Bryan Hyde with a quick update on the happenings in the courtroom this morning,
Bryan Hyde, Ryan Bundy schools federal gov on the Constitution
Printable View
Bryan Hyde with a quick update on the happenings in the courtroom this morning,
Bryan Hyde, Ryan Bundy schools federal gov on the Constitution
Victurus Libertas,
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jXA9mhNziOU/h...DNMzhvlsmLVazQ 45:12
Though Judge Navarro Refused To Allow It, Eric Parker Finally Speaks His TRUTH!
- 3,378 views
- 12 hours ago
Trial of the Century – Opening Statements
CLIVEN'S ATTORNEY BRET WHIPPLE WAS ALSO ABLE TO INFORM THE JURY OF SEVERAL FACTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BEFORE.
November 21, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured 1
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...-1-610x381.jpg
Trial of the Century – Opening Statements
by Terry Noonkester
The Bundy trial in Las Vegas, Nevada is now underway, the list of potential witnesses is well over one thousand. The rules of the court exclude all the Bundy family and supporters that are on that potential witness list from being in the courtroom during any part of the trial, until after their own testimony has been given. Yet the courtroom was packed on November 14th and 15th. The press took up about two rows of the courtroom benches, and had come from across the nation.
Cliven Bundy Trial – Opening Statements
The opening statements are basically supposed to inform the jury about what to expect in evidence from each party and what that party’s interpretation is regarding that evidence. For the most part, that plan was followed. The events of the BLM round-up of Cliven Bundy’s cattle, and the protest that followed, was presented by the prosecutor, and then a legal representative of each defendant, with the exception of Ammon Bundy and his legal team. The opening statement for defendant Ammon Bundy is reserved for after the prosecution rests it’s case, probably a month or two from now. Ammon Bundy’s lawyers chose to waive their openings until prosecutors conclude their presentation of evidence, noting they’re still waiting for requested evidence involving FBI emails.
Prosecutor Steven Myhre’s Opening Statement
The first opening statement for the USA v Bundy Tier 1 trial was given by prosecutor Steven Myhre. He outlined Cliven Bundy’s 25 year history of noncompliance and nonpayment connected with grazing his cattle. Then Myrhre showed a timeline of all the events leading to the Bunkerville Standoff characterizing the Bundy family as the aggressors using militia and long guns to intimidate and impede federal officers. He showed a list of the felony charges made against the defendants.
Attorney Bret Whipple’s Opening Statement for Defendant Cliven Bundy
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...le-300x209.jpg
Attorney Bret Whipple
Bret Whipple started his Opening Statement with the Nevada statehood in 1864, followed shortly by the 1877 founding of the Bundy’s Ranch by Cliven’s maternal grandfather. He went on to mention the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, and then the designation of the endangered desert tortoise in 1989. The Endangered Species Act lead to the governments action of reducing Cliven’s legal grazing from 152 to 89 head of cattle. But In order to continue complying with the requirement of “beneficial use” for his water rights, Cliven had to have all the cattle using the water. Complying to the new rules BLM was imposing would, in effect, cancel out a part of his water rights that he had acquired from the state of Nevada. Whipple told how the other 52 Southern Nevada ranchers that complied with BLM’s new permit rules were all regulated out of business.
Whipple went through the same basic events that prosecutor Steven Myhre had outlined that lead up to the standoff. In Whipple’s statement, the BLM was the inflexible aggressor. He showed video’s that Myhre had already shown, but explained the BLM dump truck Ammon stopped had water pipes and infrastructure from the water system belonging to the Bundy’s. Destroying the water system went way beyond the scope of the governments court order to impound cattle.
Whipple showed the arrest of Dave Bundy, the body slam of Margaret Huston and the Tasering of Ammon. He explained how the cattle roundup had been called off by government officials the evening before the protest. The government is claiming that they were threatened and forced to abandon their duties on April 12th, when in reality, the orders to abandon the roundup were already given the day before. This leaves the criminal charges without foundation.
Whipple was also able to inform the jury of several facts that had not been disclosed before. The government had set up a confidential Forward Operating Base as part of a Joint Terrorism Task Force team of FBI SWAT agents less than two miles from the Bundy home in April 2014.
Ryan Bundy Pro Se Legal Representation – Opening Statement
Ryan Bundy’s opening statement stunned the courtroom. On the large screen monitors scattered through the courtroom, he displayed a picture of himself and his wife Angela with their eight children. He then told his audience about growing up on the ranch and their family values. He explained to the jury about a favorite phrase his father used, “whatever it takes”, and how, to them the phrase meant the determination needed to complete the job. Ryan told the jury that the prosecution was going to tell them that “whatever it takes” was a threat Cliven Bundy had made against the government.
Ryan told the jury that 53 ranchers were in the area when BLM first started managing the land. The ranchers were forced to sign grazing permits that called for cutting their herds. His father wouldn’t sign it because his water rights would also be cut permanently. The other ranchers were gradually regulated out of business.
Ryan explained that Cliven Bundy’s grazing rights are a property right owned by his father. BLM designated grazing as a privilege. Ryan explained that if you own something, your rights to the use of that property are more than if you just have a privilege. A renter that only has a privilege must ask for permission to make changes to the landlords property.
Ryan explained that this court case is no longer about cows and grazing rights. It is about freedom. If we cannot use our land as we want, we are not free. He warned the courtroom; “Our fight for freedom is not overseas; it is in our front yard, in our backyard.”
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ie-300x217.jpg
Ryan Bundy, with his wife, Angie, outside the Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas. (Photo: AP)
Ryan talked of militias and how they protect the people from a tyrannical government. In our country’s history our militia’s were defined as all able bodied men from 17 to 45 years old, and at another time, from 17 to 64 years old. Men were automatically considered as being in the militia. Ryan Bundy told the jury that the militia-men who showed up at Bundy Ranch were hero’s. Ryan Bundy told the jury that his co-defendant was a hero. Pointing at Ryan Payne, Bundy said “Ryan Payne saved my life.” Ryan Bundy also explained to the jury that the first two Bundy protest trials had been prevented from getting to the truth.
Ryan Bundy told of government snipers that surrounded the Bundy home, He told of how his brother Dave was thrown to the ground and arrested for taking pictures of those snipers, he told of the incident on April 6th when Margaret Huston was thrown to the ground, and Ammon was attacked by a dog and tasered multiple times.
He promised to continue to do “whatever it takes” to protect his rights and urged jurors to stand up for freedom. He then invited the jury to visit his family’s ranch when the trial is over, and told of his love for this land. Ryan said it is the jury that protects the people when the government goes to far. Ryan Bundy said “being here in this courtroom is doing “whatever it takes”.
Reactions to Ryan Bundy’s Opening Statement
The spectators were amazed by the skill of the orator before them. He stood with a mix of humility, earnestness, and passion to give a statement that was at least an hour in length. He did so without looking at a single note. He stayed calm and deliberate in front of the 12 men and women who will probably be deciding whether he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
The court-watchers that had witnessed the other Bundy trials were shocked by how much information Ryan Bundy had just given the jury. The judge not once tried to stop the proceedings and the prosecution did not make a single objection. Ryan had told the basis of the Bundy side of the Bunkerville Protest.
In the first two trials, Todd Engel had lost his right to represent himself for the rest of the first trial by merely saying the name of the disgraced BLM’s Special Agent in Charge, Daniel Love. In the 2nd trial, Eric Parker was thrown off the witness stand for saying he had “looked up and to his right” in his effort to describe his actions without saying the court banned reference to the government snipers. Ryan Bundy had been allowed to cover multiple lines of evidence that were never permitted in the previous two trials.
The jury was captivated by Ryan’s statement. They seemed very thoughtful and a few might have even smiled or nodded to a few of Ryan’s remarks.
Ryan’s description of how government over-regulation has caused so many ranches to go out of business brings to mind other examples of overzealous agencies that cause the small businesses to fail. How many dairy and food processing company’s are forced to close because they cannot afford all new stainless steel equipment demanded by FDA? How many people are kept from going into business because of excessive requirements to get a license or a permit? How far do we let it go before we say “no more”? When do we take a stand? What role are we going to allow our courts to take once a stand has been made?
It is obvious to all court-watchers that this trial will be fought totally different from the previous trials. The judge’s attitude in regards to the defendants has seemingly changed from hostile to caring. The prosecution is taking a much weaker stance. The defense team is working together brilliantly. The rules of what evidence may be presented by the defense has changed from a near complete denial of all defenses, to almost the complete story of what happened. Misconduct of the Special Agent Daniel Love and other government officials at the protest is still being scrutinized in an effort to unseal more evidence of wrongdoing.
Public Defender Ryan Norwood’s Opening Statement for Defendant Ryan Payne:
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ne-200x300.jpgRyan Payne
Attorney Ryan Norwood displayed a photo of Ryan Payne holding his two young children. Ryan Payne had never heard of the Bundy family until April 7th when he received an email from a friend that said “have you seen this?”. Attached to the email was an article from “The Last American Patriot” titled “Armed Feds Prepare for Showdown with Nevada Cattle Rancher”. Payne called Cliven Bundy and then headed from Montana to Nevada, arriving April 8th.
Norwood described Payne’s Army service as two tours in Iraq, he came home disenchanted with the government. Payne has a tattoo of four skulls on his left arm to mark the deaths of four friends in Iraq. He sees a gun as a tool for protection and carries one everywhere he goes.
Norwood said Payne is co-founder of Operation Mutual Aid and looked on the group as a means to defend people who couldn’t defend themselves. The prosecution said Payne recruited militia members to thwart the cattle roundup and provoke a battle, but Attorney Norwood said Payne drew the militia to protect the Bundys and prevent a fight.
The defense lawyers are still working long, hard hours in an attempt to get more evidence unsealed. Ammon Bundy’s attorneys have an informational website at AmmonBundyDefense.com that includes videos and written information on the case, plus a place to donate. Ammon’s legal team has donated a lot of their own time to fight for the defendants constitutional rights. The web site sends email updates of their progress to supporters that register.
This article, first printed by The Roseburg Beacon from Roseburg, Oregon and first on the internet by RedoubtNews.com from Idaho, is offered to all other media under the Creative Commons License, when proper credit is given to Terry Noonkester, The Roseburg Beacon and Redoubt News.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
John Lamb, mid-day report Day 11, Nov. 22 ~ Valley Forge News Network
Prosecution looses cool - end of day 11 Nov. 22 ~ MrsB Stacy
Bryan Hyde, the prosecution spent most of the day trying to undo the information. ~ Mrs.B Stacy
J Grady has reuploaded an video Ammon Bundy made in which Ammon Bundy devoted much of his time to. This video is relevant today because the jury has had numerous questions about water rights and the .gov persecution is trying desperately to keep water rights suppressed in this trial. In Nevada the State isssues water rights. If you do not use your rights after a certain amount of time passes, I believe 5 years they revert back to the State.
Prosecution’s Unjust Use of Res Judicata
The Prosecution’s Unjust Use Of Res Judicata
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF RES JUDICATA IS “JUDICIAL ECONOMY” MEANING THAT THE COURTS SHOULD NOT BE BOGGED DOWN WITH THE TIME AND EXPENSE OF MATTERS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.
November 24, 2017 Constitution, Featured, Liberty or Laws?, Opinion
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...a-header-2.jpg
The Prosecution’s Unjust Use Of Res Judicata
by Loren Edward Pearce
In his motion to deny the Bundy et al defendants their right to raise the subject of water rights, fencing laws and other matters that the prosecution considers irrelevant, Myhre stated, “A party is not entitled to collaterally attack the merits of a final order for relief. The doctrine of res judicata precludes a party from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in the original action.”
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...19-225x300.jpg
Renewed Motion to Exclude
Irrelevant Evidence
Res judicata is Latin for, “a matter already adjudged”. It comes from the legal doctrine that once something has been fully adjudged on the merits then the judgment is final and is not open to attack in a later judgment or hearing.
The primary purpose of res judicata is “judicial economy” meaning that the courts should not be bogged down with the time and expense of matters that have already been decided. Additionally, res judicata is meant to protect a party, who may have prevailed in a controversy, from having to go through the inconvenience and expense of litigating the same matters again. For the winner of a controversy, res judicata is closely related to double jeopardy, in preventing the pain, injury, trouble, expense and inconvenience of trying the same matter over again.
Res Judicata and the 7th Amendment
Res judicata is not mentioned in the constitution but, in the Seventh Amendment, a similar doctrine is stated,
“…no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
There are several ways a res judicata claim may not apply:
- Was the matter really litigated on the merits? Was the matter of water rights, etc. actually adjudged by the courts and is it exactly the same matter or has it been presented under a different theory?
- Did the party objecting to res judicata truly get due process or were there material errors or fraud preventing and obstructing due process and that lead to wrongful final judgment?
- Jurisdiction of the court can be attacked at any time. Did the court have jurisdiction? A fundamental challenge by the Bundys et al is the matter of the constitutional authority of administrative law judges versus Article 3 courts as provided for by the constitution. The Bundys allege that the BLM and other big federal bureaucracies do not have constitutional authority to create their own courts with administrative law judges who issue decisions that are latter enforced by their own self-serving law enforcers, such as what we saw at Bunkerville. Were some of the orders that the prosecution refers to issued under Article 3 authority or were they issued under administrative courts who have no constitutional authority?
The Use and Abuse of Res Judicata by the Prosecution
On one hand, the prosecution invokes res judicata as a way to avoid litigating something that allegedly has already been dealt with in a previous trial under the pretext of judicial economy. On the other hand, the prosecution seeks to defy judicial economy by “re-trying” the same issues that were brought up in earlier trials that were declared mistrials because of hung juries.
In the previous trials, the majority of the jurors voted for acquittal and while the decisions were not unanimous, common sense would indicate to the prosecution and to all the world that these re-trials are violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law, by violating the Seventh Amendment wherein,
“no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States”
Nobody knows for sure how many millions of dollars are being spent by the prosecution in aggressively going after the defendants in multiple retrials. Rumors have it that over $100,000,000 has been spent in retrying the defendants. Without question, judicial economy is not being served by the vindictive prosecution.
If the prosecutors want to apply res judicata to water rights, then they need to apply res judicata to all the matters already tried before a jury and stop putting the defendants and their families through hell and only using judicial economy when convenient to the government.
Res judicata, like double jeopardy, are doctrines that can promote the ends of justice, when wielded in the hands of just people. But, when wielded by prosecutors who seek a “whatever it takes” position without regard to the pretrial prison suffering of the defendants and the destruction of the right to a “speedy” trial, then res judicata can be used to deny the jury the right to “have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in making a just decision about the guilt of the defendants.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Government gambit not paying off, opinion by Norton II
Government Gambit Not Paying Off in Bunkerville Trial
HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN A GOVT. WITNESS WHO OPENS THE DOOR TO AREAS THE GOVT IS TRYING TO SUPPRESS?
November 26, 2017 BLM, Nevada, Opinion
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...14-675x381.jpg
BLM Protest 2014, photo used with permission: Shannon Bushman, PeekPromotion.com
GAMBITby Norton II
“A device or opening remark, often entailing risk, calculated to gain an advantage”
“In Chess, an opening in which a player makes a sacrifice
for the sake of some compensating advantage”
“A clever action in a game, intended to gain an advantage”
Mystified by the Govt’s inept opening salvos in this Bundy trial, we are drawn to the possibility of a “Sacrifice for the sake of some compensating advantage” How else to explain a Govt. witness who opens the door to areas the Govt is trying to suppress? How else to explain a Govt witness who gives chapter and verse of the long Bundy saga, a story that has been barred from the trial? What to make of Govt exhibits so patently false that the defense can refute them with one hand behind their back?
We are reminded of the “Big Gun Show” chronicled by Ms Dovale in Portland, a display by the prosecution of the evil black rifles seized from Malheur. In his breathless enthusiasm for showing such dramatic evidence to the jury, Prosecutor Gabriel somehow forgot that there were several accused, and that it was his job to show evidence against them. In the event, he failed to identify a single one of the guns as belonging to the individuals on trial.
Is “Good enough for Government work” the rule for these high paid Federals? The outcome of this trial will be no less than seismic in its effect on the political landscape, but far from behaving as clever chess masters, Myhre and Co are beginning to look like the sacrifice themselves, sacrificial lambs. They have lost the initiative, yanked from their hands by a Nevada cowboy.
The Bundys and their supporters have put a severe dent in the Federal Conviction Rate. They have left a trail of befuddled casualties in their wake; Disgraced BLM agent Dan Love….prosecutors Knight, Gabriel and Barrow……Judge Brown…..US Attorney Williams…..all of them minions of a corrupt and predatory Government. Navarro and her gang are next, due to gain fame as the team that lost the Trial of the Century.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Bryan Hyde reports .gov prosecutors cherry picked 13 minutes of 45 minute March 17, 2014 phone call from BLM agents to Ryan Bundy in an attempt to portray Ryan Bundy as violent
John Lamb with day 12 report from United States Courthouse in Las Vegas, Nov 27, ~ J Grady