Interview with Eric Parker on Dec. 9, 2016 status hearing
http://youtu.be/7KfHEkiv478
https://youtu.be/7KfHEkiv478
Printable View
Interview with Eric Parker on Dec. 9, 2016 status hearing
http://youtu.be/7KfHEkiv478
https://youtu.be/7KfHEkiv478
Cliven Bundy's argument on jurisdiction is quite interesting. That argument coupled with the most basic argument, the Constitution didn't give the Congress jurisdiction on public land and the Constitution didn't give the Article IV courts jurisdiction on public lands would blow the case out of the water if the Dept. of Justice wasn't corrupted like it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
This is from July. It gives you an idea of the staked deck Deb Jordan wrote about. Now that Dirty Harry is retiring and Oblowme is finished will any of their hand picked team be replaced.
http://nevadanewsandviews.com/obama-...-in-las-vegas/
Obama, Reid, Their Pet Judges and Prosecutors Running Star Chamber in Las Vegas
NN&V StaffJuly 22, 2016
http://nevadanewsandviews.com/wp-con...a_1556405c.jpg
PC: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/
(From The Publisher, Penny Press)
I would hope that the lawyers representing the Bunkerville 19 take the ridicules pretrial decisions all the way to the United States Supreme Court before they give into the star-chamber the U.S. Attorney wants to run with the help of Presiding Nevada Federal Judge Gloria Navarro and her sycophant, Magistrate Peggy Leen.
For starters, Navarro is trying her best to keep attorney Larry Klayman from representing Cliven Bundy. Additionally, they want to try all 19 together.
Then, there is the fact that most of the 19 are still in jail with no bail. The prosecutors told the Judge that the 70-year-old Bundy was a danger to the community. Bundy is a rancher who—during the 2014 standoff with the BLM—was mostly on his own 160 acres in rural Bunkerville.
And now, Leen has actually ordered that much of the “evidence” be kept secret from the taxpaying public.
These aren’t real secrets like the ones on Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server.
Or the fact that it took the Obama administration almost four years to fess up about the reason for the Benghazi attack and admit that it was actually an act of radical Islamic terror.
No, this is a personal vendetta of soon to be retired Prince Harry Reid who called Bundy and the people who gathered in 2014 in support of him at his ranch “domestic terrorists” all the while reminding Navarro and the prosecutors who was responsible for their appointments.
Exactly what you want from the same judicial system which declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton for misusing classified information.
And you wonder why Donald Trump won the Republican nomination and is on his way to kicking Ms. Clinton’s butt November 8.
At its core, this is a case about government overreach, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.
Bundy has been fighting the Bureau of Land Management since 1991, when it decided that Bundy’s 950 head of cattle would eradicate the Desert Tortoise so they pulled his grazing allotments. He and his ancestors had been running those allotments since 1877.
It took until 2014—23 years—before the BLM actually did anything. In that time, it became obvious that 950 head of cattle had not only NOT decreased the Desert Tortoise habitat but it is only listed as “threatened” as opposed to “endangered”.
In 2014, they decided to round up and sell Bundy’s cattle.
There followed a great outcry and many folks showed up at the Bundy Ranch to protest. A lot of those folks were armed because Nevada is an open carry state and that is perfectly legal.
While not a shot was fired, the BLM decided that given how stupid they looked, they would free the cattle and return them to Bundy.
At the time, Prince Harry called the whole group “domestic terrorists” and promised Federal retaliation.
The persecution of the Bunkerville 19 two years later is a fulfillment of Reid’s moronic promise.
But this is America.
We don’t keep political prisoners in jail, make evidence a state secret and deny people their choice of counsel.
We don’t even do that to REAL criminals.
The Obama administration looks at terrorism as a crime which should be handled by prosecutors. Otherwise they would have killed the Bunkerville 19 with hellfire missiles from a Predator drone. After all, the home base of the Predator is very close to Bunkerville. Even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got his choice of lawyer.
But as the Department of Justice has turned the Clark County Detention Center into Nevada’s very own gitmo it looks like Bundy is going to have to live in the shadow of the strip until a court says otherwise. What happened in Bunkerville stays in Vegas.
Fortunately, there is a good chance that Donald Trump will win the next election, appoint a serious judge to replace the late Antonin Scalia and a sane prosecutor to replace Prince Harry’s friends.
At that point, the indictment on charges of conspiracy, assault on a law enforcement officer, carrying a firearm in a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, interference with commerce by extortion and aiding and abetting others in breaking the law may never make it to trial because sane people may be running the Department of Justice.
If there was ever a reason to elect someone whose judicial philosophy is closer to Mike Pence than Barack Obama, this case provides a stark illustration.
Politics
July 22, 2016
Related Items
I have wondered if any Bundy defendants challenged jurisdiction. Yes, according to their facebook:
Steven TinMan Cambridge
First mistake is not questioning the jurisdiction, second is questioning the authority of this so-called magistrate (bring forth your bond and show me your signed oath), which hold no powers or authority only the jury and the people do.
8 · December 12 at 8:33pm
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...01&oe=58B1CCA3
Bundy Ranch
We have filed motion after motion after motion on jurisdiction and authority. The judge doesn't even comment on it.
she just puts out a statement like this one that's says they are all denied and dismissed.
6 · December 12 at 9:42pm
More on Judge Glorria Navarro upholding Magistrate Peggy Leen's secrecy order
http://nevadanewsandviews.com/mitche...ed-in-secrecy/
Mitchell: Bundy case remains shrouded in secrecy
NN&V STAFFDecember 12, 2016
http://nevadanewsandviews.com/wp-con...04/Thomas2.jpg
(Thomas Mitchell, 4TH ST8) –
In order to maintain public confidence in a civil society, not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.
This past week Nevada’s Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro upheld a sweeping protective order by a federal magistrate that seals documents and gags participants in the pending trial of Cliven Bundy, four of his sons and a dozen co-defendants on charges resulting from the April 2014 standoff at Bundy’s Bunkerville ranch, because that information might be used to intimidate witnesses.
The protective order was challenged by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this newspaper and The Associated Press, which argued the order was overly broad and would prevent public scrutiny of a high-profile and significant case.
In upholding the secrecy, Navarro noted that case law dictates, “The district judge ‘may not simply substitute its judgment’ for that of the magistrate judge.”
But she later declared in the 10-page ruling, “The Intervenors proffer nothing but assumptions and conjecture about whether true threats were made as opposed to idle threats. This speculation does not refute (U.S. Magistrate) Judge (Peggy) Leen’s finding of good cause, let alone demonstrate clear error,”though the original order was based largely on assumptions and conjecture about largely anonymous Internet rants.
Navarro also dismissed as inefficient and impractical suggestions that certain information could be selectively redacted, instead of everything being sealed in its entirety as soon as it is filed, due to the fact the case involves 1.4 terabytes of digital information.
Freeing court personnel from a little paperwork trumps the unfettered ability of the defendants to have the public spot flaws in the documents and testimony that will determine whether they are to be incarcerated or freed?
Leen wrote in her order this past summer, “All materials produced by the government in discovery in this case, including, but not limited to: grand jury transcripts, agency reports, witness statements, memoranda of interviews, and any documents and tangible objects produced by the government shall be treated as confidential documents.”
The judge warned that defense attorneys may not even share notes relating to the contents of discovery with anyone not employed to assist the defense, and anything filed in court relating to the discovery must be filed under seal.
Leen reasoned that victims and witnesses could be vulnerable to “cyberbullying, threatening communications, and intimidation from Bundy supporters,” which could have a chilling effect on witnesses. She determined this even though almost all of the 22 allegations of intimidation are more than two years old and nothing substantive has come of any of them.
The defendants face felony charges that include conspiracy, obstruction, extortion and assault, which carry penalties of up to 50 years in prison. The standoff occurred after armed Bureau of Land Management law enforcement agents attempted to roundup Bundy’s cattle after he had refused for 20 years to pay grazing fees in the Gold Butte area. The BLM said he owed $1 million in fees and penalties.
Faced with armed protesters the BLM agents eventually released the cattle and left to avoid potential bloodshed.
Attorney Maggie McLetchie, who represents the media in this case, had argued to the court, “One of the most critical aspects of news reporting is to inform the public of justice being carried out in the courts. In this regard, the press is vital to the health of a democracy. … This right is anchored in the value of keeping ‘a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies,’ and in publishing ‘information concerning the operation of government.’ … ‘In short, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.’”
McLetchie told the Las Vegas newspaper after the recent ruling, “We are disappointed because an overly broad protective order limits how much access the media, and therefore the public, has to information about this high-profile case. … As the case progresses, it will be a challenge to litigate matters in open court when so much is hidden from the public. The order can also have a chill on litigants’ willingness to speak to the press because, with such a broad order, it is hard to know if you can say anything.”
The lack of public scrutiny means that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that the public might shed light on will not come until the time of trial, when it might be too late.
Mr. Mitchell publishes the 4TH ST8 Blog.
Column originally appears at 4TH ST8.
Nevada
December 12, 2016
For Cliven Bundy and for the Red, White and Blue . . . .
http://youtu.be/zXYFlSiIxC0
https://youtu.be/zXYFlSiIxC0
Peter Santilli wants to be included in the first Bundy Standoff trial
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...tandoff-trial/
Cliven Bundy co-defendant seeks inclusion in first Bunkerville standoff trial
December 17, 2016 | Doug Knowles |
https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...95%2C263&ssl=1
One of Cliven Bundy’s co-defendants in the armed standoff case wants to go to trial sooner than a judge has ordered.
In a motion filed Wednesday, defendant Peter Santilli also argues that the 17 defendants in the standoff case should be tried with two trials instead of the three trials the judge ordered.
The motion is an effort to change U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen’s order for three separate trials that group the defendants in tiers based on their alleged involvement in the standoff. The order puts Santilli in the second trial. The first trial is set to start on Feb. 6.
Santilli is in the upper tier of five defendants that federal prosecutors allege are leaders and organizers of the armed standoff, a group that includes Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his sons Ryan and Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Payne.
The standoff unfolded in April 2014 when Bundy and supporters confronted federal agents who had seized his cattle in a dispute over grazing on public lands without paying grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM had obtained a court order prior to impounding the cattle, which agents released to avoid bloodshed.
No shots were fired in the standoff, which attracted hundreds of Bundy supporters and sympathizers, many of them distrustful of the federal government.
Santilli contends he should be tried first and be among a group of eight to 11 defendants who allegedly organized the protest.
“Santilli has spent months preparing with others to present a group defense based on the notion that he would be tried with the Bundy family members he is alleged to have conspired (with),” says the motion, submitted by attorney Chris Rasmussen.
The motion also argues that the case can be tried with two groups of defendants and that there is precedent for having the first and most involved group tried first.
The defendants face federal charges that include conspiring to assault federal agents on April 12, 2014, several miles from the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville.
Federal prosecutors had asked for three groups of defendants, though the judge’s order schedules the trials differently, with the most prominent group of defendants in the second trial.
Leen, however, wrote in her order that it seems “more fair” to have the defendants in the lowest tier be tried first, as their trial likely will be shorter than the other trials. Those defendants are: Richard Lovelien, Todd Engel, Gregory Burleson, Eric Parker, O. Scott Drexler and Steven Stewart.
Under Leen’s order, the second tier of “mid-level” defendants would be in the third and final trial. Those defendants are Bundy sons Dave and Mel Bundy, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Brian Cavalier, Jason Woods and Micah McGuire.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted in October by a Portland jury after being tried in connection with a 41-day armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon.
Santilli was indicted in the Oregon occupation, but federal prosecutors in September asked the judge to dismiss the indictment, citing the court’s ruling that excludes evidence, including statements Santilli made to counter-protesters and reporters.
Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @BenBotkin1 on Twitter.
Message to Donald Trump . . . "LET OUR PROPLE GO"
This video was put together by Kelli Stewart
http://youtu.be/Pf1P_m91RBY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf1P_m91RBY
Jim Lambley on Twister Radio - Global Warming with Mark Andeerson and Briana Bundy/trial update.
http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...iana-Bundy.m4a
Vicky Davis, TVOI News just revealed alarming information about CIs in the FBI and DEA (Confidential Informants)
TVOI News
16 mins ·
After reading an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal concerning Pete Santilli's demand to know the names of the Confidential Informants, I thought I'd better get some information out. This information needs to go to the attorneys of all the defendants in Nevada.
On December 7, 2016, there was a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Congressman Stephen Lynch made a statement saying that the DEA has approximately 18,000 Confidential Informants (CI) and it costs the government about $237 million per year to pay those CIs. The FBI has probably double that number - 30-40,000 CI's that cost the government about $500 million per year.
We know that a lot of those CIs actually go out and set people up so we can add the cost of jail, lawyers, the courts, prison and prison services to the costs of the CIs.
What the congressman also said was that the Congress has not been able to get any information about these programs that run Confidential Informants because they are "field level" programs so even the headquarters offices do not know about how the programs operate. If the headquarters of the DEA and FBI don't do oversight on these programs and if the congress can't get information on them, then that means we have a covert criminal network functioning under the color of law.
If that isn't good enough information for the Judge to order that the identities of the CIs be released, then I don't know what would be.
You can find the hearing that I'm talking about on C-Span.
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...94&oe=58B13F4A
Las Vegas Review Journal, Pere Santilli seeking name of undercover agent
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...over-fbi-agent
Bundy case defendant seeks identity of undercover FBI agent
Peter Santilli, a defendant in the Cliven Bundy standoff trial, asked a federal court Tuesday to order prosecutors to provide the identity of an undercover FBI agent.
The witness list prosecutors provided to the defense Monday gives only a pseudonym, “Charles Johnson,” not the agent’s true name. Santilli’s attorney said the agent’s identity is needed to prepare for cross-examination of the witness and any recorded information or logs the agent kept during the standoff are needed as well.
The federal government’s witness list remains under seal.
Santilli is one of 17 defendants in the standoff case, which stems from a confrontation between federal agents and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters over the impoundment of his cows that were grazing on public lands.
The Bureau of Land Management had obtained a court order to impound the cattle over nonpayment of grazing fees. No shots were fired at the standoff, which attracted hundreds of people.
Santilli maintains that he was at the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville, north of Las Vegas, as an “advocacy journalist” who recorded and streamed online video.
“The need to protect a law enforcement officer’s identity this late in the pretrial phase is nonexistent,” the motion filed by defense attorney Chris Rasmussen said. “This is not a case in which the government can cross their fingers and hope the defendants are going to enter pleas and they can forever protect his identity.”
The motion requests an expedited hearing on the matter.
“The identity and whereabouts of the agent is essential to the preparation of Santilli’s defense,” the motion says. “Santilli requires the opportunity to test the agent’s credibility, ascertain his general relationship to others charged herein, discover the entire scope of his meetings, conversations and contacts with the principals herein, and to investigate the agent’s allegations.”
Federal prosecutors haven’t yet responded to the motion.
“I’ve never had a case where you kept the law enforcement officer’s name secret,” Rasmussen said.
The 17 defendants are currently slated to be tried in three separate trials, with the first one starting Feb. 6. The three tiers of defendants are grouped together based on their alleged level of involvement in the case.
Santilli is in the upper tier, which includes Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy. This group would be in the second trial, which would start 30 days after the first trial ends. However, Santilli has requested to be in the first trial and has argued that the prosecution of all defendants could be accomplished in two trials.
Both sides also have submitted lists of proposed questions for potential jurors.
Prosecutors’ proposed list tells potential jurors that they may hear testimony from a law enforcement officer who has acted as an undercover agent. The listed questions ask whether potential jurors have any personal feelings about the testimony of an undercover agent or about law enforcement use of video and audio recordings that would prevent them from fairly weighing the evidence.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted in October by a Portland jury after being tried in connection with a 41-day armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. They also are defendants in the Nevada case.
Santilli was indicted in the Oregon occupation, but federal prosecutors in September asked the judge to dismiss the case, citing the court’s ruling that excludes evidence, including statements Santilli made to counterprotesters and reporters.
Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @BenBotkin1 on Twitter.
Doug Knowles, It matters how you stand
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...ver-fbi-agent/
Deb Jordan , Pete Santilli's long time partner, had this to say on facebook today:
IMPORTANT - BUNDY RANCH STAR WITNESS IS FBI AGENT
Attorneys are quick to point out the AGENT'S NAME used in court documents is a pseudonym, so don't be fooled into thinking the AGENT is a man, however they suspect that it is.
The Prosecution says the AGENT does not live or work in the District of Nevada and works solely in a undercover capacity.
The person is a AGENT not an INFORMANT.
The person in question WOULD NOT have a criminal history.
This person would have probably been physically fit, possibly bragged about a Military or Law
Enforcement background, and gotten very close to the family and other protestors in order to gather information.
It is EXTREMELY possible this person is or was a member of a III%, MILITIA, OATHKEEPER, or BORDER PATROL ORGANIZATION.
Benjamin Botkin
Benjamin A. Botkin Born Benjamin Albert Botkin
February 7, 1901
East Boston, Massachusetts, United StatesDied July 30, 1975 (aged 74)
Croton-on-Hudson, New York, United StatesNationality American Alma mater Harvard University
Columbia University
University of Nebraska-LincolnReligion Jewish Spouse(s) Gertrude Fritz (1905-1993) Children Dorothy Ann Rosenthal
Daniel Benjamin
Is this reporter the son shown in this chart? It isn't surprising Adleson owns the Review Journal. Like all the media owned and controlled by Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigjon
The video of the Confidential Informant hearing Vicky Davis wrote about:Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
http://youtu.be/S-yOOBxJQ2E
https://youtu.be/S-yOOBxJQ2E
I would assume a son or grandson, my point being I have never known of anyone who's name ends with "kin" who is not Jewish. Benjamin is just icing on the Jewish cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
It's rare, but there are a few. I worked offshore with a Boykin. He had Blond Hair and blue eyes and was just a very ordinary oilfield hand working stiff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigjon
Bunkerville Residents support Bundys
http://youtu.be/N3ZUWW17p8g
https://youtu.be/N3ZUWW17p8g
Why the BLM Wants Cliven Bundy's ranch gone. .
http://youtu.be/_BzkkEzT_JA
https://youtu.be/_BzkkEzT_JA
The impact of stacked 924(c) "Crime of Violence" charges and why they may be unconstitutionally applied . . . . .
http://bundyranchstandoff.info/impac...nally-applied/
Bundy Ranch Standoff
What Happened on April 12th, 2014
The http://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-co...nch-header.jpg
The Impact of Stacked 924(c) “Crime of Violence” Charges – And Why They May Be Unconstitutionally Applied
Introduction
Defendants in the USA vs Bundy et al case face multiple charges of 18 USC 924(c), or “Crimes of Violence”. These charges are “enhancements” that get stacked upon a “predicate offense” (the primary offense). A 924(c) charge is unique primarily for two reasons:
- It introduces stiff mandatory minimum sentences that cannot be subject to probation and
- cannot be served concurrently with any other 924(c) conviction or concurrently with any other sentence for an applicable predicate offense.
The outcome is one where first-time offenders could potentially face absurdly excessive penalties, including life sentences, simply for being in possession of a weapon; exactly what we are seeing with regard to Idaho’s four political prisoners.
A Brief History
The first mandatory minimums for firearms-related crimes were introduced with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Mandatory minimums and the applications thereof fluctuated with varying legislation over the years, settling in 1990 with the inclusion of short-barreled firearms and destructive devices. Up until this point, a 924(c) required the “use” of a firearm in order to secure a conviction.
In Bailey vs The United States (1995), the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that “[…] ‘use’ must connote more than mere possession of a firearm by a person […]”. In response to this, 924(c) was updated by Congress in 1998 to not only prohibit “use” but also “possession in furtherance” of a predicate offense.
Related Statutory Provisions
Two provisions in the US Code are related to 924(c):
- The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) – 18 USC 924(e)
- Definition of a “Crime of Violence” – 18 USC 16
From 18 USC 16, a crime of violence is defined as:(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop*erty of another, or18 USC 924(c) is nearly identical to 18 USC 16 in wording, the ACCA differs in the wording of its “residual clause” as it defines a “violent felony”, or: (e)(2)(B)(ii) “[…] or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another; […]”. The ACCA, which enhances sentences for repeat offenders, was successfully challenged in late 2015 through Johnson vs The United States.
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
The Johnson Decision
In 2015, SCOTUS ruled that the residual clause of ACCA was unconstitutionally vague under the void-for-vagueness doctrine; or simply stated, the residual clause of ACCA violates a defendant’s 5th Amendment rights to due process. SCOTUS determined:In the first place, the residual clause leaves grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime. […] At the same time, the residual clause leaves uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony.Leading up to Johnson, courts used a “categorical approach” (from Taylor vs the United States (1990) ) to determine if a predicate offense classified as a crime of violence under ACCA. With the residual clause being found unconstitutionally vague, courts can now only consider the force clause. In this consideration, a defendants actions (or facts underlying a conviction) are irrelevant. Instead the court looks to the elements of the predicate offense and see if there is a “categorical match” to the generic offense (which specifies the enhanced penalty). In limited circumstances, a “modified categorical approach” is used, but is mostly outside the scope of the predicate offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment in USA vs Bundy et al.
Connecting The Dots
The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth (which hears appeals for the District of Nevada) and Tenth Circuit courts have all ruled that 18 USC 16(b) is not meaningfully indistinguishable from ACCA’s residual clause such that it must be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The wording in 18 USC 16(b) is nearly identical to the wording in 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b).
ACCA – 18 USC 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) – is unconstitutionally vague per Johnson and is similar to 18 USC 16(b). Several circuits have decided that 18 USC 16(b) is, by extension, unconstitutionally vague. The wording in 18 USC 16(b) is almost identical to 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii)… giving rise to a preponderance of evidence that it too is unconstitutionally vague.
If 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague, the predicate offense to which the 924(c) is applied can only be weighed categorically on 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(i), meaning that the predicate offense must be a categorical match of the general offense of “crime of violence” described in 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(i).
Post-Johnson: The Circuits Divide
As stated, The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth (which hears appeals for the District of Nevada) and Tenth Circuit courts have all ruled that 18 USC 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague. It is nearly identical to the language that defines a crime of violence in 18 USC 924(c). The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, clearly distinguishes 18 USC 16(b) from ACCA’s residual clause.
For district courts, they would be subject to binding precedent on the circuit court of appeals above them. In the 9th Circuit, Dimaya vs. Lynch (2015), it was determined that 18 USC 16(b), which is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act to define an aggravated felony, was unconstitutionally vague. The District of Nevada, subject to binding precedent of the 9th Circuit, would also have to conclude the same about 18 USC 16(b)
Where Rubber Meets The Road
Defendant Ryan Payne has a sweeping motion to dismiss all 924(c) charges based on two criterion:
- 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii), like nearly identically worded and categorically applied 18 USC 16(b), is unconstitutionally vague, and…
- 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(i) fails to establish a crime of violence for the predicate offenses when subjected to the categorical approach outline in Taylor.
In this motion, Payne addresses counts 3, 6, 9, and 15 making the case that the alleged predicate offenses are not “crimes of violence”.
- Count 2: Conspiracy to Impede – 18 USC 372
This charge was dismissed by the District of Oregon during the Malheur Refuge Occupation trial. The statute does not have any requirement of actual, attempted, or threatened use of force. That is, 18 USC 372 defendants to “conspire” to use the threat of force. Precedent exists to exclude conspiracy from being a crime of violence.- Count 5: Assault on a Federal Officer – 18 USC 111(a)(1) and (b)
Payne argues that this statute is not divisible (that is, not separate crimes, but different means of committing the same crime) and therefore subject in total to the categorical approach; whereby it is categorically broader such that the entire statute cannot be classified as a crime of violence.- Count 8: Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 18 USC 115(a)(1)(B)
Similar to Count 5, Count 8, is not divisible. It criminalizes threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder federal officers for the purpose of impeding, intimidating, or interfering with the execution of lawful court orders. Nowhere does the statute require the elements set forth in 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii). Because of this, it would fail a categorical inquiry as to whether or not it constitutes a crime of violence.- Count 14: Hobbs Act Extortion – 18 USC 1951(a)
This count is problematic (but not insurmountable) for the defendants. The Distric of Nevada has ruled in (Smith, May 2016) that Hobbs Act Extortion is divisible for the purpose of categorical analysis. Payne argues that there exists other precedent for the statute to be considered indivisible for categorical analysis. As such, when viewed as a whole, the statute is overly broad and fails to enumerate a crime of violence. Further, extortion is a crime that can be committed without violence.
Final Thoughts
The government wants to make an example of these men to cover their own lawless actions on Saturday, 12 April 2014. They have dropped a literal avalanche of litigation upon these men complete with stacked 924(c)’s that will ensure, upon conviction, that they receive effective life sentences.
Mandatory minimums were enacted with the best of intentions but ultimately ensure that certain scenarios arise where punishments far outweigh the merits of the crime. The use of 924(c) enhancements was a calculated, vindictive maneuver by the Department of Justice.
In this case, the government wants to criminalize the lawful possession of a weapon during a protest. Their avenue is to allege “crime of violence” enhancements to statutes stretched to fit their larger agenda.
Resources
Some of these resources are clearly biased; the most obvious belonging to the Dept. of Justice.
- Ryan Payne’s Motion to Dismiss:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3346...s-924c-Charges- Congressional Research Service – Regarding 924(c)’s
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41412.pdf- Defender Services Office – Sample Motion to Dismiss 924(c)
https://mow.fd.org/sites/mow.fd.org/...%20robbery.pdf- Dept of Justice – Whining About Johnson Starts On Page 15
https://www.justice.gov/usao/file/794586/download- Tenth Circuit’s Concurrence on 18 USC 16(b)
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-9530.pdf- Defender Services Office – Explanation of Categorical Approach (Taylor)
https://www.fd.org/docs/select-topics/sentencing-resources/the-categorical-and-modified-categorical-approach.pdf?sfvrsn=4
and…
https://www.fd.org/docs/select-topics—sentencing/glorious-goo.pdf- ED of VA – Denies Motion to Drop 924(c)
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hunter-129- Georgetown University Law Center – Determining Which Court’s Decision Is Binding
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academ...ayer-final.pdf- My Attorney USA – Discussion on Demaya vs. Lynch
http://myattorneyusa.com/dimaya-v-ly...tionally-vague
http://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-co...4/facebook.pnghttp://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-co...64/twitter.png
http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b15ea26...?s=49&d=mm&r=gAuthor anthony-dephuePosted on December 20, 2016Categories UncategorizedLeave a Reply
Any District Court Judge against who a timely filed affidavit is filed showing bias against a party shall proceed no farther . . .
http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.h...e=62&page=898#
https://s19.postimg.org/4ffw7jp2b/IMG_1396.png
Now to make them follow it...
They ignore it just like the jurisdiction issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2
Mrs.B Stacy added a video to her channel re the fed's star witness an FBI agent or informant addressed earlier in this thread
Urgent Nevada case update
http://youtu.be/OCDCog4Akek
https://youtu.be/OCDCog4Akek
MontyQuote:
Originally Posted by monty
It has been shown exhaustively that what Harry S Truman did in July 1948 when he signed that judicial act dividing the several States into federal court districts was done WHILE CONGRESS WAS ON A MAJOR RECESS.
Truman did not sign the act into law while congress was in session. He has no executive branch duties with respect to bills presented to him while congress is not in session. If you were to check the constitution you would see that the president only has LEGISLATIVE section powers to sign bills into law. These powers go bye bye with congress adjourned.
Your argument is that administrative court federal judges must recuse themselves when sufficient affidavit presented. My argument is THERE IS NO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE HARRY DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO CREATE ONE.
Funny thing is ... Harry knew what he was doing. After he signed the bill into law he called congress back into session on some trumped up emergency. I know of no U.S. emergency that existed in 1948. I believe he planned to use the emergency he called to give congress the opportunity to counter his unconstitutional actions [la abra silver mining case at supreme court says president may sign a bill into law over a short holiday break].
Adask has material that covers this entire subject. Look for Dennis Craig in his archives.
Video posted on J Grady's channel outside the federal courthouse in Las Vegas during Ryan Bundy' hearing
http://youtu.be/R_NOx1RYpFc
https://youtu.be/R_NOx1RYpFc
Brad Thornton video at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas 20 minutes
http://youtu.be/PnPi7jnZIJ8
https://youtu.be/PnPi7jnZIJ8
Judge Jeanine Pirro - Dirty Harry Reid and BLM LAND GRABS
http://youtu.be/9bJBZTn2lpM
https://youtu.be/9bJBZTn2lpM
Doug Knowles' assessment of Ryan Budy's Dec. 23 hearing
Ryan has challenged the jurisdiction of the court quoting Section 7(3) 62 Statutes at Large page 685 defining Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction in this reply codifed as positive law 18 USC Section 7(3).
https://www.facebook.com/itmattershowyoustand/?ref=py_c
Ryan Bundy’s Filed Response to the Governments Rebuttal from the 12-13-16 Hearing
Posted on December 24, 2016 by Doug Knowles
DEFENDANTS RYAN C. BUNDY REPLY TO GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY’S MOTION FOR OWN RECOGNIZANCE OR BAIL PENDING TRIAL (ECF No. 1157)
Ryan Bundy's Hearing on 12-23-16 was a hearing to rule on his Motion to reopen his Detention Hearing. After Government Responded to his Motion, he filed his response to the Government. (attached). It is my opinion as an Observer in the hearings that his actions, response and rebuttal in Court was even more significant.
After requesting permission from the Magistrate, he led the courtroom in a prayer. He was confident and authoritative but respectful in his comments and presentation to the Judge.
The prosecutor, in his presentation, very focused on rules and court room procedure, explained why the original decision was valid and must stand as ordered. It was very matter of fact and appeared to leave no wiggle room for the Magistrate to make any other ruling as seen so many times before in these hearing for our P3s.
Then came Ryan's final rebuttal. He focused on the human rights aspect of the rulings and their impact to his and others natural rights as protected in the Constitution. The Just under a Year in custody, based on Prosecutions lies and no opportunity to exercise his right to face his accusers or to challenge their truth in his own defense.. He talked about his family and the suffering that they are enduring because he is not being allowed to fulfill his god ordained responsibility to provide for and guide them. It was passionate and resolute as the Magistrate listened intently to his words..
The judge thanked Ryan for his presentation and replied that he would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling from Chambers.
Could this be Ryan's family's Christmas Miracle? Their hopes appeared to be dashed.
As an observer, I believe I saw something different in the hearing than I have yet to see in any of the hearings so far. I saw a Judge that was respectful, attentive and most of all letting it show, just slightly that his heart, perhaps because of the season, perhaps at gods hand, was being tugged at by Ryan's words. I don't like to predict in situations like these. However, I believe that there was more than attorneys and a judge making their cases in the court room. You could feel it in your soul. Could this be a turn in the tide starting with Ryan and his family? I believe there is reason to claim that victory, in the lords name! Please pray that the Magistrate continues to be touched by gods hand in his consideration and decision of these matters.
May the New Year bring Liberty and Freedom for all!
Share this:
27- [COLOR=#777777 !important]Print
[/COLOR]
More on Ryan Bundy's recent reply to prosecution
https://m.facebook.com/groups/850081...&__tn__=%2C%3B
https://s19.postimg.org/paqp2ftsz/IMG_1412.png
John Lamb tells about his life as the last free man standing
https://www.facebook.com/18287112840...&__tn__=%2C%3B
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...5e&oe=58E4CE8B
John Lamb Last Free Man
Yesterday at 9:01am ·
ARE YOU AN INFORMANT !?
Government paid informants.
To me, they are the worst kind of evil.
They have haunted my family for decades.
Being raised in a life style such as I have been, we have been picked on, made fun of, even called anti - American because of our beliefs.
MY FAMILY
Let me give you a little history.
My grandfather, Truman Lamb, was born on October 4th, 1900. He was from a wealthy family, and was well educated . He became a preacher - one of the 'unlicensed preachers' in the 1930's. The social security number came about, but my grandfather believed it was the mark of the beast mentioned in Revelations 13.
So, he refused to take the number or have any part of it. Main stream churches mocked him and made him out be crazy, but he kept to his convictions. He raised 13 children and through the years became even more 'crazy' to the world by homeschooling his children, and having a few run ins with the law and school authoritys in the 60's, with threats of losing his children. But he kept fighting for what he felt was his convictions.
I was born in October of 1972, and my father continued the family tradition for me and my 8 younger brothers and sisters .We were all born at home, not in a hospital. With no state birth certificates or social security numbers, totally home schooled - never to set foot in a public school. And now, this has also become a tradition for my 11 children as well. Has this life style been easy? No! not at all!
Though the years, the federal government has passed more upon more laws, restricting the freedoms of a free people, and slowly stripping us of every constitutional right.
YOU JUDGE:
MARK OF THE BEAST?
I challenge you! Try opening a bank account without a SS number ! Try buying a house or land without a SS number! Try just getting a loan without a SS number! Try getting a driver's license or license plates for your car ! Try going to college. Try getting electricity or a phone. And what about a job ? It's left us with very few options of survival. Having to totally work for our self.
Have I proved to you yet that the SS number may be the mark of the beast ?
COMPLY OR DIE
So, with this way of life, other complying American's felt it was their duty to turn us in. Because, if they have to have and do these things, so must we! They became informants against us.
It might have been a customer buying eggs that reported us for not having a egg license, or a customer reporting us because we sold our vegetables by the piece instead of by weight. ( Yes it's against the law to sell tomatoes without weighing them.)
And tell me, how does a egg license keep you from buying bad eggs ?
REPORTED FOR BARTERING RAW
COWS MILK
Don't you dare sell raw cow's milk. The guys with the big guns will come kicking in your doors and lock you up.
My Dad and grandfather were reported for not having their children in school multiple times, and even threatened to have them taken away if they weren't in public schools within 3 days . To fight this type of government tyranny can cost families thousands of dollars just to keep their children.
REPORTED BY GOOD CITIZENS
FOR NOT HAVING THEIR CHILDREN
IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Indiana v Swartz in the 1960's took hundreds of home schooled children away from their parents and even seized their bank accounts. All for home schooling. Eventually, they won and got their children back, but at a high financial cost that was never regained.
REPORT THAT SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY
People have reported us for having legal deer hanging in our trees. They've reported our businesses, because maybe we don't have a license to do what we are doing. And each of these times, we had to fight to keep our rights. We may have eventually won, but it wasn't cheap!
These things my grandfather fought for, my father continued to fight for. I've also had to fight. We were the American way before you called us un - American.
WARNING: DANGEROUS UNEDUCATED
CHILDREN!
I can personally remember clearly when we had the sheriff, school authorities and social services show up, all at the same time to threaten my parents that they would take all of us children away if they didn't have us in public school within 3 days. No court hearing, no judge, no warrant . Just orders, because a so called friend (informant) reported my family.
Conclusion: ARE YOU AN INFORMANT?
MY BEST FRIEND BECAME A
INFORMANT
There are many types of informants. Those that inform on their neighbors, just because something looks suspicious.
Church members that inform because they think it's their Christians duty. And then there are informants that get paid to help take the bad guys off the streets. Like drug dealers , child sex trafficking rings, maybe even murderers. And what about those armed militants that took over a bird refuse? At least that's what the news told us...
WE ARE HERE TO HELP
What I have seen and learned, is that the government uses people by making them think they are doing the American thing and helping to inform against other Americans. Then without even a trial, you are already convicted.
So the next time I get a message on my phone with an amber alert saying a child was kidnapped by a woman, driving a blue car with tag # xxxxx, I'm going to believe it's most likely a mother with her own child, and actually the state is trying to kidnap him because she refused to vaccinate her child.
By John lamb
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...e7&oe=58F32031
74 Likes35 Comments145 Shares
Joshua Martinez makes a formal stand on free speech.
Homeland Security threaten to arrest Bundy Ranch supporters on public property.
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...blic-property/
- Home
- P3 List
- Jury Trials
- Donate
- About
- Thank You For Your Support!
- Video References
Posted on December 23, 2016 by Doug Knowles
Video Player
Joshua Martinez, Makes a formal stand about free speech and where it can be exercised legally.
12-23-16 Las Vegas, Nevada. Earlier in 2016 when patriots showed up for preliminary hearings and other court dates for the Patriot Political Prisoners being held in Detention pending trial on grand jury federal indictments, the rallies were well attended and the stairs in front of the Las Vegas Nevada District Federal Court House, was where patriots rallied to show their support and draw attention to the issues and their plight.
https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...20%2C315&ssl=1Early 2016 Rally in Support of the Patriot Political Prisoners during Preliminary Hearings in La Vegas NevadaIt has always been done with respect and courtesy to those moving through the area. People were careful to not impede anyones access. Either walking down the street or in and out of the court house via the steps. As court activity is finally starting occur again, the desire to support and rally for the Patriot Political Prisoners at the courthouse has started to move back from the regular rallies at the Pahrump Detention Center where the P3's have been for almost a year now in detainment (un convicted) custody.
https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...14%2C552&ssl=1In the first couple of rallies it was made clear by Contract Court House Security, that they intended on limiting the rallies to the sidewalk in front of the stairs. The next time the intent was to limit the rally area to the sidewalks and out of the plaza area at street level north of the steps as well.. Along with many things revolving around the 2014 Bundy Stand Off, one of the key issues and points of contention has been 1st Amendment free speech constitutional issues. from designated areas and the attempt to limit the patriots rights to publicly assemble and speak.
1st Amendment Area at the 2014 Standoff was not accepted at all by any of the folks there in support of Bundy Ranch
According to Mr Martinez, he would like to get the issue settled once and for all while the rallies are still small and the risk of incitement of others attending is very low. He says that he is willing to be arrested and have it resolved in court. This was his second attempt to stand his ground and let Court House Security, DHS, Federal marshals and/or Metro Las Vegas Police do what they have been treating to do. Today the DHS officers got involved and the stated that they would ask Metro Las Vegas PD to arrest him for non compliance. After most of the event standing on the top of the steps, metro was a no show and it appeared that DHS was communicating with their command for specific instructions on how to act in the situation.
After court proceedings finished and Metro did not show as stated, the rally ended without any arrest or further interaction. When asked, one of the DHS officers implied that they had not yet received official instructions on how to proceed.
In the video above Mr. Martinez explains why this is important not only to him but all Americans and is but a small representation of how our Constitutional Liberties and the Natural rights they protect have been being eroded by Federal Policy and Enforcement of Policy that is clearly unconstitutional in his and others interpretations and understanding. He desires to get this resolved before the larger rallies in the new year and the significant number of supporter expected when the actual trials begin in February.. Again citing his desire to make himself the issue and point of contention instead of having a reaction of a large group being vocal and even potentially disobedient in a challenge to this issue.
https://www.sustainweb.org/pdf2/Guid...vegetables.pdfQuote:
Yes it's against the law to sell tomatoes without weighing them
Tomatoes are classed 'countable'. So wonder how much research John Lamb did before he started exaggerating?
yes, eggs are countable as well. makes you wonder. Tomatoes being a fruit and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
Dunno what's happening with eggs. Aldi's is selling them for $.39 a dozen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
Merry Christmas everyone. My Christmas letter to Attorney General nominee Senator Jeff Sessions:
Aaron Blazevich is the secretary to Nevada Federal Judge Glorria Navarro
December 25, 2016
Senator Jeff Sessions
1800 5th Avenue North
341 Vance Federal Building
Birmingham, AL 35203
Main: (205) 731-1500
Fax: (205) 731-0221
Honorable Senator Sessions:
The senseless killing of Robert LaVoy Finicum, the illegal prosecution, or should I say PERSECUTION?, of the Bundy Family, Joseph Robertson, Hammond Family, and the other Patriots involved, by the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Department of Justice should be investigated by Congress.
First of all the United States District Courts, FBI, DHS, ETC., have no jurisdiction over state inhabitants on our public lands, the constitution has not given them that authority:
Chief Justice John Marshall writing in 1828 about the difference between true Article III Judicial Courts and Article IV Legislative (territorial) Courts as created by Congress in 1946 Title 28 USC:
"These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general rights of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government.
[American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton]
[26 U.S. 511, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis added]"
The only Article III United States District Courts in existence today are in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. The other U. S. District Courts, which include Nevada and Oregon were created by Congress under Article IV of the constitution by an Act of Congress, June 25, 1948 entitled "Judicial Code and Judiciary", United States Statutes at Large, 62 Statutes, Chapter 646, volume 62 page 869.
Second, Title 15 USC codified into positive law by an Act of Congress, 62 Statutes, Chapter 645, volume 63, page 683 clearly defines the criminal jurisdiction of the United States, 62 Statutes page 685, definitions Section 7(3):
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
These political prisoners are fighting against a stacked deck. The Federal District Attorney, Chief Judge Gloria Navarro, Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen and Governor Sandoval were all recommended for appointment as Federal Judges by retiring Senator Harry Reid.
Any and all of the prosecutors, court clerks, judges and other federal employees who proceed against these Nevadans without jurisdiction are stepping out of their federal office and proceeding as private citizens exposing themselves to criminal prosecution and civil suits.
With the corruption in the current administration's department of justice who, if anyone will investigate this?
President Elect Donald Trump has pledged to "Drain the Swamp". The first order of business should be cleaning up the Dept. of Justice. As Mr. Trump's nominee for Attorney General I hope you share my concerns. This is a problem for all Americans.
Sincerely yours,
/s/James L. Jensen
James L. Jensen
CC: Bundy Ranch, Peter T. Santilli
Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore
Nevada Congressman Crescent Hardy
Jeanette Finicum, Aaron Blazevich
I don't know whos car this is, but I approve of this message
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...93&oe=58DD4EC7
Doug Knowles itmattershowyoustand.com
Ryan Bundy asks judge in Las Vegas to free him pending trial on standoff charges
By BEN BOTKIN
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL : 12-23-16
https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...10%2C210&ssl=1
Ryan Bundy, a son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, argued before a judge Friday that he should be released from federal custody as he awaits charges stemming from the 2014 armed standoff near Bunkerville.Bundy, arguing on his own behalf, told U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. in Las Vegas that he can’t adequately prepare for his case while detained and asserted that his right to a speedy trial have been violated.
“I am not afraid of the truth,” said Bundy, 44. “I just want the truth brought out.”
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre argued against releasing Bundy, saying his arguments have no merit and the charges against him are serious.
Foley indicated he’ll issue a written decision soon on whether to have a detention hearing, a more formal proceeding that would allow Bundy to call witnesses.
Bundy opened his presentation by telling the judge he wanted to start with a “word of prayer.” Foley said he could, provided it was short. He then offered a brief prayer of thanks that “truth will prevail.”
Bundy went on to say that he deserves a full evidentiary hearing with a chance to call witnesses, arguing the government hasn’t brought any evidence.
“There were a pack of lies that were told, but no evidence,” he said. “I want to be able to dispel those lies.”
“The Justice Department is deceiving this court,” Bundy said, adding he’s not a danger to anyone and there’s “no reason” to continue detaining him.
With his family looking on, he spoke of his need to provide for his wife, Angie, and their eight children.
“It’s my responsibility and my duty to make a living for them,” he said. “I owe this to them. I love them and they love me.”
He added: “It’s Christmas your honor, and I would like to be with them.”
Myhre responded that Bundy had a family in April 2014 when the standoff happened and should have been thinking of them then. As for his need to prepare for trial, Myhre said Bundy has had access to a court-appointed attorney yet chose to represent himself, despite being warned by the court that the case is complex.
Bundy is one of 17 defendants facing charges in the case, which is expected to have three trials. The first one is due to start Feb. 6. Other defendants include Cliven Bundy and Ryan’s brothers, Ammon, David and Melvin.
Ryan Bundy faces charges that include conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer and use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.
https://i2.wp.com/www.itmattershowyo...16%2C277&ssl=1
Joshua Martinez of Las Vegas stands in Support outside the hearing
The standoff occurred when Cliven Bundy and armed supporters confronted federal agents who had seized his cattle in a dispute over grazing on public lands without paying grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM had obtained a court order prior to impounding the cattle, but agents released them to avoid bloodshed.No shots were fired in the standoff, which attracted hundreds of Bundy supporters and sympathizers, many of them distrustful of the federal government.
All the defendants remain in federal custody.
Ryan Bundy has been in federal custody since Jan. 26, when he and Ammon Bundy were arrested during a 41-day standoff and occupation at a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. In that case, a jury in Portland found the Bundys not guilty of federal charges.
Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @BenBotkin1 on Twitter.
Bundy et al treated opposite of Supreme Court Ruling. I wonder if any of this will change with Harry Reid retired and a new Attorney General? Maybe the new administration will replace Odipshit's U S Attorney Bogdan
https://www.facebook.com/groups/8500...1944645911134/
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...f0&oe=58F145FB
Loren Pearce shared a link.
8 hrs
BUNDYS ET AL BEING TREATED OPPOSITE OF SUPREME COURT RULING
"In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception" United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 at 755 (1987)
The Bundys and other prisoners have been imprisoned in direct contradiction to this supreme court ruling. The government DID NOT meet the "carefully limited exception" test. Legal experts have defined what those carefully limited exceptions are. Please see this table comparing to how the Bundys have been treated.
ACTION ITEM: Write to your congressional representative asking them to investigate this matter. If possible, get an appointment to speak to a staff member. Tell them that you fear for your own liberty, as the courts could do the same thing to you or a loved one, as they have done to the Bundys et al.
https://external.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...ChJgkEMD7hGhpq
RYAN BUNDY AND BAIL REFORM ACT.docx
DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM
8 Likes1 Comment39 Shares
LikeCommentShare
Video psoted on J Grady channel - It is time to stand Judges have gone totally rogue 12/26/2016
http://youtu.be/58RksCqrOnA
https://youtu.be/58RksCqrOnA