Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
What happens at appeal if the defence didn't rest and the case has gone to the jury?
Defense Does NOT Rest – Jury Deliberates
THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE IS “WE PUSHED THE FEDS BACK ONCE AGAIN!”
August 15, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured 2
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...Banner-JPG.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...om-678x381.jpg
Defense Does NOT Rest – Jury Deliberates
by Shari Dovale
The Bunkerville Retrial has gone to the jury to begin their deliberations.
The defense case has been wrought with drama. Judge Gloria Navarro began by forcing the defense witnesses to proffer, or preview, their testimony out of the jury’s hearing. After 4 witnesses testified via SKYPE last week, including a witness that previously was called by the prosecution, Navarro ruled that none of them could testify.
Navarro made the ruling based on her belief that the witnesses were only there to bolster a self-defense claim. She ruled previously that this was not a valid defense in this case.
The following day, Eric Parker attempted to testify in his own defense, as is his right to do. After a few questions, Navarro stopped him from testifying, had him removed from the witness stand, and had his testimony completely stricken from the official court record. She instructed the jury to disregard his testimony, as if he had never been on the witness stand.
Monday brought Scott Drexler to the stand, however, she severely limited him in what he was allowed to say while testifying. He was not allowed to tell the jury why he went to Nevada, nor testify to any of the Constitutional violations that he witnessed.
The jury attempted to question Drexler after his testimony, yet Judge Navarro shut them down as well when she only allowed 4 of 12 questions to be asked. She told the jury that their remaining questions were not relevant and they did not need those answers.
Tuesday began the closing arguments. Nadia Ahmed gave the closing arguments for the prosecution. Some of the highlights from her closing included calling the Bundy cattle “property of the BLM” yet later stating the defendants went to Bunkerville to aid Cliven Bundy in “getting hiscattle back”.
Ahmed also accused the defendants of using “travelers to impede officers from eliminating themas a threat.” Well, okay, the defendants did not want to be eliminated, or killed, by the BLM snipers. But the prosecution would have you believe that is the crime.
You are not allowed to defend yourself against BLM snipers?
Several times the defense objected to statements that Ahmed made, and each time Judge Navarro would rule in the favor of the prosecution.
When it came time for the defense to begin their closing arguments, each of the four defense attorneys stood and made the statement, “On behalf of Mr. [Client], we have no closing argument.”
Judge Gloria Navarro never asked the defense to rest their case, and seems to have forgotten the necessity for them to do so. They each sat down and Navarro immediately gave the case to the jury and excused them to begin their deliberations. Now, we have speculation as to the legal issues this brings.
Rich Tanasi, attorney for Steven Stewart, stood after the jury left and requested to make a motion before the official recess, yet Navarro would not allow it. She told him that he needed to file it in writing.
The drama did not end there. It seems that one of the jurors caught the eye of several people, including AUSA Myhre. She was seen ‘blowing a kiss’. She was later brought in front of Judge Navarro, as well as the prosecution and defense attorneys, for questioning.
She claimed that she was blowing a kiss to the alternate jurors, and not any of the participants in the trial. Navarro has allowed her to remain on the jury for the time being.
Speculation is running rampant about the strategy the defense is using by not giving closing arguments. Most believe it was a form of mass protest against Judge Navarro, knowing they would never have gotten through the closings without multiple objections.
Whether or not the jury will understand the protest is yet to be seen. It does seem to resonate throughout the spectators that it was a powerful statement.
The general consensus outside the courthouse is “We pushed the Feds back once again!”
Ahmed included the first half of this video in her closing arguments as evidence against the defendants:
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Share this:
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dachsie
Hardly qualified communistic and made Chief Judge
https://ballotpedia.org/Gloria_M._Navarro
Quote:
district of nevada
navarro was nominated by president obama for a seat on the united states district court for the district of nevada vacated by brian sandoval.[6][7][8]
the american bar association gave her the ratings "substantial majority qualified" and "minority not qualified". Senator harry reid, who recommended her to obama for nomination, said the aba should "get a new life" in it's ratings. He claimed that the association's system places too much emphasis on judicial experience and not enough on "real world" experience.[9]
senate judiciary committee hearing
navarro's public questionnaire available herequestions for the record available herenavarro was scheduled to a hearing before the senate judiciary committee on february 11, 2010. When questioned about her lack of prior judicial experience, navarro replied that her practice as a litigator in state and federal courts has prepared her: {{quote|the experiences have given me the opportunity to appear before many different judges with many different styles. I have also had the opportunity to become familiar with many different rules and procedures in different courts. Having that broad range of experience definitely will build a solid foundation for a successful judicial career.[9] the committee voted to forward her nomination to the full senate on march 4, 2010[10] ]] the senate confirmed her 98 - 0 to the court on may 5, 2010.[11][12]
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Nevada is controlled by Harry Reid and his bevy of latino/a politicians, US Senator Cathrine Cortez-Masto, Mexican born Congressman Ruben Kihuen, Governor Bryan Sandoval and the incompetent corrupt Chief Judge Gloria Navarro
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Brand Thornton, "Did anyone get the license number of that truck?" Brand says the judge and prosecution got to cocky and overplayed their hand. ~ Lo Khttp://youtu.be/E0NMMeT6uR4
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Andrea Olson-Parker is doing her own personal protest waiting for the jury verdict ~J Grady
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d89MLM3VVbM
REALIST NEWS - WTF! Bundy Ranch Case: Judge issues list of things defendants can’t say
jsnip4
jsnip4
48K
3,020 views
Published on Aug 17, 2017
Articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_...
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/14...
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/1...ase-in-nevada/
Bundy ranch case: Judge issues list of things defendants can’t say
http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-conten...-nev.jpg?w=882
By The Associated Press |
PUBLISHED: August 14, 2017 at 3:30 pm | UPDATED: August 15, 2017 at 7:00 am
http://content.newsinc.com/jpg/1391/...g?t=1501102140
LAS VEGAS — Restrictions placed by a federal judge on what defendants can say about being at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in April 2014 are leading to tense moments in the Las Vegas retrial of four men accused of wielding assault-style weapons to stop federal agents from rounding up cattle belonging to the anti-government figure.
Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro refused Monday to order a mistrial sought by the defense attorney for Eric Parker. Navarro had ordered Parker off the witness stand last week and told the jury to disregard his testimony.
Such a dramatic step involving a defendant in the presence of a jury is unusual and might draw scrutiny from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said Robert Draskovich, a Las Vegas lawyer who said he had never heard of such a move in more than two decades practicing in federal courts. Draskovich is not involved in the Bundy case.
Outside the presence of the jury on Monday, Navarro said she hadn’t wanted to order Parker to step down.
She told prosecutors, defense attorneys and a crowded court gallery that she thought Parker was trying to invite jury nullification of charges and deliberately “continuing to make a mockery” of court rulings she handed down before the retrial. Those rulings limited the scope of defense presentations to what the men saw and did, not what they felt or why they acted.
A jury in April found two co-defendants guilty of some charges, but it failed to reach verdicts for Parker, Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart and Richard Lovelien.
Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and two other defendants are due for trial later this year. Six others, including two other Bundy sons, are slated for trial next year.
Navarro ruled that defendants can’t argue this time that they were acting in self-defense or in the defense of other protesters.
They can’t say they were motivated to drive to southern Nevada from Idaho and Montana after hearing about scuffles involving unarmed Bundy family members and Bureau of Land Management agents using dogs and stun guns.
They can’t refer to criticism by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval of federal agents for creating what the Republican governor called an “atmosphere of intimidation” in the days before the standoff.
They can’t point to so-called “First Amendment zone” corrals set up for protesters well away from the Bundy ranch; they can’t cite claims of infringement on free-speech and Second Amendment rights; and they can’t refer to the decades in prison they might face if they’re convicted.
“Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back,” Navarro said Monday.
Parker was famously photographed during the April 2014 standoff flat on his stomach on the pavement of an Interstate 15 overpass, looking down an AK-47-style rifle toward heavily armed federal agents in a dry river bed below.
Drexler is seen in a similar photo, and images show Steven Stewart carrying an assault-style rifle, but not aiming it. Richard Lovelien also had a rifle, but his lawyer, Shawn Perez, said there is no photograph in evidence showing him pointing it at anyone.
Defense attorneys say their clients are being unfairly and unconstitutionally denied a chance to explain for jurors what they saw and heard and why they went to the Bundy ranch.
“We need to be able to defend ourselves, to rebut, to impeach against accusations,” Parker’s attorney, Jess Marchese, protested during morning-long arguments held outside the presence of the jury now in a fourth week of testimony. “That’s why we’re here.”
Drexler was expected to take the stand in his defense, but Stewart and Lovelien said they won’t do so.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The Elephant in the Room - Pretrial Detention
This Is Mr. Pretrial Detention
ONCE IN PRISON, A DEFENDANT CANNOT GET A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THEY ARE SEVERELY HAMPERED IN THEIR ABILITY TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENSE.
August 16, 2017 Constitution
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...Banner-JPG.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...on-678x381.jpg
“THIS IS MR. PRETRIAL DETENTION”
by Loren Edward Pearce
As I entered the Bundy ranch house, Angie Bundy, wife of Ryan Bundy greeted me and introduced me to the rest of the family as “Mr. Pretrial Detention”. “Yes”, I said, “I have a one track mind and constantly beat the drum that pretrial detention is not getting the attention it deserves.”
I have long held that the pretrial imprisonment of the political prisoners is the elephant in the room. It seems to me that defense attorneys and prisoner supporters are ignoring the elephant in the room which is that we cannot proceed to trial until the issue of pretrial imprisonment is dealt with.
You see, the very act of throwing an innocent person into prison, prior to their chance to a trial before a jury of peers, is so egregiously unjust, so opposite of everything that the American justice system is supposed to safeguard, that the unfair trial began over 18 months ago, and that the root cause of the injustices in Navarro’s court today are made possible by the pretrial imprisonment.
Once in prison, a defendant cannot get a fair trial because they are severely hampered in their ability to prepare their defense. Prisons are, by design, places that restrict freedom, places that make life difficult for you, places of punishment, places that marginalize and demean you. In such an environment, a defendant is at a huge disadvantage trying to prepare a defense against an all powerful government with unlimited budget and resources at their disposal, and unhampered and unrestricted by prison life.
In a recent interview, at the 30:00 minute mark, Ammon Bundy claims that he has not seen his attorney for almost a year. Because of the strip searches and other inconveniences, the ease of meeting with your attorney is totally different than what it is on the outside. Visiting a client in prison is difficult and serves as a inhibitor for frequent visits from the attorney.
Ammon Bundy, August 5, 2017 Interviewed by Jared Green
It has also been reported by Ryan Bundy and other prisoners that digital thumb drives, hard copy documents, and the opportunity to go to the Clerk of the Court for filings, are hampered and restricted by prison rules and prison procedures.
Prisoners have reported that their legal notes and materials are tampered with by prison staff and that as they are moved around from different cells or different prisons, legal material is often lost.
Furthermore, a basic right is for defendants to meet with witnesses and to discuss testimony and evidence prior to trial. Something out of their reach while in prison.
Of the many fundamental, God given, inalienable and unalienable, natural rights is the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty before a jury of peers. This right is so primordial (intuitive, inherent) that it prompted William Blackstone to say, “Better that 10 guilty men go free, than that one innocent man suffer.” Franklin took it further and said that, “Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.”
Today, we are witnessing the stunning behavior of the prosecution in alliance with Navarro wherein they deny Eric Parker to testify in his own defense and strike his testimony from the record. As they push the defendants into a corner with Bill of Rights destroying orders prohibiting their right to rebut and counter the claims made by the prosecution, we tend to think that the denial of a fair trial started when the new round of trials began following the mistrial.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...8/innocent.jpg
In reality, the denial of a fair trial began the second that Navarro ruled that the prisoners were denied a right to pretrial freedom, to prepare their defense in an environment free from the harsh restrictions and atrocities of prison walls and razor wire.
But what can be done about it? Navarro has all the power to do what she wants, backed by Marshals and by Attorney General Sessions. The pretrial detention is a done deal, nothing can be done about it, so let’s move on, it is water under the bridge, better to focus on the federal team’s actions now.
But the elephant begs to differ, There are many things that can be done about the unfairness and injustice of the pretrial, pre-conviction imprisonment:
- Challenge the constitutionality of the Bail Reform Act. There is evidence that it was never properly enacted as law. Rather, it was enacted as a resolution and therefore, does not have the force of law.
- Even if properly enacted as law, it is still unconstitutional. The power of the judge to deny bail is a new power that was never granted by the Magna Carta nor the original Judicial Act of 1789 and as enacted in many state constitutions. Judges never had the discretion to deny bail. The only discretion judges had, prior to the Bail Reform Act, was to set the amount of bail and that was restricted by the 8th amendment dealing with excessive bail.
- Defense attorneys should open every session of trial going on record that their clients are prejudiced by being imprisoned prior to a finding of guilt.
- Defense attorneys can file interlocutory appeals, appeals during the course of a trial, asking the higher court to review the constitutionality of the pretrial detention of the prisoners.
- Habeas corpus pleadings have not been fully exhausted.
- Constant submittal of press releases to mainstream media addressing how fundamentally wrong pretrial detention is.
- Constant reminders to elected officials of how unjust and how deviant pretrial imprisonment is.
There is probably more that could be legally done by defense attorneys in opposition to pre-conviction imprisonment. Suffice it to say, the elephant in the room will not go away and as long as the elephant is there, the prisoners will not have a fair trial, regardless of anything else the federal team (prosecution, judge and marshals) do in relation to heaping injustice on top of injustice.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Share this:
