Gavin Seim ~ Ammon Called Me From The Hole Of The Prison
http://youtu.be/v1NI-2eKhEY
https://youtu.be/v1NI-2eKhEY
Printable View
Gavin Seim ~ Ammon Called Me From The Hole Of The Prison
http://youtu.be/v1NI-2eKhEY
https://youtu.be/v1NI-2eKhEY
https://redoubtnews.com/2017/04/ever...re-case-bundy/
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...y1-610x381.jpg
redoubtnews.com
Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy - Redoubt News
Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy
By Paula Hart
Here is why every American citizen should care about the Federal case against Cliven Bundy, et al. Whether you believe it or not, this case DOES affect you.
The government wants you to believe that this whole case is about Cliven refusing to pay his grazing fees. It wants you to believe that the Bundy’s are anti-government . It wants you to believe that they are a bunch of crazies that keep picking fights with the Government for no reason. It now wants you to believe that they are domestic terrorists simply because they had the courage to stand up to the Government.
What the Government does NOT want you to know is that EVERYTHING the Bundy’s have done is protected by the Constitution. They broke NO Constitutional Laws.
The Bundy’s believe that the Constitution always has been the Supreme Law of the Land, which it is, no matter what the Government tries to tell us now. The Bundy’s do believe in the need of a Federal Government, but the kind that our Founding Father’s established; a LIMITED government of the People, by the People, and for the People. Not the government we have today, where the People have no rights and no say.
The government does NOT want you to know that Cliven paid his grazing fees for years, until one day the government changed the contracts, effectively putting his livelihood in grave danger. Cliven tried to negotiate the terms but the government refused.
It doesn’t want you to know that Cliven was not allowed to pay his fees until AFTER he agreed to the new contract, which he didn’t agree with. Still, they refused to negotiate the terms in order to come to some type of compromise so that he could pay them.
THAT is when Cliven refused to sign the papers and made his payments to his County instead. Cliven tried, after being screwed over by the government, to still do the right thing.
This is what led to the incident in 2014 in Nevada.
When they saw the very same tactics being used against another family in Oregon, they stood up for that family and came to their aid. That is what the incident in 2015 in Oregon was about.
The government does NOT want you to know that, for years, it has been doing the same thing to landowners all across the west. The Bundy’s tried to open the Nation’s eyes as to what was going on behind the scenes. The Bundy’s tried for decades to go through the proper channels, to work things out with our elected officials, but got no response at all.
So, this case is not so much about land and grazing rights and unpaid grazing fees as it is about a government that has gone completely rogue.
What it means for YOU
If these men are found guilty, here is what it means for YOU, personally. Here is what’s REALLY on trial…..
The US Constitution- the very one the judges take an oath to uphold and defend, the one that protects We the People- will no longer be allowed in a court of law. Not even mentioned in a court of law. Let that sink in. We will have NOTHING to protect us from our corrupt government!! Nothing.
No more First Amendment rights. No more protesting or disagreeing with the Government or any of its agencies or employees. . If you and one other person says something the government doesn’t like or agree with, you can be charged with conspiracy and sent to prison.
Any comment or “like” on Facebook or other social media platforms can and will be used against you. Media (network or independent) who covers a story that the government does not want covered, will be arrested and sent to prison. If the government wants something you have, you no longer have any right to tell it no or you will be sent to prison.
Your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is all but gone. If you are legally and lawfully carrying a weapon and a member of law enforcement is nearby, you will be charged with threatening an officer. Let’s face it, since we now live in a police state, there is law enforcement everywhere.
You will no longer be allowed to defend yourself in court. You will no longer have the right to face your accuser(s).You will no longer be able to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT the truth. If others show up to testify on your behalf, they will be threatened with arrest for speaking up for you.
A government witness who wasn’t even a witness to the crime’s testimony is more valid than that of a “lay” witness that was there to witness it first hand. Basically, if the government decides you’re guilty, you are guilty.
No more right to bail or a speedy trial.
No more being presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
There will be no way to hold our government or any of its agencies accountable for anything.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. The bottom line is, if these men are found guilty, we will no longer have the safety and security that the Constitution gives us. We will no longer be in charge of the government but it will, once and for all, be in charge of us and there will be no turning back.
The Bundy’s, and all who stood with them, have told the truth. They have done everything out in the open. They have been begging for public attention to this case and their grievances. They are doing all they can to uphold our Constitution.
On the other hand, the federal government has lied, repeatedly. They don’t want media coverage and won’t allow cameras in the courtrooms. They won’t respond to any grievances. They are blatantly disregarding the Constitution and want you to believe that if you support it then you are committing a crime!!. And, yet, who’s on trial? Who, really, is fighting FOR us all ,here? Who has YOUR best interests at heart?
Someone said it best (I believe Sandy Anderson III) …
”If not now-when?
If not us-who?
If not this-what?”
Out of millions of American citizens, a handful of people had the courage and integrity to stand up. It’s truly heartbreaking to see the majority leaving them to stand alone. To fight for people who can’t be bothered to fight for themselves.
What is it going to take for American’s to wake up and see that we are about to lose everything that matters?!!! When will *YOU* finally stand up and get involved ??? What is it going to take to get you to start caring about what’s happening?!!!
Your time is seriously running out to decide which side you’re with: Those fighting FOR your rights or those doing all they can to take them away.
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...b1&oe=598D057C
Anthony Thomas Dephue
3 hrs ·
Imagine being the object of a 16-count indictment alleging crimes that prescribe a lifetime of incarceration, all because you lawfully exercised 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, delivered by a Grand Jury based on the testimony of a morally bankrupt sociopath who has a string of questionable ethics violations that accompany criminal acts of witness tampering, coercion, and obstruction of justice.
Then imagine, to your horror, that you are not allowed to call the individual to the stand in order to impeach his credibility and defend yourself against your accuser.
This shit is real. Google "Dan Love".
https://external.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...DDKI_e4gJDYP_m
dan love not killing cattle - Bundy Ranch
#googleDanLove
YOUTUBE.COM
The Prosecution is supposed to have an uphill battle, by bearing the burdon of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Dan Love Testimony Blocked By Judge Navarro
THE PROSECUTION IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN UPHILL BATTLE, BY BEARING THE BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
April 23, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada, US 1
https://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/...9211/image.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ny-678x381.jpg
DAN LOVE AND OTHER DEFENSE WITNESS TESTIMONY BLOCKED BY JUDGE NAVARRO
by Loren Edward Pearce
As follow-up to Shari Dovale’s article, “BLM Agent Daniel P. Love Named In Investigation”, it was noted that Agent Love is being investigated for ethics violations and illegal activity.
It was also noted that Love will be the prosecution’s star witness in upcoming Bunkerville, Nevada trials. However, during the trial of the six first tier defendants in Las Vegas who are awaiting a jury verdict, the defense tried to call Love as a “hostile witness” for the defense and was denied upon a prosecutorial objection sustained by the court. It is not clear to this writer the reasons why the court would not allow Love’s testimony and cross-examination by the defense. It appeared to be based on grounds of relevancy and that his testimony would not be “helpful for the jury”. Certainly, if Dan Love’s testimony is relevant to the prosecution in upcoming trials, it is also relevant to the six first tier defendant trials and defense.
WHY DAN P. LOVE’S TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT AND CRITICAL TO
ALL THE BUNDY, ET. AL. NEVADA DEFENDANTS
1.He was the main actor for the BLM at Bunkerville. He orchestrated and supervised the BLM’s activities that impinged on the protesters.
2.He had numerous conversations with Bunkerville protesters and with local law enforcement, conversations that are highly relevant to the case.
3.He made claims in a recorded conversation that none of the cattle were being mistreated when the exact opposite is true. The mistreatment of the cattle is clearly relevant to the case and the actions taken by the defendants. The defense had a constitutional right to impeach his testimony if used by the prosecution and if not used by the prosecution, then the defense had a right to show how Dan P. Love was using overreach and abuse of authority in performance of his federal duties and why the defendants had a right to protest him the performance of those duties.
4.He supervised other wrongful actions of the BLM such as the destruction of water installations and works for animals that had been in use for generations.
5.The defense had a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction and authority as it relates to his role as a federal law enforcement officer.
6.His actions in other matters that are being investigated, may not be admissible evidence since the investigation is ongoing and not concluded. Nevertheless, his overall reputation in the community is admissible evidence as it may relate to his credibility.
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CALL AND CONFRONT WITNESSES
“the conviction of our time that the truth is more likely to be arrived at by hearing the testimony of all persons of competent understanding who may seem to have knowledge of the facts involved in a case, leaving the credit and weight of such testimony to be determined by the jury or by the court. . . .”
Rosen v. United States,245 U. S. 467, 245 U. S. 471.
The Supreme Court in In re Oliver,333 U. S. 257 (1948), described what it regarded as the most basic ingredients of due process of law. It observed that:
“A person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense — a right to his day in court — are basic in our system of jurisprudence, and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.”
“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury, so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.”
The prosecution is supposed to have an uphill battle, by bearing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants are supposed to be at the top of the hill with the presumption of innocence until the prosecution can convince beyond a reasonable doubt, their guilt and then the burden shifts at appeal. The defense is supposed to have preferential treatment and only in rare cases should the defense be denied its right to call witnesses regardless of whether they are favorable or hostile witnesses, as they deem appropriate.
During the first tier trial, the defense repeatedly told the court that it was for the jury to sort out the truth as triers of fact. Judge Navarro thought it was her role to prevent the jury from hearing things not helpful to them rather than let them decide for themselves as competent adults, if Dan Love’s testimony was helpful and relevant in determining a verdict.
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
The most important prerequisites to be a witness are memory and perception. To be a witness, a person must have perceived the matter in question, and they must remember it. If they do not remember, or did not perceive, the matter, then their testimony is speculation and it is inadmissible.
This is why the court’s ruling that Love, as well as Margaret Houston, could not testify for the defense, was so outrageous. They had personal knowledge, as much, if not more, than anybody else present at the events for which the defendants are being charged.
Under rules of evidence, if the testimony of Love or Houston stray into forbidden territory, not relevant or not truthful, then the other side can object. But, it is for the jury to hear the knowledge they do have and then make a determination.
A search of Federal Rules of Evidence says nothing about relevancy of a witness’ testimony as being grounds for preclusion from testifying. The only requirement is that they have memory and perception. While the perception may not agree with the federal team (judge, prosecutors and marshals), the constitution gives the defense the right to present knowledgeable testimony and the defense, being in the enviable position of being on the top of the hill, should be given broad leeway in presenting witness testimony.
THE EVOLUTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES AND LAWS
This writer read in another scholarly article by a law professor, that the reason so many changes are being made to the Bill of Rights and to the constitution is because judges and legislators no longer consider the constitution relevant and applicable.
The reasoning goes something like this: “The British monarchy was bad, British law based on the divine right of kings, was very bad, very bad” (copying language style of Trump). However, today, in our modern world, we no longer have a monarchy and divine right of royalty nor do we follow British law. The colonists had a right to rebel against the monarchy and those “bad, bad people” (Trump again).
Today, we have replaced the bad monarchists with good people, who are democratic, balanced, trustworthy and honorable. So, the paranoia of the colonists in making a one-sided document such as the Bill of Rights which is wholly in favor of the accused, is no longer applicable. The fears of an abusive, centralized government are unfounded. Now, we must balance it with the State or Government’s interests.
In other words, the old fears about government overreach, abuse by royalty and tyranny, is no longer applicable as we now have checks and balances in place with competent and honest judges who do not have a monarchist background. The judges and prosecutors today, are “good, good people “(Trump again).
CONCLUSION
Therefore, any resistance to present day government is automatically wrong and automatically punishable. The federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals) approaches the Bunkerville defendants with the above irrelevancy of the constitution in mind and justifies defendant pretrial detention because, unlike the colonists, there is no excuse for rebellion or resistance. The purpose of the federal team is to protect government interests and to minimize the defense to one of plea deals and levels of sentencing, because, it is fair to say that the behavior of the federal team leads us to this conclusion:
The defendants are guilty and cannot be proven innocent. They can only be adjudged less guilty and their sentencing reduced. Jury nullification must be prohibited at all costs. The jury, who is a rag-tag group of local citizens, really is not competent enough to make an informed decision based on thousands of pages of laws, precedence and court rules Therefore, we, the federal team, will reduce the jury’s role and substitute our own judgement, whenever we can get away with it.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...e3-638x381.jpg
Share this:
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
Brand Thornton "There is no federal jurisdiction" ~ J Grady
http://youtu.be/Kq_XLFGmCf0
https://youtu.be/Kq_XLFGmCf0
Partial Verdict, Gregg Burleson guilty on 8 counts, Todd Engel guilty of obstruction of justice and interstate travel charge
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...76&oe=598DE946
http://youtu.be/-MreGRELoRA
https://youtu.be/-MreGRELoRA
Andrea Olson-Parker video https://www.facebook.com/andrea.olsonparker/videos/vb.100000137187963/1703969769617579/?type=<a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.olsonparker/videos/vb.100000137187963/1703969769617579/?type=3&theater" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/fvNgirTd9WE
https://youtu.be/fvNgirTd9WE
Stacy Benner with the Review-Journal story on the partial verdict
http://youtu.be/TFM_NxgQvbY
https://youtu.be/TFM_NxgQvbY
http://youtu.be/tQHvIp0ZDlk
https://youtu.be/tQHvIp0ZDlk
Bundy Ranch mistrial
http://youtu.be/ochnGb3zh3c
https://youtu.be/ochnGb3zh3c
Kelli Stewart with comments on the hung jury trial
http://youtu.be/MmI0HsXfxsw
https://youtu.be/MmI0HsXfxsw