Final Report from John Lamb and Brand Thornton 4/17/2017, Jury has not reached a verdict
http://youtu.be/_LpVbolGCiM
https://youtu.be/_LpVbolGCiM
Printable View
Final Report from John Lamb and Brand Thornton 4/17/2017, Jury has not reached a verdict
http://youtu.be/_LpVbolGCiM
https://youtu.be/_LpVbolGCiM
Navarro Gets Dramatic in the Courtroom
Navarro Gets Dramatic in the Bunkerville Courtroom
The jurors continue their second day of deliberations Tuesday.
April 18, 2017 BLM, DOJ, Nevada
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ms-678x381.png
Navarro Gets Dramatic in the Bunkerville Courtroom
by Shari Dovale
Monday marked the first full day of jury deliberations in the first of three trials being held in Las Vegas.
6 men are on trial for their roles in the Bunkerville protest with Cliven Bundy in 2014.
After 5+ weeks of the government presenting their case with over 35 witnesses, the defense was not allowed to present the case they originally planned. They had attempted to call 30 witnesses, but Judge Navarro did not allow some of them, and most were threatened with prosecution if they testified. They ended with about 2 days for their case.
Eric Parker was the only defendant to testify, and that was due to his belief that it would be the only way Navarro would allow their side to be told.
The jury sent questions back to the court, which Judge Gloria Navarro promptly sealed from the public’s view. The public was, however, allowed to hear the court consider their responses to the jury. It was possible to get a general idea of what the questions involved.
It seems the jury had ‘hypothetical’ questions pertaining to the possibility of a hung jury. This means they do not have consensus on all of the 60+ charges the defendants are facing.
Judge Navarro was concerned enough that the jury was considering all of the possible implications that, at one point, she threw her arms wide, then bringing them slowly back together. She said that they need to guide the jurors back down to a more narrow point of view as they could be looking at sentencing implications, and other extremes.
Navarro still seems to be mostly concerned with the prospect of jury nullification.
The prosecutors also talked about the probability of a hung jury.
It would seem that the court, Navarro and the government prosecutors, are concerned the jurors are looking at more than the government’s case. There appear to be some jurors that do not agree with the court’s narrative.
The jurors continue their second day of deliberations Tuesday.
Share this:
Solitary Confinement for Refusing a Strip Search
Punished With Solitary For Refusing a Strip Search
This happens each time they go to court or visit an attorney.
April 17, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada 1
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ry-678x381.png
Punished With Solitary For Refusing a Strip Search
*Editor’s Note: There are graphic pictures included in this article. They are important to the story, however, some might find them disturbing
.
By Loren Edward Pearce
“He has refused your visit”. The words smacked me in my ears as the prison receptionist told me that I would not be able to visit with Ammon Bundy after waiting for over an hour. But, it took me only a second to recover. I knew why Ammon had refused to visit with me. Ammon was in solitary confinement at the CCA Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada because he refused to submit to the strip/body cavity searches at the prison. To punish Ammon Bundy for his refusal to cooperate, the prison staff threw him in a solitary confinement cell.
When a prisoner is taken to visit somebody, they must submit to a strip/body cavity search round trip, as they go out and as they come back in. This happens each time they go to court or visit an attorney, round trip strip searches. What is a strip search? They must undress completely, totally naked and are subject to having their genitals and rectum inspected by bending over, spreading their butt cheeks and coughing. Guards, with rubber gloves, may touch them in their private areas if they deem it necessary and the physical inspection includes mouth, nose and ears or any part of the body they deem appropriate.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ch-150x150.jpg
Click on photo for larger view
The prison justifies this practice under the pretense of security and safety for prison staff to avoid contraband and dangerous items from entering the prison through transport in or on a body. Ammon’s position is that:
- He is not convicted. He has not been found guilty of anything through a trial. Because he has not been found guilty, nor does he have any kind of criminal record, there is no probable cause to suspect him of having contraband.
- He is entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights, including the 4th amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and invasions of privacy without probable cause.
- While he is in pre trial detention, he is to enjoy a presumption of innocence and treated like any other citizen with full access to the Bill of Rights and he is to be treated differently than other prisoners who have been convicted.
- Solitary confinement is a horrible punishment, beyond the comprehension of people who have never experienced it. Yet, it is preferable to the personal violation by strip/cavity searches.
In addition to the above, I would add:
- These strip/body cavity searches are sexual abuse. Among the organizations that have branded them as sexual abuse is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). For further analysis of the sexual abuse component of these strip searches, see:
ACLU: Invasive Search
Univ of Minn Duluth: Strip Searching as Sexual Assault
- The prison uses computer screens and phones for prisoner visitations. There is no physical proximity between prisoner and visitor. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS CONTRABAND THROUGH A COMPUTER SCREEN. Therefore, the need for a strip search is null and void and the only reason for its use is 1) punishment and/or 2) sexual gratification by prison staff through sexual contact with prisoners and/or 3) control and submission of prisoners through humiliation, manipulation, degradation and displays of prison staff power.
- The prison allegedly has body scanners such as used in airports as an alternative to the strip searches but does not use them.
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
While Ammon Bundy did not agree to visit with me, his brother Ryan did agree, much to my delight. However, my happiness was short lived as I realized the sacrifice that Ryan had to make to see me, subjecting himself the sexual violations mentioned above. Ryan is also in solitary for an overall refusal to submit to these strip/cavity searches and he described the horrors of being in solitary. A partial list includes:
- No working toilet, they had thrown him a toilet plunger and he got it to work for a short time but it returned to being stopped up. I did not ask him how he took care of his biological needs absent a working toilet.
- No toilet paper. Likewise, I don’t know what he did absent toilet paper.
- Isolation, except for brief (15 minutes per day) outside his cell.
- Restrictions on paper and writing tools for his legal notes and defense.
I did not want to focus on this with Ryan but rather talk about other subjects that would distract his mind from these horrors.
Like the sexual abuse of strip searches, solitary is a prison tool designed to humiliate and control prisoners. Its life long destructiveness to a person, is well documented and much can be found by googling it:
Bangor Daily News: 10 destructive myths about solitary confinement
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy: Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement
Ryan educated me on the Bill of Rights by pointing out that they are one sided, a one way street, exclusively designed to protect the accused and say nothing about protecting the accuser. There is nothing about “complex cases” or convenience for the prosecution in delaying a trial. It is wholly and exclusively for the benefit and enjoyment of the accused. Nevertheless, the federal team (the judge, prosecutors, marshals) have usurped the constitution and the Bill of Rights for their benefit and convenience.
PRE-TRIAL DETENTION
The horrors and injustices are made possible by the grossest injustice of all, pre trial detention through denial of bail or release on recognizance. Like sinking the Titanic in a sea of icebergs, the discussion about solitary confinement, strip searches and other mistreatment of prisoners, is like straightening the deck chairs and arguing about the orchestra music during the sinking when the real issue is the iceberg that caused the disaster in the first place. In this case, the iceberg is the pre trial detention and the denial of bail. Sadly, most Americans have no idea how bad their rights have been sunk by the iceberg of bail denial and the denial of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty making the strip searches and abuse possible.
For an excellent review of the the process that led to this fundamental loss of a presumption of innocence and to pre trial detention, please see:
OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL: Restoring the Presumption of Innocence
WHAT CAN BE DONE
While I was in the prison waiting area, the prison receptionist received a call from a political prisoner supporter. He began to lecture her on what they were doing wrong and she simply replied, “You call me every week, and I give you the same answer, do you want me to transfer you to public relations?” I thought to myself, any calls to the prison is a waste of time. Nothing will change, no matter how many calls are made. Prison staff are not the decision makers nor do they care about lectures on their duty to uphold the constitution. They only care about getting paid and making their mortgage payment.
Please contact the decision makers. The U.S. Marshals division of prison operations, the Inspector General who oversees the Dept of Justice and the Marshals service. Make an appointment with your congress person. Talk to a senior staff member about the horrors being experienced right now, in U.S. prisons. Because, the same thing may happen to you or someone you care about.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...enied-bail.jpg
Share this:
John Lamb, no verdict yet ~ J Grady
http://youtu.be/xCbyx-8hwws
https://youtu.be/xCbyx-8hwws
John Lamb reported jurors went home, back tomorrow at 8:00 am
Lorri Anderson with a report on the Bundy Trial
http://youtu.be/mz1PvsEIx-I
https://youtu.be/mz1PvsEIx-I
Federal Criminal Jurisdiction Lawrence Becraft Jr.
FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION by Larry Becraft Jr. Constitutional Attorney
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html
It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears;" see Caha v. United States, 152
U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S.
347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922);
Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S.
281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and
United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963).
This particular principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
as territorial);
Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts
Claims Act as territorial);
United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding
federal wiretap laws as territorial);
Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cleary v.
United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (holding federal age discrimination
laws as territorial);
Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding same
as Cleary, supra);
United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding marine
mammals protection act as territorial);
Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th
Cir. 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial);
Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v.
Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial);
Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding age discrimination
laws as territorial);
Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir.
1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial);
Reyes v. Secretary
of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as
territorial);
and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding
securities act as territorial).
This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha v. United States,
152 U.S., at 215, where the Court declared:
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the
states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."
But, because of treaties as well as express statutory language, the federal drug laws operate extra-
territorially; see United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833, 851 (9th Cir. 1976). The United States has
territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the
territories and insular possessions of the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction
over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American
Union, and this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases.
As a general rule, the power of the United States to criminally prosecute is, for the most part,
confined to offenses committed within "its jurisdiction" in the absence of treaties. This is born out
simply by examination of 18 U.S.C. §5 which defines the term "United States" in clear jurisdictional
terms. [2] Further, §7 of that federal criminal code contains the fullest statutory definition of the
"jurisdiction of the United States." The U.S. district courts have jurisdiction of offenses occurring
within the "United States" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3231.
Examples of this proposition are numerous. In Pothier v. Rodman, 291 F. 311 (1st Cir. 1923), the
question involved whether a murder committed at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the State of
Washington was a federal crime. Here, the murder was committed more than a year before the
U.S. acquired a deed for the property which was the scene of the crime. Pothier was arrested and
incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his release on the grounds
that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over this offense not committed in U.S. jurisdiction. The
First Circuit agreed that there was no federal jurisdiction and ordered his release. But, on appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct. 360 (1924), that Court
reversed; although agreeing with the jurisdictional principles enunciated by the First Circuit, it held
that only the federal court in Washington State could decide that issue. In United States v.
We the People Against Tyrrany: Seven Principles for Free Government ~ John W. Whitehead -Newsbud.com
This video explains what Bundys are standing for
http://youtu.be/VEwbMPM07ro
https://youtu.be/VEwbMPM07ro
"When you stand with truth and righteousness, you stand with God" - Carol Bundy
As jury weighs Bundy Ranch standoff, Carol Bundy awaits her husband’s fate
Posted on April 18, 2017 by Doug Knowles
Video Player
Error loading this resource
Robert Anglen , The Republic | azcentral.com Published 12:08 p.m. MT April 18, 2017
Verdict expected on first six defendants; Cliven Bundy and sons will be tried next.
BUNKERVILLE, Nev. — Carol Bundy sits alone in the living room of her family’s home, restlessly awaiting word that a federal jury is ready to render its verdict on the fate of “the custom and culture of the West; the cowboy way of life.”
Outside the front window, a sprinkler splashes water onto a small square of grass. Inside, a washing machine with worn bearings grinds through another load.
It’s hard to imagine this pastoral setting, past the concrete walkway and on the other side of a wagon-wheel entry gate, as the staging ground of what nearly became the 21st century’s first range war.
Three years ago this month, more than 400 ranchers, militia members and protesters from every state in the union congregated in front of this modest house off a dirt road in one of Nevada’s remote desert corners.
Hundreds brought guns, others brought signs. They came in answer to a social-media call to arms, to mount a show of force against federal agents who had court orders to seize Cliven Bundy’s cattle from federal lands, where the family has grazed them for more than a hundred years.
The standoff lasted six days before the agents, outnumbered and flanked by gunmen in a dusty wash about seven miles from the ranch house, abandoned their mission and released 300 head of cattle from a makeshift pen beneath Interstate 15.
This was where the West was won again, protesters proclaimed. No shots were fired and no arrests were made. Then.
But the government came back last year. Seventeen protesters, including Cliven Bundy and four of his sons, were arrested on conspiracy and weapons charges. They have been held in a Nevada correctional facility without bail for more than a year.
“We weren’t there to break the law. We weren’t there to have anybody get hurt. The price of freedom isn’t free. We felt what we did was right. We still feel that way.”
Carol Bundy, on the standoff with federal agents at the Bundys’ Nevada ranch in 2014
Carol Bundy, in an interview with The Republic, said her husband, sons and others are really being tried for making federal authorities look bad and forcing them to back down in the face of a citizen uprising.
“When we made our stand in 2014, we embarrassed the federal government,” the 63-year-old mother of 14 told The Arizona Republic. “I say we embarrassed the federal government because they came with force and we said, ‘No. Because we have a Constitutional right to stand and we are going to stand.’ ”
She said federal prosecutors are using the court to mount their own show of force and make an example of those who exercised their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms.
“This isn’t about the truth,” Carol Bundy said. “I don’t think the truth has been told.”
As prosecutors in federal court last week delivered closing arguments against the first six defendants in the Bundy Ranch standoff, Carol Bundy and several others stood up and walked out of the courtroom.
“We walked out during (the lead prosecutor’s) speech because he was telling the jury we have no Constitutional rights,” she said. “We the people have rights.”
Prosecutors described the defendants as thugs who took the law into their own hands in an armed assault on agents from the Bureau of Land Management.
None of the Bundys are on trial yet. The six defendants, from Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma, are the first of 17 to be tried in three separate trials based on levels of culpability.
Although the six men are considered the least culpable, militia members and government protesters who answered Bundy’s call, all 17 face identical charges. All could spend the rest of their lives in prison if convicted.
Defendants in the second trial, including Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, are considered leaders of the standoff.
Carol Bundy said she doesn’t know the six men on trial. But she said every day since their trial began on Feb. 6, she and others have held a prayer vigil for them on the street outside the courthouse.
She said the outcome of this first trial will likely signal how it will end for her husband and sons.
“My husband will be 71 in a couple of weeks. I might never get to see him again,” she said.
https://i2.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.co...12%2C384&ssl=1History of a fight
A protester, who declined to give his name, holds up a flag outside of a federal courthouse, on April 10, 2017, in Las Vegas. The protester and others stood outside the courthouse in support of six defendants accused of wielding weapons against federal agents during a 2014 standoff involving cattleman and states’ rights advocate Cliven Bundy. John Locher/Associated Press
Carol Bundy said she believes in the jury system, but the jury in this case has been prevented from learning the truth. She said U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro made sure the jury didn’t learn the history of Bundy’s dispute with the federal government.
Navarro also did not allow defendants to use the First and Second Amendments as a defense in the case and advised potential witnesses willing to testify in the cases that they could be subject to arrest if they admitted wrongdoing in support of the Bundys. Carol called it a threat.
“We weren’t there to break the law,” she said. “We weren’t there to have anybody get hurt,” she said. “The price of freedom isn’t free. We felt what we did was right. We still feel that way.”
The Bundy family dispute with the federal government is rooted in land, water and grazing rights going back more than 150 years.
Carol Bundy said her family doesn’t recognize the right of the federal government to own or regulate public land where the family has been grazing cattle since the 1800s.
BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF
She said her family has purchased and inherited valuable “livestock water rights” issued and owned by the state of Nevada. These rights allow the Bundys to graze their cattle on public lands.
“We don’t claim to own the land, only to use it to run cattle,” Carol Bundy said, challenging the federal government’s right to claim ownership of public land. “We believe the state of Nevada is a sovereign state.”
She said the family has established water systems and for years has been a good steward of public lands. She said the land where the family’s 500 head of cattle roam has always been considered free range.
About 20 years ago, however, she said, the Bureau of Land Management sought to enforce a new contract and demanded fees for grazing rights that put many ranch families out of business. She said her husband refused to sign the contract.
She said Cliven refused to pay the BLM and years ago sent the grazing fees to Clark County, which they recognize as a valid legal authority. But the checks were returned.
The feds meanwhile continued to rack up interest and fees while Bundy sought redress in court. He lost.
The BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.
Carol Bundy said BLM agents showed up armed and aggressive. She claims they killed cattle, threatened her relatives with arrest. A pregnant woman who protested was thrown to the ground. Her son was shocked with a stun gun three times.
“This wasn’t really happening in our country, in America, this couldn’t really be happening,” she said. “They came in like vigilantes. They came in and tore out water structures that had been there for hundreds of years. They killed my cattle, they terrorized the people of the town. They were just totally out of control.”
Federal prosecutors argued in court the case isn’t about the First or Second Amendments; that the Constitution doesn’t give people the right to threaten federal officers or prevent them from doing their jobs.
They said the Bundy’s dispute with the BLM was adjudicated and the court issued a lawful order to roundup the cattle. When ranchers and the militia made the decision to force the release of the cattle, they broke the law.
Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre, who led the prosecution’s team, said there was nothing noble about the behavior of Bundy and his supporters.
“It makes them vigilantes. It makes them into people who took the law into their own hands.”
Carol Bundy said after her son was arrested, the family turned to right wing and militia websites for help in making a stand.
“Our way of life was being threatened,” she said. “This is the custom and culture of the West.”
https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.co...32%2C399&ssl=1
The entrance to the Bundy family ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada. (Photo: Robert Anglen/The Republic)
The uprising
She said the response from people was overwhelming.
“I was totally surprised,” she said. “I am a little grandma. That lives on a little tiny farm in little tiny Bunkerville, Nevada. We didn’t expect this.”
The standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Ammon and Ryan Bundy cited their success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon, Ryan and five others in October.
https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.co...25%2C300&ssl=1No arrests were made in the Bundy Ranch case until after the Oregon siege ended in February 2016.
An oil painting of Cliven Bundy by artist Jon McNaughton hangs in the living room of the Bundy family ranch. (Photo: Robert Anglen/The Republic)
Carol Bundy said the Nevada standoff was a peaceful protest about government overreach in the West. And she said the protest proved a citizens’ movement could make the government do what years of court cases could not: back down.
“It’s going to end when the American people get fed up and say we own the government,” she said. “This is what America was founded on.”
In court, the government has argued otherwise. BLM agents abandoned the roundup because they were afraid they were going to die, Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Dickinson said. He said Bundy and his militia “used the barrel of a gun to force those officers to leave federal land.”
The jury, which began deliberations Thursday, is working through 37 pages of instructions.
Jurors must decide if the defendants were part of a criminal conspiracy who sought to impede and injure federal officers.
They also must determine if the men are guilty of assault and threatening federal officers, carrying or using a firearm in a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, interference with interstate transportation, extortion and other crimes.
“Up in Oregon, when my sons got not guilty up there, they came back down and said, ‘Oh, they’ve learned a lot.’ I just looked at them and said, ‘So did we… We’ve learned a lot, too.’ ”
That confidence hasn’t helped Carol get a good night’s sleep in the last two months. And with the verdict in the first trial imminent, she is more restless than usual.
“I believe in the jury system. I believe my family will be home soon,” she said. "When you stand with truth and righteousness, you stand with God.”
Share this: