Rick Koerber, paralegal for Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, “Ammon and Ryan abused again, brought to court in shackles . .” ~ J Grady
Printable View
Rick Koerber, paralegal for Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, “Ammon and Ryan abused again, brought to court in shackles . .” ~ J Grady
October 24, Andrea Olson-Parker reporting on the continuation of the evidentiary hearing. She comments on how different tne U.S. Marshal’s attitude is and their daily changing of the rules. ~ J Grady
October 25, evidentiary hearing. Andrea Parker returned to Idaho, these ladies made an attempt to report, but don’t convey the information as well as Andrea did. ~ J Grady
Lisa Bundy Oct. 24, on the abuse of the Bundy men by the U.S. Marshals
Lunchtime Update on the evidentiary hearing on shredding evidence, Oct. 25 ~ Mrs.B Stacy
Have not followed this topic lately very much.
I just want to comment on a couple of characteristics of the geographical U. S. states involved - Nevada, Idaho, Washington. These states are very connected to United Nations Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 programs. These programs have been taking over land mass and transportation roadways and access of the public to these lands and access of ranchers to grazing rights on these lands, which have gradually become "public lands." It is really about opening up Mexico, Central America countries, and South America countries on the south to Canada on the north, thereby erasing United States national boundaries. When you erase geographical boundaries, you erase the Constitution, the rule of law - U.S. law in these states, and U. S. national sovereignty.
Las Vegas is considered an "inland port" or a "hub" by the United Nations Agenda 21 gang and this gang is really the moneyed globalist elites who own and run United States business and all of U.S. government from behind the scenes. The ownership of the major LV casinos is very globalist or international in makeup.
I think the dog and pony show of Gloria Navarro court in Nevada is very much related to dissolution of U.S. national sovereignty and U.S. state independence brought on by globalism that shows itself very strongly in these western and Pacific northwest states.
I also think the Clark county Nevada dog and pony show that is the investigation of the Las Vegas Mandalay Casino and music concert false event is very much demonstrating itself to have absolutely nothing to do with U.S. law and order or the U.S. Consitution. This paticular false event investigation is exactly how an investigation looks when the United States rule of law and legal structures have been almost completely dissolved. This dissolution is more advanced, more complete in the states involved in both the Bundy case as well as the Mandalay Bay / concert false event case.
We the people see that private property rights and enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights are just nowhere in evidence in all of these current court and investigative proceedings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachsie
Vicky Davis of The Voice of Idaho News has researched and written extensivley on what you are describing here. I copy/pasted a substantial amount of what she has written here on GSUS in the “Feeding the Dragon” thread.
Gloria Navarro continues to stack the deck against the Bundys.
Navarro Grants Govt Everything, Defendants Nothing
BRIEFS AND PLEADINGS BY THE DEFENSE TEAMS MAY HAVE CAUSED NAVARRO TO ADJUST HER RULINGS SLIGHTLY.
October 26, 2017 BLM, Constitution, DOJ 2
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ro-678x381.jpg
Navarro Grants Govt Everything, Defendants Nothing
by Staff
On Tuesday, October 24, Judge Gloria Navarro issued a number of rulings in the Bundy case, granting the government almost everything they asked for while denying the defense almost any means to defend themselves in the upcoming trial.
With a sweep of her pen, Navarro has wiped multiple motions off the docket with arbitrary rulings that only benefit the government.
Shockingly, Navarro even ruled that the prosecution can introduce Cliven Bundy’s 2014 speech in which he reportedly said “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. . . .” Cliven’s remarks were taken out of context from a wide-ranging discussion of over-regulation, the negative impacts of welfare policy, and benefits of hard work. Many economic studies of welfare policy are in agreement with Cliven’s (poorly worded) remarks. But the publication of Cliven’s speech in the aftermath of the 2014 Bunkerville standoff caused many supporters to abandon him at that time.
The biased judge also ruled that prosecutors may introduce evidence about Jared and Amanda Miller, a married couple who briefly camped near the Bundy Ranch in 2014 area and later went on to kill two Las Vegas police officers. And, said Navarro, prosecutors may introduce claims that Bundy cattle harmed the environment, wildlife, or even sacred Indian artifacts even though the Bundys themselves are barred from even mentioning that the government killed or harmed their cattle.
Astoundingly, Navarro even ruled that the government may play hearsay statements to the jury by now-deceased journalist Michael Flynn claiming that the protest on April 12, 2014 was “illegal.”
Navarro’s one-sided rulings make clear that in the Lloyd George Federal Courthouse, Courtroom 7C, in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Constitution is not welcome. The defendants in Judge Gloria Navarro’s courtroom do not have constitutional protections.
In the pattern of her previous rulings, Navarro granted almost all of the government requests to prohibit the Bundys from mentioning the following:
1. Self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property;
2. Third-party/lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations, including operations on April 6, 9, and 12, 2014;
3. Opinions/public statements of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM impoundment operations;
4. Allegations of workplace misconduct by the SAC (Special Agent in Charge) of the impoundment (Dan Love), or regarding those who worked for, or with, him.
5. Allegations that officers connected with the impoundment acted unethically or improperly by the way they were dressed or equipped during the impoundment, or that they improperly shredded documents during or after impoundment operations;
6. References to mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operations;
7. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions that the federal government does not own the land or have legal authority or jurisdiction over public lands where impoundment operations were conducted, or that the land was or is otherwise owned by the State of Nevada;
8. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions regarding infringement on First and Second Amendment rights, including any effort to confuse the jury that there is some form of “journalist” or “protest” immunity for the crimes charged;
9. References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses;
10. References to the Oregon trial of United States v. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and Ryan Bundy., or the results in that trial;
11. References to the outcomes in the previous two trials in this case; and
12. Legal arguments, explanations, or opinions advancing defendants’ views of the U.S. Constitution, including claims that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior have no constitutional authority, that “natural law” or other authority permits the use of force against law enforcement officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has no jurisdiction or authority under the [C]onstitution to order the removal of cattle from public lands.
But the precise wording of Judge Navarro’s orders may offer a ray of hope. Some of Navarro’s sentences are worded in such a way as they may allow some defenses. For example Navarro denied a portion of the government’s motion in limine regarding evidence of third-party state of mind. Navarro also ruled that the government’s request to exclude all reference to government misconduct is too broad. Navarro concluded that “a blanket exclusion of these topics is inappropriate at this juncture.”
Thus, although Navarro’s rulings continue her pattern of assisting the prosecution and shutting down the defense, it appears that Navarro’s rulings may be slightly more fair for this upcoming trial than they were in the previous two trials (of Parker, Drexler, Lovelein, Stewart, Burleson and Engel). Briefs and pleadings by the defense teams of Cliven Bundy and Ryan Payne—which argued that the Judge’s previous rulings were unlawful—may have caused Navarro to adjust her rulings slightly.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Note:
The law enforcement of the United States is the Militia of the several States
Art. I §8 Clause 15 Congress has the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
from above:
Note:
The law enforcement of the United States is the Militia of the several States
Art. I §8 Clause 15 Congress has the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
couldn't disagree more. that's not what the language says. and how can gov mercenaries be considered such? total bollshot
You are confused as to who and what are the Militia of the several States. Our founders having just come out of the war for independence with Great Britain were wary of standing armies. Therfore they incorporated the State Militias into the Constitution. The Militias had preceded the United States in the colonies for +150 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheka.
Copied verbatum from the Constitution:
§8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throught the United States:
Cl. 15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, supress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Government Mercenaries are not Militia. The Militia is all able bodied persons of We The People.
The first 13 words of the #2ndAmenndment declares a well regulated Militia as being NECESSARY:
What is “necessary” is “impossible * * * to be dispensed with”. [COLOR=#000000 !important]Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary[/COLOR], (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913), at 967, definition 2.
Militia, What are they? The laws: http://bit.ly/YNWpXp
Militia, Necessary: http://bit.ly/2fMo0qj
If We The People get our belly full and revitalize the Militia of the several States We can once again control our destiny. A big 99% impossible IF . . .
Revitalizing the Militia: http://bit.ly/2f4hUOp
edit: early Militia entrusted with police powers: http://bit.ly/2fMyG8f