORS WILL RETURN TUESDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 7TH, FOR OPENING ARGUMENTS.

by Shari Dovale  November 2, 2017

The Trial-of-the-Century is fully underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. Four men face charges related to the Bunkerville Standoff in April 2014.

71-year-old Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, Ryan and Ammon, as well as Montana resident Ryan Payne are accused of being the leaders behind the standoff. This event saw the Bureau of Land Management, under discredited Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Dan Love, stop the court-ordered cattle rustling that had begun near the southern Nevada town.

Over four days this week, prosecutors and defense whittled a large group of prospective jurors down to 12 with 4 alternates. A diverse group, they are prepared to serve for an estimated four months.

Jurors will return Tuesday morning, November 7^th, for opening arguments. Meanwhile, the attorneys continue with a full schedule in preparation for the opening on Tuesday.

An evidentiary hearing will conclude Friday morning on a motion by Ryan Payne to dismiss the entire case based on an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report and it’s attachments.

Judge Navarro chose to delay the very important hearing in favor of jury selection, which gives every impression that she has already made up her mind to rule against the motion to dismiss. The best the defendants can hope for, under those circumstances, is a directed jury instruction.

The evidentiary hearing is based on the apparent destruction of important, and exculpatory, documents in the ‘Operation Gold Butte’ event, as named by the BLM. It is important to remember that Dan Love testified in this hearing, via SKYPE, from Salt Lake City.

When attorneys Bret Whipple (who represents Cliven Bundy) and Dan Hill (who represents Ammon Bundy) questioned Love regarding Love’s phone calls with the U.S. Attorneys Office during the standoff, prosecutor Steven Myhre sternly objected. Whipple asked if (then-U. S. Attorney) Daniel Bogden had instructed Love to release the cattle. Myhre objected, claiming the U.S. Attorney had no authority to issue such an instruction. However, Daniel Love stated that the order to surrender and release the cows was given immediately after he spoke to Bogden.

This revelation raises the question of whether the Justice Department deliberately entrapped the Bundys, and made a showing of releasing the cattle solely to set up the Bundys to be prosecuted. Was Love directed by the highest-ranking federal prosecutor in Nevada to release the cattle, so that the Justice Department could stage this elaborate criminal prosecution?

Further testimony by Kent Klemen further implicated the US Attorney’s office in the what appears to be quite the cover up. 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.

The trial is estimated to last four months, with a few days off for pre-scheduled events, including holidays. The gallery is expected to be full with supporters traveling from around the country to witness the testimony, as well as several media outlets expected on key days.

A final trial for the remaining defendants is not expected to begin until 30 days after a verdict is reached in this trial.

Redoubt News

Photo credit: Redoubt News

The post Trial-of-the-Century Gets a Jury in Las Vegas appeared first on Oath Keepers.

JPMorgan Ordered To Pay Over $4 Billion To Widow And Family

A Dallas jury ordered JPMorgan Chase to pay more than $4 billion in damages for mishandling the estate of a former American Airlines executive.

Jo Hopper and two stepchildren won a probate court verdict over claims that JPMorgan mismanaged the administration of the estate of Max Hopper, who was described as an airline technology innovator by the family’s law firm. The bank, which was hired by the family in 2010 to independently administer the estate of Hopper, was found in breach of its fiduciary duties and contract. In total, JP Morgan Chase was ordered to pay at least $4 billion in punitive damages, approximately $4.7 million in actual damages, and $5 million in attorney fees.

The six-person jury, which deliberated a little more than four hours starting Monday night and returned its verdict at approximately 12:15 a.m. Tuesday, found that the bank committed fraud, breached its fiduciary duty and broke a fee agreement, according to court papers.

"The nation"s largest bank horribly mistreated me and this verdict provides protection to others from being mistreated by banks that think they"re too powerful to be held accountable," said Hopper in a statement. "The country"s largest bank, people we are supposed to trust with our livelihood, abused my family and me out of sheer ineptitude and greed. I"m blessed that I have the resources to hold JP Morgan accountable so other widows who don"t have the same resources will be better protected in the future."

"Surviving stage 4 lymphoma cancer was easier than dealing with this bank and its estate administration," Mrs. Hopper added.

Max Hopper, who pioneered the SABRE reservation system for the airline, died in 2010 with assets of more than $19 million but without a will and testament, according to the statement. JPMorgan was hired as an administrator to divvy up the assets among family members. “Instead of independently and impartially collecting and dividing the estate’s assets, the bank took years to release basic interests in art, home furnishings, jewelry, and notably, Mr. Hopper’s collection of 6,700 golf putters and 900 bottles of wine,” the family’s lawyers said in the statement. “Some of the interests in the assets were not released for more than five years.”

The bank"s incompetence caused more than just unacceptably long timelines; bank representatives failed to meet financial deadlines for the assets under their control. In at least one instance, stock options were allowed to expire. In others, Mrs. Hopper"s wishes to sell certain stock were ignored. The resulting losses, the jury found, resulted in actual damages and mental anguish suffered by Mrs. Hopper. With respect to Mr. Hopper"s adult children, the jury found that they lost potential inheritance in excess of $3 million when the Bank chose to pay its lawyers" legal fees out of the estate account to defend claims against the Bank for violating its fiduciary duty.

Confirming that much of America does not hold Wall Street in high regard, the court’s verdict form showed that  jurors awarded $8 billion in punitive damages against the bank. Alan Loewinsohn, attorney for Jo Hopper, said in an interview there may be duplication of some of the damage findings. He asked the jury to take into account the bank’s worth and asked them for $2 billion in punitive damages. “I believe they used that figure for the other parties in the case as well,” he said.

As a result, he said, the punitive damage award could end up being “somewhere between $4 billion and $8 billion.” The verdict form also shows jurors were advised to consider factors including “the net worth of JPMorgan.” JPM has a market cap of about $330 billion.

At the lower end of that range, the jury’s award would erase almost two-thirds of the $6.6 billion profit that JPMorgan generated globally during the second quarter. According to Bloomberg, it would rank high among the largest sanctions ever levied against the bank - somewhere between the $2.6 billion it agreed to pay in 2014 for allegedly failing to stop Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and a $13 billion settlement it reached with government authorities in 2013 for its handling of mortgage bonds that fueled the financial crisis.

"Mrs. Hopper asked the jury to send a message loud enough for JP Morgan to hear it all the way to Park Avenue in Manhattan," said Loewinsohn, "Hopefully, that message has been received."

Probably not: sadly for widow Hopper, she is unlikely to see the full award: large punitive damages verdicts like the one in the Hopper case are often scaled back because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled they can’t be disproportionate to actual damages. In this case, the jury awarded less than $5 million in actual damages.

The bank said it acted in a professional manner and in good faith on Hopper’s estate and is “highly confident” the jury verdict won’t stand under Texas law.

“Clearly the award far exceeds any possible interpretation of Texas tort reform statutes,” Andrew Gray, a spokesman for the bank, said in an emailed statement. “There has been no judgment entered by the court based on this verdict.”

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

.

"He's A Greedy Little Man" And A "Snake" - Transcripts Of Shkreli Jury Hearings Emerge

Martin Shkreli’s lawyers reportedly had to interview more than 250 prospective jurors before agreeing on 12. At the time, media reports hinted at some of the funnier reasons given by prospective jurors to get out of serving (one individual said he was biased against Shkreli because he had “disrespected the Wu Tang Clan"). Ultimately, the jury found the former hedge fund manager and pharmaceutical company CEO guilty on three out of eight counts of fraud.

Now, Harper’s Magazine has published transcripts from the Voir Dire hearings. The transcripts offer insight into how the trial of "the most hated man in America" came together. In most cases, the prospective juror offers some version of "he"s terrible" and is promptly excused.

When asked if he was aware of the defendant, one juror said yes and “I hate him,” before calling Shkreli “a greedy little man.”

“The court: The purpose of jury selection is to ensure fairness and impartiality in this case. If you think that you could not be fair and impartial, it is your duty to tell me. All right. Juror Number 1.

Juror no. 1: I’m aware of the defendant and I hate him.

Benjamin Brafman: I’m sorry.

Juror no. 1: I think he’s a greedy little man.

The court: Jurors are obligated to decide the case based only on the evidence. Do you agree?

Juror no. 1: I don’t know if I could. I wouldn’t want me on this jury.

The court: Juror Number 1 is excused. Juror Number 18.”

One guy said he felt biased against Shkreli as soon as he saw his face.

“Juror no. 40: I’m taking prescription medication. I would be upset if it went up by a thousand percent. I saw the testimony on TV to Congress and I saw his face on the news last night. By the time I came in and sat down and he turned around, I felt immediately I was biased.

The court: Sir, we are going to excuse you. Juror Number 47, please come up.”

Another juror equated Shkreli with Bernie Madoff who, let’s remember, stole $70 billion from his clients.

“Juror no. 47: He’s the most hated man in America. In my opinion, he equates with Bernie Madoff with the drugs for pregnant women going from $15 to $750. My parents are in their eighties. They’re struggling to pay for their medication. My mother was telling me yesterday how my father’s cancer drug is $9,000 a month.

The court: The case is going to come before you on evidence that you must consider fairly and with an open mind.

Juror no. 47: I would find that difficult.

The court: And that’s based on your parents’ experience with medication?

Juror no. 47: It’s based on people working very hard for their money. He defrauded his company and his investors, and that’s not right.

The court: Ma’am, we’re going to excuse you. Juror Number 52, how are you?”

One guy said he didn’t know who Shkreli was, but after taking one look at him said he looks like a "snake."

“Juror no. 52: When I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that’s a snake — not knowing who he was. I just walked in and looked right at him and that’s a snake.

Brafman: So much for the presumption of innocence.

The court: We will excuse Juror Number 52. Juror Number 67?”

One prospective juror said he’d “never be able to forget” how Shkreli raised the price of Daraprim.

"Juror no. 67: The fact that he raised the price of that AIDS medication, like, such an amount of money disgusts me. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to forget that. Who does that, puts profit and self-interest ahead of anything else? So it’s not a far stretch that he could do what he’s accused of.

The court: Please go to the jury room and tell them you have been excused. Juror Number 70.”

One person described Shkreli as “the face of corporate greed in America," and that he"d need to be convinced of his innocence because he assumes Shkreli is guilty.

“Juror no. 77: From everything I’ve seen on the news, everything I’ve read, I believe the defendant is the face of corporate greed in America.

Brafman: We would object.

Juror no. 77: You’d have to convince me he was innocent rather than guilty.

The court: I will excuse this juror. Hello, Juror Number 125.”

Juror number 144 said Shkreli “looks like a dick.”

“Juror no. 144: I heard through the news of how the defendant changed the price of a pill by up-selling it. I heard he bought an album from the Wu-Tang Clan for a million dollars.

The court: The question is, have you heard anything that would affect your ability to decide this case with an open mind. Can you do that?

Juror no. 144: I don’t think I can because he kind of looks like a dick.

The court: You are Juror Number 144 and we will excuse you. Come forward, Juror Number 155.”

One juror said he couldn’t understand whether Shkreli was stupid, or just greedy.

“Juror no. 28: I don’t like this person at all. I just can’t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there.

The court: Sir, thank you.

Juror no. 28: Is he stupid or greedy? I can’t understand.

The court: We will excuse you. Juror 41, are you coming up?”

Shkreli is totally guilty, another juror said…and he disrespected the Wu Tang Clan.

“Juror no. 59: Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because...

The court: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir.

Juror no. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.”

While no date has been set, Shkreli is expected to be sentenced by federal judge Kiya Matsumoto some time during the coming months. Though Shkreli said on one of his post-trial livestreams that he expects to only serve a few months, possibly under house arrest. But legal experts believe that the sentencing is when Shkreli’s past demons will come back to haunt him in the form of a lengthy stay in federal prison. He could also be on the hook for millions of dollars in fines. After all, Shkreli has mocked not only the Brooklyn prosecutors who tried him, but members of Congress. It wouldn’t exactly look like a prosecutorial victory if they just let him walk away.
 

Bunkerville Retrial – Jury Deliberation Has Started

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.

---

Runaway Jury in Bunkerville Retrial?

By Shari Dovale   August 7, 2017

The prosecution came to their expected final witness today in the Bunkerville Retrial in Las Vegas.

FBI Special Agent Willis continued the slow progression of presenting hundreds of repeated photographs in his attempt to define a timeline for the jury.

AUSA Myhre took him through extremely tedious testimony while the spectators and jury made every attempt to stay focused. Myhre does seem to have perfected the soporific art of direct examination.

Cross examination began late this afternoon with Rich Tanasi, attorney for Steven Stewart, walking the witness through to admission that the only time Stewart was seen holding his firearm above the concrete jersey barrier was after the BLM had left the area.

It was noticed by all parties today that the jury has made a fashion statement for the third time during this trial.

12 of 15 jurors came into the courtroom wearing red clothes. The defense asked the judge to question them, as there have been previous instances where they were unusually color coordinated. Once the majority were dressed in green, and another day they were dressed in blue.

The defense showed concern as the jury seemed to be dressed like a “team” and wanted them questioned as to whether they had already made up their mind on this case.

Judge Gloria Navarro had indeed noticed, as she was able to cite exactly the type of dress the dissenters were wearing. However, she opted not to question the jurors as she wasn’t sure how to ask them without embarrassment.

The one point that was noticed by the spectators, yet not mentioned by the court, was that the US Marshal sitting next to the jury box was wearing a dark red tie, perfectly coordinated with the jury.

Dennis Michael Lynch, the FOX News reporter that testified in the first trial, is recovering from a medical procedure that is keeping him from traveling. However, Judge Navarro has indicated that he will be allowed to SKYPE his testimony later this week.

The prosecution is expected to rest their case on Tuesday, August 8^th, and the defense should begin theirs by Wednesday. The defense case is not expected to take as long as the prosecution’s case. The jury could reasonably receive this case in a week to 10 days.

Redoubt News

.

Jury Questions Threaten to Derail Prosecution in Bunkerville Retrial

by Shari Dovale   July 25, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

The jurors have not heard these instructions. However, they appear to be paying attention and they seem to understand that they are not being given the full story.

Their questions have questioned the truthfulness of some prosecution witnesses, as well as wanting to know who was in charge of this whole operation. And, they have asked about the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the second amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

From 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.

Innocent Man Sentenced to Prison for Standing on a Sidewalk, Informing People of Their Rights

Big Rapids, MI — A former pastor will serve time in jail for a conviction of “jury tampering,” after he was arrested and charged with a felony for handing out jury information pamphlets outside of a courthouse.

Keith Wood is innocent. He was merely attempting to educate his neighbors about their rights on a jury, which should be protected free speech. However, courts are intent on using their power to hide the full scope of the jurors’ responsibility and they will apparently go to great lengths to do so — including throwing an entirely innocent man in prison.

For those who don’t know, jury nullification is the right for any juror to not only judge the facts of the case but also to judge the validity of the law itself. If a jury feels that a defendant is facing an unjust charge, they have the right to rule in the defendant’s favor, even if they are technically guilty under the court’s standards.

Federal and individual state governments are terrified about this concept becoming mainstream as it could lead to radical change in regards to victimless ‘crimes.’

Wood wanted people to know about their rights on a jury so he printed out pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association and began passing them out at his local courthouse.

By the time he could hand out 50 fliers, court officials had Wood arrested. Wood was on a public sidewalk, which should have given him additional protection under free speech laws, but he was arrested anyway.

Advertisment

Wood was charged with a five-year felony for obstructing justice and a one-year misdemeanor for jury tampering. This week in court, Wood was found guilty on the obstruction of justice charge and sentenced to eight weekends in jail plus six months of probation and additional fines.

READ MORE:  WATCH: Man Films as Police Enter His Home Without a Warrant, Kidnap His Children

After his arrest Wood told Fox 17, “I truly believe in my heart of hearts I didn’t do anything wrong, I didn’t break the law.”

When asked if he felt that his first amendment rights were violated, Wood responded, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.”

The judge entirely ignored Wood’s rights and treated him like a criminal, telling the court that “He’s going straight to jail today,” as she handed down the sentence.

“This is not a person who made a one-time mistake, he hasn’t demonstrated that he has kind of shown that he realizes now the significance of what he’s done, in fact, the testimony shows the contrary,” Mecosta County Assistant Prosecutor Nathan Hull told the court.

Wood’s defense attorney, David Kallman, argued that his client did nothing wrong, and was acting within his rights as a US citizen.

“He exercised what he believes are his free speech rights, did it out on the sidewalk before this court, and because of that, that deserves 45 days in jail, let alone one day in jail?” I totally disagree with that,” Kallman said.

As The Free Thought Project reported last month, Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool.

“’I thought this was going to trash my jury trial, basically,” testified Judge [Peter] Jaklevic. “It just didn’t sound right.’

Jacklevic ended up sending that jury pool home on Nov. 24, 2015 when Yoder took a plea.

Jaklevic continued to testify that he stepped into the hallway with Mecosta County Prosecutor Brian Thiede when Det. Erlandson and a deputy brought Wood into the courthouse that day. Mecosta County Deputy Jeff Roberts testified he ‘asked Wood to come inside because the Judge wanted to talk with him,’ then threatened to call a city cop if Wood did not come inside.

Wood testified Judge Jaklevic never spoke to him that day, or him any questions, before ordering his arrest. He tells FOX 17 he had concerns his case was tried in Mecosta County where all of this happened, involving several court officials including the judge.”

To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying informational pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Wood arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Wood was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired, where county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place.

READ MORE:  Mainstream Media and Government Remain Silent as Activists From All Over the US Deliver Aid to Flint

“So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Wood. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.”

Defense attorney Kallman noted that during Wood’s trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury.

“And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” Kallman said. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.”

After the guilty verdict was announced, Kallman told FOX 17 that he plans to appeal the case.

Jury nullification is a tangible solution to the problems that we face with the justice system. Through this loophole, we as average citizens have the power to free our neighbors from unjust laws and government persecution.

The next time that you get a jury notice in the mail, forget about the minor inconvenience and think about the human life that you could save.

One thing that is important to mention is the fact that you probably don’t want to mention jury nullification until you are selected as a juror, that is likely to get you dismissed immediately. However, once you are on the inside, you can spread the word by telling the other jurors that they have the right to vote with their conscience.

READ MORE:  Judge Threatens To Impose A "Secret Jury" After Activists Try to Inform Jurors of Legal Rights

Please share this story so that this innocent man’s case gets the scrutiny it deserves. When a person can be thrown in a cage for passing out flyers on a public sidewalk, informing people of their rights under the law, tyranny is not approaching — it is 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.

First Witness Says She Felt "Betrayed" By "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli

Prosecution called its first witness in the trial of former Turing Pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli on Thursday. The witness, a former investor in one of Shkreli’s funds, alleged that Shkreli misled her about the fund’s performance, touting returns that were “too good to be true.”

The witness, Sarah Hassan, told jurors that she invested $300,000 with Shkreli in 2011 after being told he was “a rising star in the hedge fund world” who managed $40 million. She said she was thrilled when Shkreli reported she made nearly $60,000 that year alone, according to the Associated Press. However, she said those returns far overstated Shkreli’s performance; in fact, the fund lost money. A year later, Shkreli told her that he was using all the assets in the fund to start up Retrophin. When she tried to get her investment back, he stalled for months before forcing her into a settlement that included shares of Retrophin and $400,000 cash, she said.

Day 4 of #Shkreli trial underway. First witness, Sarah Hassan, 27-year-old daughter of Fred Hassan, just took the stand. Govt questioning

— Meg Tirrell (@megtirrell) June 29, 2017

Sarah Hassan tells prosecutor she invested $300k with #Shkreli in MSMB Capital in Jan 2011

— Meg Tirrell (@megtirrell) June 29, 2017

“To hear over a year later that the cash was gone, it was upsetting,” Sarah Hassan testified as the first witness at Shkreli’s securities fraud trial in federal court in Brooklyn. “I saw that as being my cash. It was just not right.”

"To be frank, I felt somewhat betrayed at this point," Hassan, 27, told jurors in Brooklyn, New York, federal court. "I was told I could get my cash from the fund months ago."

It’s unclear whether Hassan is the same government witness who was allegedly threatened by a member of Shkreli’s family, as Bloomberg reported last week.

The defense has countered that the federal government unnecessarily frightened three of the defense’s witnesses after FBI agents repeatedly tried to contact them.
***
The Shkreli trial is just getting started, but already there have been more than a few interesting twists. The trial was supposed to begin Monday, but, thanks to Shkreli’s reputation as “the most hated man in America,” the jury selection process consumed two full days as the defense meticulously interviewed 250 potential jurors, with many claiming they would be unable to issue a fair judgment thanks to Shkreli’s reputation as the “pharma bro” who hiked the price of lifesaving AIDS drug Daraprim by 5,000%.

* * *

MedCity, a pharma blog that"s covering the trial, published a ranking of the top five excuses potential jurors used to get out of jury duty - one juror was excused for saying Shkreli "looks like a dick." Another said he couldn"t be impartial because Shkreli "disrespected the Wu Tang Clan."

“In my head, I said, ‘That’s a snake,’” one woman told attorneys, perhaps the most iconic comment to date.

“Honestly? Because he kind of looks like a dick,” another juror said more bluntly, explaining his bias to the judge. The individual was reportedly familiar with Shkreli’s ownership of the sole copy of the Wu-Tang Clan album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” purchased through an online auction in 2015 for $2 million.

“He disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan, so…” On a related note, CNBC reported that on day three a potential juror also brought up the issue and the aftermath, in which Shkreli leaked the record.

“In this particular case, the only thing I’d be impartial about is what prison he goes to” — another gem from day three.

And finally; “I am,” from the man Judge Matsumoto asked directly “Are you concerned for your safety?”

* * *

However, in a sign of hope for the embattled Shkreli – who is facing up to 20 years in prison if convicted - defense lawyer Benjamin Brafman has hit upon a novel defense strategy, according to the New York Times.

Brafman, a celebrity criminal defense lawyer known for representing Sean “P Diddy” Combs, Charles Kushner, and former Mafia boss Sammy the Bull Gravano, is claiming that much of the public’s hostility toward his client stems from Shkreli’s odd behavior, which he implied could be related to his client being mildly autistic - though it"s unclear if a doctor has diagnosed him as such.

They’re calling it: The “Born This Way” defense, after the 2011 Lady Gaga hit single celebrating LGBTQ youth:

“An odd duck. Perhaps Autistic. Weird. Maybe with Asperger’s. A guy who shuffled around his office in bunny slippers with a stethoscope around his neck because he felt comfortable that way. This is how Martin Shkreli was portrayed on Wednesday for his trial on fraud charges – by Benjamin Brafman, his own lawyer.

“Is he strange? Yes,” Mr. Brafman said of his client. But he added, “every single government witness will concur that Martin Shkreli, despite his flaws and his personality, is brilliant beyond words.”

Brafman also pushed back against the defense’s claims, arguing that none of Shkreli’s investors lost money. In fact, Brafman told the jury they made money thanks to Shkreli’s financial prowess.

Shkreli is being tried on eight counts of securities fraud and wire fraud related to his time running two hedge funds, MSMB Capital and MSMB Healthcare, and a pharmaceutical company he founded called Retrophin.

In particular, Shkreli has been accused of falsifying investor statements, backdating documents and misleading investors about his record as a fund manager. He also allegedly misstated how much money was in the funds, according to prosecutor G. Karthik Srinivasan, who, in his opening statement, accused Shkreli of being a “con man” who managed to convince his investors that he was “a Wall Street genius.”

Prosecutors alleged that the string of events that led to Shkreli’s arrest began with a bad trade at his first hedge fund, MSMB Capital. Shkreli lost millions of dollars on a trade that put the fund in the red.

Around the same time, Shkreli founded MSMB Healthcare, a second fund, and Retrophin, a pharmaceutical company. Shkreli allegedly told his investors they could have their money back in cash or Retrophin stock, and when a couple of investors threatened to sue, Shkreli hired them as consultants at Retrophin.

“Retrophin owed these investors nothing – the defendant owed these debts,” Srinivasan said.

As Brafman noted, since Shkreli"s departure, Retrophin has become enormously profitable - it"s now worth about $700 million, and, Brafman said, the board is still "raping" the company. Brafman also argued that the board"s treatment of Shkreli was unceasingly cruel, saying they mocked him and questioned his sexuality - all for being "different."

Investors may have made their money back, but Shkreli still committed fraud, the prosecution countered.

The trial is expected to last between four to six weeks.

Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL

Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry.

Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.”

The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.”

Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules.

READ MORE:  Jury Rights Activists Refuse To Back Down To Court Bullies Or Cops. Rights = Flexed

Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool.

“I thought this was going to trash my jury trial, basically,” testified Judge [Peter] Jaklevic. “It just didn’t sound right.”

Jacklevic ended up sending that jury pool home on Nov. 24, 2015 when Yoder took a plea.

Jaklevic continued to testify that he stepped into the hallway with Mecosta County Prosecutor Brian Thiede when Det. Erlandson and a deputy brought Wood into the courthouse that day. Mecosta County Deputy Jeff Roberts testified he “asked Wood to come inside because the Judge wanted to talk with him,” then threatened to call a city cop if Wood did not come inside.

Wood testified Judge Jaklevic never spoke to him that day, or him any questions, before ordering his arrest. He tells FOX 17 he had concerns his case was tried in Mecosta County where all of this happened, involving several court officials including the judge.”

To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place.

READ MORE:  Jury Finds Woman NOT Guilty of "Manufacturing Drugs" Because the Pot She Grew Was Medicine

“So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.”

Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury.

“And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.”

When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.”

We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”

Bunkerville Jury Confused by Conspiracy

Even Judge Navarro seemed confused by the jury’s questions.

By Shari Dovale and John Lamb

During the 5th day of deliberations, the jury for the first tier Bunkerville defendants have come back to the courtroom with another question.

Though the specific questions remain sealed, the responses from the court indicate the question pertained to contradictions in the jury instructions on how to determine if there was a conspiracy.

Judge Gloria Navarro responded that the conspiracy could have existed from people who are not in this room. She was referring to future defendants and also those that have not been indicted.

At one point, Judge Navarro attempted a convoluted analogy involving baseball. If there was a conspiracy to play a game of baseball, did these defendants bring the tools (bat, ball, glove) to play the game?

If the jury finds that no conspiracy existed, then several of the charges would automatically be found as not guilty. However, it does not mean that all the charges would have a blanket not guilty. There are several charges that are not tied to the conspiracy charge.

The jury questions also indicated that they are having difficulties on unanimity. There could be a possibility of a hung jury on some of the charges.

The jurors must decide on over 70 charges in this case. There are 15 pages of jury instructions and 11 pages of verdict sheets.

This has become very confusing for everyone today, as even Judge Navarro seemed confused by the jury’s questions. The defense attorneys argued that, with today’s responses, their defendants are being tried for crimes possibly committed by other people.

The jury seems to be needing a break, and they have indicated they would like to leave early today and possibly take tomorrow off as well, returning Monday morning. The jurors are setting their own schedule at this point.

It does seem that if the jurors are have having trouble defining a conspiracy on the 5th day of deliberations, then the verdict pendulum could possibly be swinging away from the government.

In related news, many of the defendants have been incarcerated for over 400 days now. It was determined early on that the second trial would commence 30 days after the first was completed. The third trial would then begin 30 days after the second trial completed.

The prosecution filed a motion to delay the start date of the second tier trial until June 5th. Judge Navarro set the date back to June 26th. Cliven Bundy filed a motion contesting that ruling based on the defendants rights to a speedy trial.

The court has continuously delayed these trials for their own convenience. Judge Navarro has cited her reasons for delay, again, as the logistics of responding to pre-trial motions. This is something that she should have planned for from the beginning.

From Redoubt News 

Jury Finds Christie's 'Lieutenants' Guilty Of Causing Traffic Jams As Political Retaliation

The jury in the Bridgegate case has found Bridget Kelly, Christie"s former deputy chief of staff, and Bill Baroni, a Christie appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, guilty of a plot to use traffic jams for political retaliation.

As NY Post reports, two former aides of NJ Gov. Chris Christie were found guilty of closing down Fort Lee, NJ, lanes to the George Washington Bridge to punish that borough’s mayor for not endorsing the governor’s re-election.

A jury of seven women and five men returned the guilty verdict after five days and 20 hours of deliberations in the Newark federal court trial of Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie’s former deputy chief of staff, and Bill Baroni, Christie’s appointee at the Port Authority.

The guilty verdict is more bad news for Christie, who saw his approval rating plummet to its lowest levels yet during the trial, where former staffers described him as a foul-mouthed bully who ordered subordinates to curse out his critics — and who once got angry over a playful box of donuts.

The government presented a mountain of evidence over the six-week trial, including testimony from Baroni’s former chief of staff, David Wildstein, who said he carried out the scheme at the behest of Kelly and Baroni.

The jury was also shown emails and text messages, including Kelly’s infamous email saying it was “time for traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

Christie has repeatedly denied knowing his staff was involved in the lane closures, which snarled traffic in Fort Lee for days in 2013, until the following year. Wildstein, however, testified that he and Baroni spoke with the governor about the lane closures while they were happening – and that the Gov. laughed about it. Several other witnesses say they warned Christie in 2013 that his staff might have been involved.

NJ.com notes, the jury of seven women and five men heard from 35 witnesses, including both defendants who took the stand on their behalf.

But the most damaging evidence might have been the now-infamous "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" email sent by Kelly less than a month before several local access toll lanes at the world"s busiest bridge were inexplicably closed for nearly a week in September 2013, leading to paralyzing gridlock on local streets.

The key witness against them was David Wildstein, a Republican operative who was on the stand for eight days. Wildstein acknowledged he was the one who came up with the lane closure idea as a point of leverage against Sokolich, and testified that both Baroni and Kelly helped him put it in play.

Baroni, 44, the former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Kelly, also 44, who served as a deputy chief of staff to the governor, were indicted more than a year ago after a 16-month federal investigation into the scandal that loomed large over Christie"s failed presidential aspirations.

Assistant U.S. attorney Lee Cortes, in his summations to the jury, said Baroni, Kelly and Wildstein all saw themselves as the governor"s "loyal lieutenants" who were free to use their public jobs to launch political attacks.

"They used their positions at the Port Authority and in the governor"s office to execute a malicious scheme to punish a local mayor by needlessly leading innocent travelers, adults and children who were pawns in a political game into a paralyzing traffic jam that went on for days," he said.

"They stopped people from moving freely about their community for no legitimate reason...just to mess with people, so they could send a clear and nasty political message. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what makes this a federal crime."

Chris Christie has made a statement: