Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

"Idaho gun enthusist" Eric Parker on the witness stand ~ the Review-Journal

Bunkerville protester testifies in his own defense at Las Vegas trial

Posted on April 7, 2017 by Doug Knowles

By Jenny Wilson Las Vegas Review-Journal April 6, 2017 - 8:40 pm

https://i0.wp.com/itmattershowyousta...00%2C200&ssl=1

Idaho gun enthusiast Eric Parker banked on his commitment to self-defense Thursday when he stepped to the witness stand and tried to convince jurors he played no role in a conspiracy to bully federal agents into abandoning their roundup of hundreds of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cows.

“I didn’t care about the cows,” said Parker, 33, who is one of six people charged as “gunmen” in the 2014 armed standoff in Bunkerville. During the standoff, Parker was photographed pointing a long gun through a jersey barrier on the Interstate 15 overpass that overlooked the sandy ditch where protesters were face-to-face with federal agents.

Parker said he arrived at the highway bridge thinking he was going to watch Bundy’s cows get released. Protesters were told at a morning rally that the Bureau of Land Management — after day’s of clashes with the rancher’s supporters — decided to abandon its operation to impound cattle from public land.

But when he arrived at the impoundment site, Parker said, he noticed a militant and heavily armed group of law enforcement officers that looked nothing like BLM agents he previously had encountered. He said he saw protesters walking toward the authorities with their hands up and heard one of the law enforcement officers threatening to use force if they approached.

https://i0.wp.com/itmattershowyousta...00%2C233&ssl=1

Tearful testimony
As his defense lawyer, Jess Marchese, displayed the photo of him pointing his gun from the highway overpass, Parker testified tearfully: “I made a decision. I didn’t want to hurt anybody, but I also didn’t want to see those people get hurt in the wash.”

Marchese asked Parker why he brought his gun and joined the protests if he did not care about the BLM’s cattle roundup.

“They were hurting people. I tell my kids that you have to stand up for your neighbor, and you have to be there for each other. And if I don’t do that, then I’m a hypocrite,” said Parker, a father of two who worked as an electrician before he was indicted on federal charges for his actions in Bunkerville.

The defendant was on the witness stand for five hours Thursday, and much of his testimony focused on his decision to drive 13 hours to Bunkerville with his two friends, Scott Drexler and Steven Stewart, who are being tried on the same charges.

Parker told jurors that in the days leading up to the standoff, as protesters were clashing with BLM agents in Bunkerville, he saw several videos and photos on social media that alarmed him.

A middle-aged woman being tackled to the ground by law enforcement officers. The bruised face of one of Bundy’s sons who was arrested during the protests. A video of BLM agents using a stun gun and police dogs on another one of Bundy’s sons. A cordoned off “First Amendment” zone in the middle of the desert. An April 8, 2014, press release issued by Gov. Brian Sandoval in which he declared: “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.”
Parker told jurors that above all, his perception that constitutional rights were being violated led him and his friends to drive to Bunkerville on April 11, 2014.

Federal prosecutors argue that after Sandoval’s press release, the BLM adjusted its approach to the cattle impoundment operation and, for example, took down the First Amendment area that was erected to contain protesters. But the Bundys’ calls for support from militia groups already had spread like wildfire on social media — and led hundreds of loosely organized, self-described militiamen to set up camp in Bunkerville.

https://i2.wp.com/itmattershowyousta...00%2C231&ssl=1

Cross-examination
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Dickinson, in cross-examination, tried to portray Parker as a member of one of those militia groups, highlighting his actions and Facebook posts to suggest he helped orchestrate a mass assault on law enforcement.

After the morning rally on April 12, 2014, Parker posted to Facebook: “Bundy gave the sheriff one hour to disarm the BLM. He did not reply. We are now going to free the cattle by any means. The sheriff claimed that the BLM is standing down but offered no proof. This is when Mr. Bundy gave him the, ‘do it or else.’ We will not be lied to.”
Dickinson got Parker to concede that much misinformation is spread on social media, and that his research in the days preceding the standoff may not have given him an accurate or complete picture of the events in Bunkerville.

“You saw that there were calls for militia, and people with guns. … To match force with them you needed to bring a gun?” Dickinson asked.

“I thought they were a lot less likely to drag my face into the ground,” Parker testified. Later, he said, “I was armed so nobody hurt me.”

Dickinson had not finished his cross-examination when court adjourned Thursday. Parker is scheduled to take the witness stand when the trial resumes Monday.

Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.

Testimony to continue Monday
Prosecutor Nicholas Dickinson had not finished his cross-examination of defendant Eric Parker when court adjourned Thursday. Parker is scheduled to return to the witness stand when the trial resumes Monday in Las Vegas




source






Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook
  26
• Google
• Email
• Print
• More

Standoff & Government Infiltration ~ Hagmann & Hagmann Report. 1 1/4 hour. I haven't watched yet

http://youtu.be/9sxwLCi5Lcc

https://youtu.be/9sxwLCi5Lcc

Public Notice from Fully Informed Jury Assosiation

PUBLIC NOTICE: CONTRARY TO WHAT ANY SO CALLED JUDGE AND OR PROSECUTOR'S (OFFICERS OF THE COURT) INSTRUCTIONS MAY BE THROUGH THREAT, DURESS, COERCION, OR INTIMIDATION YOU AS A JUROR HAVE THE AUTHORITY, RIGHT AND DUTY TO ACT WITHOUT THEIR INTERFERENCE AND TAMPERING...

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and second president of the United States, said of the juror in 1771: “It is not only his right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” The highest function of the juror is not to dispense punishment to fellow citizens for breaking the law, but rather to protect us all from unjust laws and malicious prosecutions pursued by power-hungry government employees. Jurors protect society from dangerous individuals, but primarily, jurors protect individuals from dangerous government.

Prosecutors, judges, arresting officers, and investigators in most cases, all receive their paychecks from government, with their compensation and career prospects dependent on convictions to keep the legal system busy and prisons full. Corruption is given incentive. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are the most objective individuals in the courtroom. Good conscience among jurors, not corrupted by power of government office, can recognize when a person’s action has not harmed anyone deserves no punishment.

The authority and right of jurors to consider the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience dates back centuries, even predating our own Constitution. The Magna Carta in 1215 specifically appointed jurors to protect people against government abuses of power. In the 1670 case of William Penn, the king’s judge demanded a guilty verdict, but the jurors refused to convict, even after being jailed for their refusal. In freeing the jailed jurors, a higher court subsequently affirmed and firmly established that the authority of the juror is above the authority of the judge for our system of law. The newly founded American government, created with the intent to defend the rights of the people, enshrined the authority of the juror above the authority of government judges.

We, as jurors, all have this authority still today! Jurors who are informed of their right to refuse to enforce unjust laws and prosecutions, and who have the fortitude not to be intimidated by those bent on conviction, are the last peaceful defense of our liberties.

fija.org

Few people in our country realize the Bundy trials are an attack on the Bill of Rights. Primarily the First and Second Amendments. These trials are not about livestock grazing or desert tortoises. They are about a one world order, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030.

The communist legislature of the State of Oregon has a bill pending against forming militias when the Constitution mandates the 'Militia of the Several States'.

With everything that has gone down in this country in the last few years it should be obvious that the people must regain control over the government. The country needs sound money and a "well regulated" militia. A guideline to achieve both is presented at:

http://constitutionalmilitia.org/sil...by-the-states/

http://constitutionalmilitia.org/chs...ional-militia/

Will any of this come to pass? I am doubtful as hell. The people are asleep, expect the government to provide for them and will sit helplessly watching the country self destruct.

http://youtu.be/vHOYh2lQPus



https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...d2&oe=5992AD24


Angela Roman shared a link.

23 hrs

I am a citizen and patriot from Oregon. I am a policy analyst in the house of Representatives here at the state capitol . I do NOT hold any position to make or approve laws. I was given a great opportunity for this position and i don't want be for nothing. I don't know about politics but my joining of iii% and this last election has opened my eyes to the corruption and the real battles us Americans face. I've been victim to unconstitutional persecution and I see it going on so often that it is actually becoming the norm here in the state of Oregon from my own personal experience, the unlawful charges against Michael Strickland , to our political prisoners from the Oregon Standoff, and to the murder of LaVoy Finicum ( may he rest in peace).

I am learning the political process to learn how to actually help with restoring the law of the land and the Constitution of the Untied States of America and for my children, and their children. I post about different legislation I see coming through to get the word out and help explain what I know so far about the process. What i do know is that people need to SHOW up, no matter where you live it starts locally get involved show up to town halls, school board meetings, committee hearings in your cities, counties, and states. Learn your state legislative website it tells you everything.

We actually have some legislature coming through Oregon that is a punishment for the Oregon Standoff. I will post the bill below. I don't know that much about the stand off but what I do know is this violates our constitutional right to have and form a well regulated militia. This is another attempt to over take "we the people" and make an example out of LaVoy and his death should not be in vain and this would be many steps back of what he wanted accomplished.


Oregon Legislative Information System
OLIS.LEG.STATE.OR.US


11 Likes8 Comments5 Shares

LikeCommentShare

The antics of Judge Gloria Navarro have caused the courtroom to be completely filled with Bundy suppoerters

J Grady video

http://youtu.be/O_fgYUHUP0Q

https://youtu.be/O_fgYUHUP0Q

John Lamb 4/10/17 court update ~ J Grady

http://youtu.be/zhOq18Vykro

https://youtu.be/zhOq18Vykro

Andrea Olson-Parker Full Update 4/10/17 ~ J Grady

http://youtu.be/rzVIUL2CDxI

https://youtu.be/rzVIUL2CDxI

John Lamb Jericho march, Defense rests 4/10/17 ~ J Grady

http://youtu.be/IyXHKDUF3LE

https://youtu.be/IyXHKDUF3LE

A repost by J Grady of the video that is resposible for the title of Ares thread 'Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher'

https://s19.postimg.org/6s0e59s0z/IMG_1547.png

The Video the Feds Don't Want You to See

http://youtu.be/rRfNjYzL7qk

https://youtu.be/rRfNjYzL7qk

Eric Parker cross examined 4/10/17 Defense Rests, Closing Arguments Wednesday

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/loc...ation.html.csp

Defenses rest in Nevada rancher standoff trial

By Ken Ritter
The Associated Press
9:12 a.m., April 10, 2017


LAS VEGAS — An Idaho man whose photo as an armed protester in Nevada was seen around the world was the only one of six defendants to testify Monday in their trial on charges they wielded weapons against federal agents during a 2014 standoff involving cattleman and states’ rights advocate Cliven Bundy.

Eric Parker was asked during cross-examination about his Facebook post during the confrontation saying that protesters planned to free Bundy cattle “by any means” — and about his comments after the standoff ended in an interview recorded by a man with cellphone video on a freeway overpass near Bunkerville.

“You said this could have potentially turned violent?” prosecutor Nicholas Dickinson asked.

“Absolutely,” Parker answered.

In the video, he gave his name as Eric from Idaho, and he was still holding the AK-47 style rifle and wearing his ballistic vest with two spare clips of bullets for his handgun.

Minutes earlier, flag-waving riders on horseback and more than 100 unarmed protesters including women and children faced off with about 30 heavily armed federal agents near a gate of a corral in a dry riverbed beneath the highway bridge.

Parker, now 33, was famously photographed prone on the pavement, looking with his rifle through a seam in a concrete freeway barrier toward the federal agents in the U-shaped wash below.

The crowd demanded the release of cows rounded up in the Gold Butte area about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Parker testified he remembered the wind carrying the words “lethal force,” “will be shot,” amid muffled warnings from loudspeakers used by agents to warn protesters not to take another step.

Parker’s defense attorney, Jess Marchese, asked during direct questioning how Parker interpreted calls by Cliven Bundy for a “range war” to stop federal agents from confiscating his cattle.

“Did you want to start a shooting war?” Marchese asked.

“No sir,” Parker answered.

Defendants Gregory Burleson of Arizona, Richard Lovelien of Oklahoma, Idaho residents Todd Engel, Scott Drexler and Steven Stewart told Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro they decided not to testify.

The judge gave both sides until Tuesday to prepare for closing arguments Wednesday in the trial that opened Feb. 9.

Defense attorneys are expected to argue the government didn’t prove conspiracy, weapon, assault on a federal agent and other charges that could, combined, get each up to 101 years in federal prison.

In another development, Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre asked in court filings for the judge to schedule jury selection to start June 5 or later for the trial of Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and two other defendants who prosecutors characterize as leaders of a conspiracy to defy court orders to get Bundy cattle off public land.

Trial for another six defendants would follow in the fall. Myhre said in documents the government might call up to 60 witnesses in the next trial.

That could take much longer than the two months spent presenting nearly 40 prosecution witnesses against the six men accused of being gunmen and followers in the confrontation.

Parker said he arrived in Bunkerville with Drexler and Stewart before dawn the day of the standoff, didn’t know Bundy family members personally, and headed back to Idaho before dark.

In one exchange, prosecutor Nicholas Dickinson asked Parker about his comment during his interview on the overpass about needing to “keep matching the show of force” against federal authorities.

“Just like Cliven Bundy told you to do, correct?” Dickinson asked.

“Nobody told us to do anything, sir,” Parker answered.

More Federal Court articles »

As go the casinos in Las Vegas so go the Federal Courts. In Las Vegas the house does not lose.

Kelli Stewart's video is a must watch.

The House Does Not Lose In Las Vegas


THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, OBLIVIOUS TO THESE ATROCITIES, GOES ABOUT THEIR LIVES

April 11, 2017 BLM, FBI, Nevada

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ch-678x381.png
Supporters outside courtroom, Las Vegas. (Photo: FB)

The House Does Not Lose In Las Vegas

By Loren Edward Pearce

In Las Vegas, Sin City, it is known that the house never loses. Likewise, at the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada the federal team, consisting of the judge, the prosecutors and the marshals, will not lose in their own house. The statistics are clearly in favor of the house. Between guilty pleas and trials, the conviction rate was 99.8% in U.S. federal courts in 2015: 126,802 convictions and 258 acquittals. That wasn’t an anomaly. In 2014 the conviction rate was 99.76% and in 2013 it was 99.75%.

That is why the full acquittal in the Oregon trial of the Bundys et al, is such a miracle. Now, in Nevada, we have an entirely different situation as the federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals) double down in a determined effort not to repeat the loss in their own house. Kelli Stewart, who attended most of the trial in Oregon, was able to see the contrast between the two federal District Courts. Stewart, who came all the way from Washington to attend court and see/hear/smell/sense for herself how awful Nevada court is, was able to confirm what she had heard from others. I was in Las Vegas also and it was refreshing to have Kelli confirm what we were experiencing, i.e., that the behavior of the Nevada federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals) was abysmally awful.

I was there also. I can vouch for and confirm what she is describing. As noted in previous articles, the bias and incompetence of Gloria Navarro are breathtaking. We cannot shrug it off because of the mind boggling consequences to the defendants, many years of prison, sexual abuse, solitary confinement and separation from family and means of earning a livelihood.

Kelli Stewart's Video
https://www.facebook.com/groups/8248...8319643280017/


BOUNCING AROUND THE COURTROOM LIKE PEEWEE HERMAN

1. Referring to Prosecutor Nicholas Dickinson, Stewart describes his sinister, malevolent and smug mannerisms and behavior as he cross examined defendant Eric Parker on the witness stand. It almost seemed that Dickinson slithered rather than walked around the courtroom. As he presented government evidence with photos and video, dozens and dozens of times he would say, “that is you with the long rifle, the vest with the metal plates and the hat with the white logo?” And dozens and dozens of times, Eric would say respectfully, “yes sir”. Finally, in frustration, Eric said, “yes sir, I never changed my clothes until that night.” What Dickinson was trying to achieve, I don’t know, but Peewee Herman weirdness, it was.

2. As we returned from a break, a supporter of the defendants was beginning to take a seat when a marshal screamed at him that he didn’t have his pocket constitution turned the right way. The man acted confused and before he could get clarification, a marshal grabbed him by the arm and ejected him from the court. The marshals demand that the front cover of the pocket constitution not be shown but must be turned around and face backwards. If there is any doubt that this court is their house, the marshals confirmed it was.

3. The prosecution presented evidence that Eric Parker was associated with the Idaho 3% militia in an attempt to show the jury that anybody that is associated with a militia is a bad guy. Regardless of the fact that a civilian militia is mentioned three times in the constitution, the federal team would have you believe that a militia is bad.
VIOLATION OF THE 1^ST AMENDMENT: YOUR FACEBOOK POSTS WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU

4. For me, the most shocking development of the trial was the federal team’s use of Facebook posts against the defendants. The defense attorney’s objected on the basis of authenticity. Other people can post, tag, like, share or fraudulently post in your name (identity theft) and you are guilty of conspiracy against the federal team and subject to harsh penalties and years of prison if you post something (or somebody posts for you) that the government doesn’t like. 1^st Amendment right to free speech? No mention of the 1^st Amendment in front of the jury was allowed. The defense also objected on hearsay and almost all defense objections were denied by the federal team in their own house.

5. Dickinson tried to use Facebook posts from Parker that referred to having won against the feds as a show of conspiracy and Facebook quotes from “Art of War” by Sun Tzu as evidence that Parker conspired to war against the feds. Parker responded that he was debating with another Facebook user about “Art of War” and not conspiring to war against the feds. Again, the lengths the federal team was willing to go to not lose in their own house. The feds had pulled off the internet reams of posts, emails and other private matters in violation of the 1^st and 4^thamendments.

6. The prosecution showed quotes from Parker that had to do with Range War. Parker explained that the word “war” does not refer to violence or blood shed any more than the War on Poverty, or the War on Obesity refers to violence. The prosecution tried to use a video interview with Parker on the bridge where he asked for a “show of force” as further evidence that he was inciting violence against federal officials. Parker replied that he wanted a show of force in terms of numbers, strength in numbers, not in the use of firearms or weapons.

KEY WITNESSES DENIED BY THE FEDERAL TEAM

7. At one point, the prosecution raised the subject of Margaret Houston, the woman who was body slammed by the BLM agent, and the defense claimed that the prosecution had opened the door to having Houston testify. The federal team (Navarro) sustained their own objection and refused to allow Houston to testify as her testimony would be very harmful to the federal team’s goal to not lose in their own house.

8. As you may know, Special Agent Dan Love, who was in charge of the Bunkerville operation, was prohibited from testifying by the federal team (Navarro) so as to not lose in their own house.

Stewart said that we need to prepare the defendant supporters, emotionally and psychologically, for a guilty verdict absent divine intervention. As she notes in her video, the defense attorneys have basically given up, are ineffective and defeated as they realize it is impossible to win in the house of the federal team.

The problem is this, losing is not an option for the defense. Having visited some of the unconvicted prisoners in the Nevada prison, I can say that the degree of suffering and depression experienced by the prisoners is beyond comprehension.

I am writing this article in a local McDonald’s. I just overheard one of the customers say, “Are you ready for Easter?” as the average American, oblivious to these atrocities, goes about their lives.

Put yourself in the prisoner’s place. What would you do?

An essay that sounds like it may be from the USSR, A DISTURBING STORY ABOUT AMERICAN JUSTICE

It disturbs me to hear how incompetent the public pretenders are. It is worse they don't assert their status and challenge the court's jurisdiction so they can raise the issue on appeal. Only a handful of us will ever hear this. Even the local news in Las Vegas ignores it.

A DISTURBING TRUE STORY ABOUT AMERICAN JUSTICE

By Kit Perez | Apr 10, 2017 | All Featured Articles, First Amendment, Law, The Constitution | 1 |

http://libertynation.com/wp-content/...it-150x150.jpg
Kit Perez

http://libertynation.com/wp-content/...on-300x225.jpg

The courtroom is dusty and hot, and the onlookers, reporters, and your family crowd the chamber. You feel out of place and afraid as you rub your sweaty hands together nervously at the defense table. In your heart, you know you did the right thing, but now you are on trial. Losing this battle means prison, and not necessarily just for you. The trial is a public spectacle, and if you are found guilty the floodgates will open, setting a precedent for others who believe as you do to be arrested and tried just the same. The stakes are incredibly high, but at this moment all you can think about is your wife and children sitting behind you praying harder than they ever have.

For weeks you watched the prosecution paint you as a violent criminal who should go to jail. You’ve watched over and over as people you thought you knew took the stand for the prosecution, lying about who you are and what you did. Worse, you’ve seen the judge openly side with them. Repeatedly she has refused to allow the evidence that proves your innocence, refused even to hear your attorney’s arguments. You aren’t allowed to ask questions; your attorney isn’t even allowed to cross-examine many of the witnesses. You don’t understand; you have the right to question your accusers, don’t you? At least, it says so in the pocket-sized Constitution you carry in your shirt. You’re not allowed to look at it; the judge has decreed that no copies of the Constitution are allowed in the courtroom unless they are turned backward, hiding what they are. Not even spectators can carry the little booklets without turning them face down.

There is video evidence exonerating you, explaining the context of what happened and showing your state of mind and lack of malicious intent. In fact, the videos show plainly that you were forced to defend yourself against a more powerful aggressor. You managed to get your attackers to step back, to stand down, and you showed restraint even though they assaulted you, threw you to the ground, pointed a gun at your head, and shot your animals. You stood firm and said “no more,” making it clear that you would not run away in fear. And now here you sit, charged with a list of crimes in a courtroom that is nothing like what the document in your pocket says it should be.

Some of the witnesses leave out information they know would prove you innocent. Since your attorney is rarely allowed to cross-examine, their false statements stand and are entered into court records and heard by the jury with no rebuttal.

The prosecution witnesses all sit there in the courtroom watching the proceedings, even before they testify. You know this is wrong, but the judge has already ruled that they can stay. Defense witnesses, however, must leave. No matter what you do the judge rules against you. Several times the judge objected for your attorney. He is allowed only to raise his hand if he does, in fact, want to agree with the judge’s objection. He is not allowed to object himself — and the judge allows the prosecution to finish before ruling on the objection. The jury is educated enough to know to dismiss the information on their own if the objection is sustained, the judge claims.

She has also instructed you and your attorney that any witnesses you call are not allowed to speak of their faith, talk of their fear during the incident, show emotion, or anything else that might “pull on the heartstrings of the jury.” To add insult to injury, the media played videos on their newscast of one of your ‘friends’ saying violent things, even though they were working for your attackers at the time. The media never bothered to mention that part in their reporting — which means that you are now forever linked to statements you did not make and did not approve.

When it’s finally time for your attorney to present your defense and call witnesses on your behalf, the judge refuses to let them testify. Calling them “political” or insulting their intelligence and lack of expertise even though they are eye witnesses to what happened; she dismisses almost all of them, leaving you with a gnawing sense of dread. The judge has denied you the right to call other witnesses as well, saying their testimony is not important to the defense — even though they were the ringleaders of those who attacked you.

Other witnesses who have come forward to testify for you were threatened with arrest; it’s all an ongoing conspiracy, they are told. We can indict more people at any time. Many of those who saw the truth are afraid to speak out now for fear that they will find themselves in the chair you currently occupy, shuffling your feet nervously as you watch this horror unfold. The judge allowed the prosecution over six weeks of testimony; she has told you and your attorney you must present your defense in only five days. The judge says you have only three rights in her courtroom. You can plead guilty, you can testify on your own behalf, and you can appeal your conviction. You look around but no one stops her; no one stands up to say that this is wrong.

You will lose this battle — not because you are a violent criminal, but because this judge is engaging in everything that the Constitution supposedly protects you from. You have no voice, and there is nothing you can do. You have the right to refuse to testify, but the rules of your trial leave you no other defense. The judge will not let anyone defend you, so once again you must rise up and defend yourself. You only hope it’s enough. Taking a deep breath, you pray from the bottom of your soul…and then you raise your right hand.

******************

The story above sounds like something out of a third world country, doesn’t it? Perhaps it’s a dystopian novel, or even a horrible nightmare, right? No — it’s real.

This exact scenario is playing out as we speak, in a federal courtroom in Las Vegas, Nevada. On Thursday, April 6, Eric Parker took the stand to defend himself and his co-defendants because federal judge Gloria Navarro has violated every right they have in a courtroom.

What are they accused of? Perhaps the better question is: does it matter? Even if Eric Parker and the other defendants were accused of horrific crimes (they’re not), they have the right to a fair trial. Even if they’re crazy (they’re not), they have the right to a fair trial. Even if they are wrong in what they believe — and they are not — they have the right to a fair trial.

So what did Eric Parker and his co-defendants do that has the federal government riled up enough to blatantly and defiantly defile the Constitution? They went to a ranch in Nevada and stood against government agents who were shooting a rancher’s cows and stealing whatever they didn’t shoot. For their trouble, some of them were tazed, knocked to the ground, assaulted, and even spent time in the crosshairs of government snipers. They said no. They defended the man’s ranch. They stood firm. Now they sit in court and endure a trial that mocks the very core of American justice.

None of that matters, however. None of it. The real story here isn’t about grazing fees, taxes, ranches, or anything else. At this point, the story is that a vengeful federal government — forced to back down from their illegal, unconstitutional and immoral activities — decided to seek vengeance in a courtroom against the people who had the guts to stand and say no. If that’s not a government out of control, what is?

Pray for Eric Parker and the rest of the defendants in Nevada. Pray for the rest of us too, for yourselves and your families — because if the government can do this in a dusty desert courtroom, they can do it anywhere. Call someone. Leverage whatever influence you have. Demand answers. Demand accountability. If they get away with this, who’s to stop them when it’s you at the defense table?

If you’d like to know more about Eric Parker, you can read this interview about his time at the Bundy Ranch.

As my sig. line states 'army of unelected bureaucrats', the result of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, followed by the merging of the General Land Office with the National Grazing Service to create the Bureau of Land Management also in 1946 which started with an office in Battle Mountain, Nevada and two employees in the mid 1950s now has grown to a force of over 10,000 employees, some para-military with an annual budget of 1.2 billion dollars.

These people are unelected, virtually impossible to fire write their own regulations with virtually no oversight from Congress and little or no public input. Until the 1990s when the Congressional Oversight Act (unsure of the correct name) was passed there were no controls. I read a few weeks ago this act has only been used with success but one time. I didn't note which agency.

If any Act of Congress is unconstitutional it is the Administrative Procedures Act. Article I Section 8 gives Congress power to legislate. They abdicated that power to the Executive Branch with passage of the Aministative Procedures Act and also the Antiquities Act.

I believe this paper was written shortly after the Bundy Ranch Protest.

https://www.facebook.com/garland.bil...40689886025226

Bill Garland added 5 new photos.

21 hrs ·

This article was written by Waddie Mitchell
________________________________________
Fifteen facts you should know (and a little commentary you should probably hear):

1. Regulation without representation is tyranny.

2. The first amendment guarantees Americans the right to be represented in the making of regulations they will live under.

3. Private citizens have no representation in the regulations that the BLM writes, enforces and ultimately will judge disputes, yet we are forced to obey. Some of those regulations have grave effects on states, communities, business and private citizens.

4. The very nature of a bureaucracy is to grow.

Commentary: The BLM has grown out of control. They used strong-arm tactics; armored vehicles, agents in fatigues, helmets and full body armor, automatic weapons, attack dogs, Tasers, you get the point, to collect on a debt of … money … they claimed is owed by the rancher Cliven Bundy. Cliven Bundy has no criminal background, but does happen to live on a piece of ground his family has lived on for a century.

The BLM wants that piece of land for the privately owned water rights. Not to protect a tortoise. Not to improve the range. All this through no “law of the land,” but through BLM regulation, regulation they wrote.

5. There is no debtors prison in America.

Commentary: The only way to go to prison in America for a debt, is a debt to the government. Why does that not surprise? What is good for the goose is not good for the gander, when the gander is the government.

6. The BLM is willing to kill Americans to collect on a debt of … money … not stolen from anybody, not earned by them, just billed by them because they wrote a regulation.

Commentary: Wayne Hage, the Dann sisters, Raymond Yowell, Laney and many others who were raided and had their livelihoods stolen, never have presented a threat to national, state, county, city or citizens safety. I know the “willing to kill” thing might sound harsh, but when you have an army of uniformed thugs, body armored up with automatic weapons warning through a bull horn, if you come any closer, we will shoot, qualifies as showing a willingness.

7. The Bureau of Land Management is overseen by a man who has, admittedly, no background or education in land management, but is a relative of Harry Reid’s.

8. Harry Reid said the President is just a black man with a white man’s accent, then called the targeted Bundy a racist for using the word “negro.”

Commentary: as far as I know the word “negro” is not now nor ever has been the “n” word. It was the word of choice in the black community of Cliven and Harry’s generation.

9. The BLM and USFS have systematically put American citizens out of business, stolen private property, water rights, and land with no restitution to their victims and no accountability.

Commentary: I guess they want more private property to add to the 90 percent of the land in Nevada, and the other huge percentages of federal lands in the other western States, they already rule over.

10. The BLM lost an important case in court for the very scenarios and tactics they are still employing. They have the use of all the government lawyers they want, that we taxpayers pay for. They stalled the court proceedings in the Wayne Hage case for over 20 years with our tax dollars, of course, created false evidence and bankrupted families that were stuck in the black hole of the legal system. They committed perjury, yet with all their shenanigans, when it finally got to an unbiased court they lost the case. Wayne Hage fought the tyranny the last third of his life but died broke before the ruling came down.

Commentary: The BLM was chewed on and chastised by the judge for way overstepping their powers, falsifying evidence, lying, stalling and ruining lives. The judgement against the BLM was for over $1.6 million of our tax dollars. Even with that, no government employee was ever held accountable. Ganders have it made, if you think having it made is being one who would help turn America into a police state.

11. In over three years since the ruling and judgement the BLM has not paid one cent of the court-ordered restitution to the affected family. Commentary: What do you think would happen if the family that’s owed over a million dollars by the BLM would get an army of thugs and go after the BLM employees, intimidate their neighbors and family and steal their private property? Oh yeah, the goose and gander thing again.

12. The BLM and the USFS have proven, since their inception, their inability to perform the purpose of their very existence. Commentary: that being the management of the federal lands, animals on that land and multiple use. Studies show the land is less productive and is in worse shape than when the agencies began to aggressively “manage” things and has a two-thirds loss in productivity. The feral horse issue has become ridiculously expensive, is detrimental to the land and is an inhumane nightmare. Multiple use has fewer “multiples” in the equation. They’ve closed hundreds of miles of public access roads, closed off millions of acres to the public, let millions of acres burn through poor management. Those burns have led to thousands and thousands of acres eroding and washing away.

13. American tax dollars keep paying for the benefits and raises that the underachieving, over aggressive and overpaid agencies give themselves.

Commentary: Here is how they manage their (our) money — the BLM budgeted six million dollars to go collect on a $1.3 million disputed debt. Let’s see, that’s spending six dollars to collect one dollar and thirty cents, which is a four dollar and seventy cent loss, times a million. Good plan BLM. Makes us feel good about all the other billions you spend. Seventy-five percent of that disputed bill is interest and penalties that only the government could get away with charging. If you tried that extortion the same government would arrest you. Oops, the goose thing again.

Now, why, if they thought what they were doing was forthright would they come backed by an army? In the same light, why would so many people come to stand against tyranny?

13. American tax dollars keep paying for the benefits and raises the underachieving, over-dominating agencies give themselves. Commentary: while we ride the hard times out. Goosie Goosie.

14. The BLM has recently kicked ranchers off allotments that are 56 percent privately owned by the ranchers, yet they have no say on how it’s used.

Commentary: and for reasons real range management experts disagree with the BLM on. In fact, the real experts would suggest the lands have use to reduce fire fodder and many other reasons.

Oh yeah, all the water rights on said allotment are privately owned by the rancher. One especially pompous, high-pocketed BLM bureaucrat, who is way too big for his britches, ignored the real land manager’s advice and wielded his undeserved, unearned, unqualified and unelected power and ordered the removal of the cattle from the allotment which would essentially put three established and well respected families (Tomeras, Filippinis and Mariluches) out of business with no restitution or recourse.

With the ranchers gone, the BLM can get a hold of more private water rights. Once again, water rights are the real reason. Not range health. Then, this sorry, wannabe important bureaucrat will get transferred to another area to ruin more lives and move the government closer to full control.

A governor, two county commissions, sheriff and huge number of citizens who all want to get rid of one inept, blundering bureaucrat, found they couldn’t.

Why? Cuz he’s a bureaucrat. Private citizens of this nation are held accountable for their actions, productivity and honesty when someone who couldn’t make it in the real world has proven to be terrible at his job, but works, no, is employed by the government, can’t be fired by the people that pay for his paycheck. That dern goose and gander yet again.

15. The BLM and the USFS feed the spin to the press that the BLM and the USFS want America to hear.

Commentary: and seldom the truth. Whatever happened to the spotted owl that they made such a big deal about? That little bugger put industries out of business, displaced families and cost this country billions. All for their lies.

A generally astute TV commentator/comic, Bill Maher, matter of factly, naively and obviously uninformed of the facts, labeled Bundy a redneck extremist and blew off the story.

Some weeks later he did a long monologue, quite well I should add, on how law enforcement was going way past the bounds a people in a free society should put up with or allow. Should we in the remote West be shunned of his and the nation’s dialog and concern because it happened in a less populated part of our country and Harry and his Feds could feed the spin they wanted you to hear?

We didn’t have riots and looting, but we did have a dangerous stand-off with an out of control, police state, government agency. Our story should not have been squashed by Harry’s Reid’s political maneuvers and clout.

The people that came to “Bundyville” are not “a few loonies that always show up.” We are not “redneck extremists.” We are hard-working, tax paying Americans of both parties, different nationalities, denominations, religions, varied ages, both sexes, productive and concerned citizens, doing something about our obligation to stand against tyranny. Don’t forget, over 90 percent of the State of Nevada is federally owned. Who would you imagine swings the biggest stick on the playground? Does that seem right to you? On any level?

Ferguson, Missouri, got much attention so people were kept abreast, real time, of the goings on. We watched as people rioted and looted businesses. Reporters actually try to get to the roots of the stories. America demands accountability. The live interviews, commentary and images help them come to conclusions. All would not agree, but all would have an opportunity to see both sides. Why? because people wondered and wanted to know if it was just an excuse to riot and loot, or if law officials stepped over their given powers and used excessive force. Sound familiar? The story is unfolding under the watch of Americans and you “can bet yur flannins” there will be people held accountable for wrong-doings. You see, they don’t work for the government. Goose goose.

I would love the American people to actually see and be told both sides of all the real stories of BLM and USFS abuse of power. I have no doubt a high percent of Americans would be appalled at the blatant bullying our federal agencies have made common practice. Americans have let the BLM go on with their Gestapo attitude and unwarranted force because we would rather believe the sound bites we are fed by the Feds than come to the realization our government could be that corrupt. We all know how well our government agencies perform their duties, don’t we? The BLM and the USFS must be good, right?

We don’t want to believe there is such a thing as inefficient, corrupt or inept government agencies or politicians, no matter how many times a year a corrupted and overstepping agency or politician, is a lead story on the news. Even with all the proof that the BLM and USFS possess all three of those foul traits, (ineptness, ineffectiveness, and being corrupt, not to mention the waste of billions and billions of our taxes) the BLM and the USFS must deserve our benefit of the doubt, right? Come on, get real. We let them continue because we can’t fire them. Don’t forget, they make the rules. Plus, we can’t fathom this kind of goings on in this country. We can’t conceive of and don’t want to believe it could really be happening in the United States, but from those of us who have seen it firsthand, believe it. Good folks of America, it is really happening!

Constitution 101 - An Idahoan's attempt to have the Idaho legislature support the four Bundy defendants who are Idaho residents.

DPR_43 Constitution 101, The Elected Fail and the Prisoners Pay

https://s2.googleusercontent.com/s2/...=dallypost.comdallypost.com/constitution-101-the-elected-fail-and-the-prisoners-pay/

Lance Earl4/8/2017https://i0.wp.com/dallypost.com/wp-c...umb.png?w=1000In each conversation, I began with a reminder that closing arguments will soon begin in the case of these men and, to date, those who were elected and sworn to defend the constitution have remained silent. I asked each to immediately release a strongly worded letter to define their position and educate their constituents. The responses were deeply troubling.
Download episode

---

During the recent legislative session, I, and many of the people, sent instructions to all Idaho Legislators and Sheriffs. In all, over 5000 emails were sent. These instructions demanded that these elected officials, individually and in their official capacities, write a letter in opposition to the constitutional violations that led to federal charges, arrests and prosecution of five Idaho citizens. These are in relationship to the 2014 Bundy ranch standoff. These elected officials were directed have their letters published and distributed in a specific manner. To assist them in this action, a total of thirteen violations of the United States and/or Idaho constitutions were defined and described in the instructions. Shamefully, not one of these recipients responded.

This past Thursday, April 6, 2017, I placed many phone calls to many in the Idaho State Legislature. Today, I will discuss my conversation with three. For now, I will keep their identities private in the hope that they might be teachable… redeemable. For now, I will simply refer to them as Peter, Paul and Mary.

The Tenth Amendment is clear, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The purpose is to constrain the Federal Government to a few limited functions and keep the balance of power close to the people where their needs are best represented.

In each conversation, I began with a reminder that closing arguments will soon begin in the case of these men and, to date, those who were elected and sworn to defend the constitution have remained silent. I asked each to immediately release a strongly worded letter to define their position and educate their constituents. The responses were deeply troubling.

I mentioned to Mary that the Federal Government has no policing authority inside the states except for a few delegated powers that do not apply in this case. When she asked where I get that information, I responded, Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. She stated that it is difficult for her to take action at this time because just being able to show that the Constitution is violated is not enough. In this, she is mistaken. The Constitution is everything. It is our supreme law. Absolutely documenting an abuse is the strongest card she can play.

Peter quickly agreed that the Constitutional rights of these men have been grossly abused. He stated that if these men are found guilty, the people ought to “riot”. When he made the same claim a second time, I asked, “can I quote you on that?” and he answered that I may. I agree that the people should respond as strongly as legally possible, but the good legislator is just one year late. Where was he in the beginning?

Then he stated that it is the Judiciary that determines the constitutionality of a given law.

In the ratification conventions, people in each of the states argued for and against the Constitution. One of the biggest issues was to find a way to control usurpations of power by the Federal Government. Universally, it was decided that the States, being the parties to the compact (the Constitution), and being the creators of the Federal Government are superior and sovereign in every way. James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, wrote, “The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

My conversation with Paul was rather earth shattering. Again and again, he claimed that these Idaho men were receiving proper representation in the Federal Courts. How can this be when these very courts are exercising powers not delegated in the Constitution? And, if these powers are not delegated, they remain with the people or the states. And, if these powers remain with the people or the states, then the only proper authority is vested in that Nevada Sheriff and Prosecutor. They, having proper authority, reviewed the case and determined to not bring charges.

The Declaration of Independence provides a list of grievances against King George. One of these states, “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.” Paul cannot see that precisely the same thing is occurring before his eyes and he has done nothing. The people of the State of Idaho have been taken from their homes, from the natural protections of their people, state and government to by tried in the King’s Court, a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution.

Finally, Paul issued a veiled threat. He suggested that if I publicly criticize him, I may affect the next election and that his replacement will not be so conservative as he. Conservative! What the hell does that mean? Virtually every politician in the state of Idaho, from the most decent to the most corrupt, runs on a conservative platform. The term itself is a mist, a vapor, a smoke without form or limitation or definition. Is there any person who can precisely draw the line separating conservative and liberal? No line can be drawn because there is no definition of these terms. Conservative representation is the worst thing for the people of Idaho.

We need constitutional representation. The Constitution is defined. We can look at any action and discover, with precision, if it is constitutional or criminal. It is precise, defined, established. It is the tool by which freedom can and ought to be preserved. Is there a sheriff or legislator in this state who possesses the ability to apply the Constitution for the benefit of the people? All evidence indicates that such a person does not exist.

How then will liberty be preserved where none there are who understand the basics of Constitution 101.

It seems that the Judiciary has been given the authority by acquiescence to determine constitutionality of the Constitution. They find it unconstitutional..

Lance is correct though. These people have been transported outside of the land of the US and are being tried in another jurisdiction, Unfortunately people won't be cognizant of this because the building is on land, although it's realm is on water which is under the power of the Empire in accordance with the final treaty of the War of Independence. They won't be able to get their heads around it.

The Blue Wall of Silence in Las Vegas ~ by Deb Jordan - Guerrilla Media Network


The Las Vegas Blue Wall Of Silence: Not So Invisible After First Bundy Ranch Trial

petesantillishow

Home › News › The Las Vegas Blue Wall Of Silence: Not So Invisible After First Bundy Ranch Trial

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...ine_Resize.jpg
GMN
STRONG – PROVEN – JOURNALISM

Wednesday – April 12, 2017
by Deb Jordan

As an Independent journalist it has not been easy to penetrate the Blue Wall Of Silence that exist in Las Vegas Nevada. Frustratingly, politicians and local officials were willing to talk to me all day long about the corruption in the Las Vegas City Metro Police Dept. but only with the understanding that their comments would be kept “off the record” and their “identities” not exposed. “I mean after all, I gotta live and work in this town” seemed to be the favored, almost robotic response when asked if I could quote them or use their name in my upcoming article — and so, the corruption cycles on.

Attorney’s defending the men who were arrested on charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch Protest in April of 2014 near Bunkerville, Nevada, not only experienced the Blue Wall Of Silence, but listened in disbelief as one LVMP Officer after another took the stand and lied through their teeth on behalf of the Bureau Of Land Management who they privately acknowledge escalated the situation and were ultimately the aggressors in the wash that day. One of the defense attorney’s had this to say;

I interviewed several Metro Police Officers who I had hoped would testify for the defense. Many of them readily admitted the BLM f##ked up that day and were clearly being overly aggressive – however, those same officers were just as adamant in their belief, there could never be a situation or any excuse whatsoever for anyone in The United States of America to point a weapon at a law enforcement officer.

I mean, how do I call a witness who is going to say something like that on the stand?
I did not anticipate officers who absolutely knew the BLM was at fault, would take the stand for the Prosecution and carry out a obviously preconceived, cohesive plan to lie under oath and send a convoluted message to the jury that they were in fear for their lives when they encountered protestors on April 12, 2014. They said they cried, got right with God, called to say goodbye to their wives, and then readied themselves to die…. All a bunch of garbage.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...78-300x226.jpg
Cliven Bundy shakes hands with Sheriff Doug Gillespi day of protest

In reality, in the hundreds of video and photo’s taken on the day of the protest there is not one image depicting tears being shed by LVMP, but instead we have an overwhelming number of images where officers are smiling and shaking hands with protestors, officers posing for photo’s with protestors, and officers giving interviews. It can’t be stated enough that not one single report filed by the LVMPD in the following days after the protest mentioned anything about fear, or praying, or calling their wives and preparing to die. It would not be until three years later on the witness stand that stories would magically change to fit the narrative of Prosecutor Steven Myhre and the Bureau of Land Management.

In his column for the independent newspaper “The Las Vegas Tribune”, former LVMPD Detective George Martines, regularly blows the corruption whistle on the Las Vegas Police force. In a recent article, he had this to say about his former place of employment;

As with President Trump’s administration which is riddled with “diehard, deep-seated Obama supporters,” the LVMPD also has former “Sheriff Douglas Gillespie diehard supporters,” and corrupt loyalists that all must keep the current corrupt police administration maintained and protected, and will stamp out anyone attempting to expose their past wrongdoings, and major criminal acts, such as murder, rape, robbery, bribery, theft, fraud, narcotics violations, political fraud, extortion, evidence-tampering, false arrest, destruction of official documents, witness tampering, workman’s compensation fraud, vehicle maintenance fraud, fake narcotic dogs, jail construction fraud, helicopter maintenance fraud, police radio fraud, Constitutional violations, all committed against LVMPD employees, and the citizens residing in Clark County, and in the State of Nevada. The list of wrongdoings by the LVMPD goes on and on without any ending date in sight.

Lately, it is apparent that the Federal Government will gladly go after the little guy, and spare no expense or effort to prosecute (as an example) rancher Cliven Bundy, his family members and the supporting American Patriots for daring to peacefully protest the overreach of the Federal Government, to obtain their grazing lands, which also includes mineral rights. Everyone should pay close attention to this prosecution as it will drastically affect any future peaceful protest in this country.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co..._n-300x225.jpg
Eric Parker’s wife Andrea Olson Parker

As family members of the defendants ready themselves for closing arguments they anticipate prosecutors will once again repeat the false narrative offered up to the Jury by the BLM, Nevada State Highway Patrol, and Las Vegas Metro Police; A narrative they say is very hard to listen to as it is so obviously and unbearably a horrible lie.

Journalist Pete Santilli whose trial is set to begin on June 5th, 2017 along with Ryan Payne, and Cliven, Ammon, and Ryan Bundy says,

“The process of this trial started in February and only 1/10th of the facts about what really happened at the protest out in Bunkerville have been heard by this Jury.

Any Jury allowed to hear all the facts would be moved to acquit, but it appears the court has tried to set up these attorney’s to fail miserably after crushing witness testimony that would reveal nothing but the truth. We must have faith the jury has seen through the lies.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO GMN

The Government wanted a pound of flesh from the Bundy Family, and they wanted to blame We the People for mistakes the BLM made that day. It is now up to We the People to make sure that no matter what the outcome of these trials, a push for investigations into all the key players should definitely happen – We should not rest until the Prosecutors Office, the BLM, Metro Police, Nevada State Highway Patrol, and Judge Gloria Navarro are all held accountable for their ongoing conspiracy to jail innocent men for exercising their 1st and second amendment rights in the United States of America..”

Today is closing arguments. I haven't seen any reports from John Lamb or Andrea Parker yet. American Thinker has an article on the trial:


The trial of Cliven Bundy: A travesty of justice

This week, a group of men who stood face to face with government agents and refused to back down will find out how many more years of their lives that decision will cost them, as a verdict is expected in their federal trial in Las Vegas. It is the case of United States v. Cliven Bundy, et al.

Here's a brief look at how it all began.

"Are you really going to shoot these people if they move forward? Yes or no?"

Dennis Michael Lynch, a documentary filmmaker, yelled this pivotal question to government agents at a ranch outside Bunkerville, Nevada two years ago this month. As Lynch explained to Megyn Kelly later, he ran ahead of a group of ranchers and their supporters as they approached federal officials. The group planned to retrieve cattle the agents had taken from rancher Cliven Bundy, by force if necessary. Federal agents, you may remember, held that the land on which the cattle were grazing belonged to the government. Lynch's purpose was to bring some reason to the rapidly escalating situation. The ranchers were "willing to die," he said – not over some taxes and fees, but over the core belief that the federal government has limits.

Lynch may have ended a potential mêlée of men with guns ready to use them. It is difficult to view the video of the blunt New Yorker, without a weapon and arms in the air, calling to the heavily armed agents to stop "before there's bloodshed." The simple question, posed by an unarmed man, may have managed to impress upon the federal agents that they were about to fire on their own countrymen en masse.

The federal government did not shoot anyone that day, but the damage had already been done. Video footage of what led up to the tense moments Lynch witnessed made its way to the American public; agents were seen knocking a woman to the ground and tazing Cliven Bundy's son over and over after he kicked a police dog that attacked him. A grisly video of dead cattle, killed in the standoff, stunned viewers.

Government snipers trained their rifles on the Bundys' supporters day and night; in response, the citizens did likewise.

Some who were there that day say it was a miracle that the standoff ended without bloodshed. Ultimately, Cliven Bundy got his cattle back – at least what was left of them.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wasted no time in calling the citizens involved in the stand-off "domestic terrorists." But Lynch – an experienced filmmaker who has recorded drug cartels on the southern border – told TheBlaze that "if there was any act of terrorism, it was perpetuated by the government, not the supporters." The citizens defended themselves – and, some say, the greater ideals of individual liberty.
And so we come to today, as the six-week trial of Bundy, et al. is likely to come to an end. But the questions regarding individual liberty and the American justice system seem to be magnified because of just how this case went down. Here are some of the reasons why.

In toto, only two days were spent on the defense. Out of that, the jury was permitted to be in the courtroom for fifteen minutes. The prosecution, on the other hand, consumed over five weeks of courtroom time to make their case. And that is only part of what looks, smells, and feels like a case of injustice – perhaps with prosecutorial and judicial misconduct added in for good measure.

Court spectators such as John Lamb, an unrelated party who traveled from Montana to watch the trial, spoke each day on a live Facebook video, after proceedings had adjourned, with notes in hand. Every afternoon, Lamb's recounting of the trial day became more disturbing as he reported that even the most basic rights were ignored in the federal courtroom in Las Vegas. Judge Gloria Navarro told one defendant he had only three rights in her courtroom: to plead guilty, to testify on his own behalf, and to appeal his conviction, according to Lamb. Meanwhile, witnesses for the prosecution – most of them government agents – could remain in the courtroom before their own testimony. Defense witnesses were told to leave.

Other spectators confirmed Lamb's account and more. Many of those in the courtroom carried pocket-sized Constitutions; Judge Navarro subsequently ruled that the Constitution was not allowed in the courtroom unless it was turned face-down. On April 10, a man named Neil Wampler was escorted out of the courtroom and his things collected by a U.S. marshal because he had a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his pocket that was visible to the judge.

Maureen Peltier, another trial watcher, took to Facebook April 10 after a long day in court to warn others that according to remarks made by prosecutors, "to hit 'like' on comments or posts or give a 'thumbs up' can be considered evidence to criminalize you."

Other abuses reported by Lamb, Peltier, and others who attended the last six weeks of the trial include the following:

• The defense was allowed to call only three witnesses; others were denied the opportunity to testify. The prosecution called over thirty and was given carte blanche to discuss any topic it deemed necessary.
• Judge Navarro instructed defense witnesses that they were not allowed to show emotion on the stand. They could not discuss their faith, their fear during the standoff, or anything else that "might tug the heartstrings of the jury."
• Some federal agents for the prosecution testified under false names and were allowed to obfuscate information regarding informants they were handling at the time.
• The defense was not allowed to cross-examine some of the prosecution's witnesses.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of this trial involves perceived intimidation and veiled threats by the judge and the prosecution toward witnesses planned for the defense, according to courtroom observer Kelli Stewart. One brave woman defied the judicial and prosecutorial warnings and testified for the defense.

The case of Ammon Bundy is often viewed in a negative light due to his involvement in the 2015 Malheur Wildlife Takeover – an act disavowed by many even within "patriot" circles who supported the Bunkerville Standoff. Some don't even realize that the two events are separate and unrelated. The truth is that Malheur has nothing to do with Bunkerville, and many of the defendants in this trial were not even present at the events of the former occasion.

Regardless of the nature of the incidents – even if one believes that these men should be charged and tried for their participation at Bunkerville – every one of them is entitled to a fair trial. During these proceedings, they have the right to face their accusers and to question those accusers as well as their credibility. Bundy & Company have the right to present a full and adequate defense, to call witnesses and enter material into evidence. Witnesses for the defense should not feel intimidated. U.S. Constitutions should not be barred from an American courtroom. And the defense should be awarded every consideration that the prosecution is given.

These are the rights assured to every American. They are contained in our founding documents. By ignoring the abuses apparent in this trial, we the people tacitly sanction them to be visited upon us again and again. Such as it is, the guilty verdict these men are likely to hear this week represents a true travesty of American justice.

(Hat tip to Kit Perez, who contributed to this report.)

Leesa K. Donner is editorial director of LibertyNation.com.

April 12 Noon update from John Lamb.~ J Grady


http://youtu.be/SxMwUMA4Rp4

https://youtu.be/SxMwUMA4Rp4

End of the day report with John Lamb, Andrea Parker and Anthony Dephue ~ J Grady. There is a lot of wind noise in part of the video, but the majority is not too bad.

http://youtu.be/G1bJScl8ci0

https://youtu.be/G1bJScl8ci0

Trial Update from Lorri Anderson. This woman hasn't been reporting much recently.

http://youtu.be/g_DJzv6oSB0

https://youtu.be/g_DJzv6oSB0

The jury has the case. The defense got to show video of Margaret Houston being thrown to the ground, Ammon tazed, the arrest of Dave Bundy and the BLM snipers on the hills above them. And more . . . . .
John Lamb and Andrea Parker End of Closing Arguments ~ J Brady

http://youtu.be/NjFjCjD8Z0Y

https://youtu.be/NjFjCjD8Z0Y

The jury has the case


Jury Begins Deliberations in Nevada Protest Trial


THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT LIMIT THEIR OBJECTIONS TO JUST ONE OR TWO CLOSING STATEMENTS. THEY OBJECTED TO ALL OF THEM.

April 13, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada, US

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ry-678x381.jpg

Jury Begins Deliberations in Nevada Protest Trial

by Shari Dovale

The Bunkerville protest trial, first round, is coming to end. The closing statements have been given over the past two days. Each attorney spoke well and powerfully for their client.

Todd Engel, the only defendant to represent himself, had a short and emotional closing statement for the jury. However, nearly every sentence he uttered was objected to by the prosecution. It was obvious that the prosecutors were trying to ‘rattle’ him to keep him from being effective.

They would object to his use of pronouns, to his stating that he arrived in Nevada at a certain time, to his claim that he had breakfast that morning, etc. At last count, there had been 20 objections with only 1 being ruled in Engels favor by Judge Navarro.

Even with all of the attempts to disrupt his statement to the jury, Engel did very well.

The defense attorneys seemed to have finally found their groove with the closings. Jess Marchese, representing Eric Parker, was able to get a 45 minute video by Pete Santilli entered into evidence, to the disgruntlement of the prosecution team. Marchese got the entire video entered, though he only planned on playing a minute of it while on the record.

The prosecutors actually let this one get by them until it was too late. Judge Navarro, of course, did not see a problem with it because the prosecution didn’t object. Marchese did say he was going to recommend to the jury that they watch the entire video during the deliberations.

This video includes footage of the cows being slaughtered by the BLM, Ammon Bundy being tazed, Margaret Houston being thrown to the ground, and more. This is crucial information that the defense has been attempting to get in front of the jury, however, Judge Navarro has been accepting the government’s objections to this point and keeping it out.

The government did not limit their objections to just one or two closing statements. They were objecting to all of them, though Engel seemed to receive the majority. The prosecutors objected to Steven Stewart’s attorney when he tried to quote Benjamin Franklin. The objection was that there was no evidence that Stewart himself ever read the quote. Judge Navarro agreed with the government.

Navarro agreed with the government’s objection to Scott Drexler’s attorney, Todd Leventhal, using videos in his closing because Drexler did not testify. The video he was attempting to use was the “Longbow” video interview that had been entered into evidence by the prosecution.

The question was even asked, though objected to, “Where is Dan Love?”

Leventhal ended his statements with the quote, “If you don’t stand for something then you will fall for anything.” Let’s hope the jury got the message.

These are some of the examples of the rulings the judge has been making in her attempt to stack the deck against the defendants.

All sides have rested. The case has been given to the jury and deliberations have begun.

John Lamb contributed to this report.

What the Bundy Ranch Trials Mean to You . . . . . .


Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy


THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO HOLD OUR GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING.

April 13, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada, US 1

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...y1-610x381.jpg

Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy

By Paula Hart

Here is why every American citizen should care about the Federal case against Cliven Bundy, et al. Whether you believe it or not, this case DOES affect you.

The government wants you to believe that this whole case is about Cliven refusing to pay his grazing fees. It wants you to believe that the Bundy’s are anti-government . It wants you to believe that they are a bunch of crazies that keep picking fights with the Government for no reason. It now wants you to believe that they are domestic terrorists simply because they had the courage to stand up to the Government.
What the Government does NOT want you to know is that EVERYTHING the Bundy’s have done is protected by the Constitution. They broke NO Constitutional Laws.

The Bundy’s believe that the Constitution always has been the Supreme Law of the Land, which it is, no matter what the Government tries to tell us now. The Bundy’s do believe in the need of a Federal Government, but the kind that our Founding Father’s established; a LIMITED government of the People, by the People, and for the People. Not the government we have today, where the People have no rights and no say.

The government does NOT want you to know that Cliven paid his grazing fees for years, until one day the government changed the contracts, effectively putting his livelihood in grave danger. Cliven tried to negotiate the terms but the government refused.
It doesn’t want you to know that Cliven was not allowed to pay his fees until AFTER he agreed to the new contract, which he didn’t agree with. Still, they refused to negotiate the terms in order to come to some type of compromise so that he could pay them.
THAT is when Cliven refused to sign the papers and made his payments to his County instead. Cliven tried, after being screwed over by the government, to still do the right thing.

This is what led to the incident in 2014 in Nevada.

When they saw the very same tactics being used against another family in Oregon, they stood up for that family and came to their aid. That is what the incident in 2015 in Oregon was about.

The government does NOT want you to know that, for years, it has been doing the same thing to landowners all across the west. The Bundy’s tried to open the Nation’s eyes as to what was going on behind the scenes. The Bundy’s tried for decades to go through the proper channels, to work things out with our elected officials, but got no response at all.

So, this case is not so much about land and grazing rights and unpaid grazing fees as it is about a government that has gone completely rogue.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...017/01/bar.gif
What it means for YOU

If these men are found guilty, here is what it means for YOU, personally. Here is what’s REALLY on trial…..

The US Constitution- the very one the judges take an oath to uphold and defend, the one that protects We the People- will no longer be allowed in a court of law. Not even mentioned in a court of law. Let that sink in. We will have NOTHING to protect us from our corrupt government!! Nothing.

No more First Amendment rights. No more protesting or disagreeing with the Government or any of its agencies or employees. . If you and one other person says something the government doesn’t like or agree with, you can be charged with conspiracy and sent to prison.
Any comment or “like” on Facebook or other social media platforms can and will be used against you. Media (network or independent) who covers a story that the government does not want covered, will be arrested and sent to prison. If the government wants something you have, you no longer have any right to tell it no or you will be sent to prison.

Your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is all but gone. If you are legally and lawfully carrying a weapon and a member of law enforcement is nearby, you will be charged with threatening an officer. Let’s face it, since we now live in a police state, there is law enforcement everywhere.

You will no longer be allowed to defend yourself in court. You will no longer have the right to face your accuser(s).You will no longer be able to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT the truth. If others show up to testify on your behalf, they will be threatened with arrest for speaking up for you.

A government witness who wasn’t even a witness to the crime’s testimony is more valid than that of a “lay” witness that was there to witness it first hand. Basically, if the government decides you’re guilty, you are guilty.

No more right to bail or a speedy trial.

No more being presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

There will be no way to hold our government or any of its agencies accountable for anything.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. The bottom line is, if these men are found guilty, we will no longer have the safety and security that the Constitution gives us. We will no longer be in charge of the government but it will, once and for all, be in charge of us and there will be no turning back.

The Bundy’s, and all who stood with them, have told the truth. They have done everything out in the open. They have been begging for public attention to this case and their grievances. They are doing all they can to uphold our Constitution.

On the other hand, the federal government has lied, repeatedly. They don’t want media coverage and won’t allow cameras in the courtrooms. They won’t respond to any grievances. They are blatantly disregarding the Constitution and want you to believe that if you support it then you are committing a crime!!. And, yet, who’s on trial? Who, really, is fighting FOR us all ,here? Who has YOUR best interests at heart?

Someone said it best (I believe Sandy Anderson III) …”If not now-when? If not us-who? If not this-what?” Out of millions of American citizens, a handful of people had the courage and integrity to stand up. It’s truly heartbreaking to see the majority leaving them to stand alone. To fight for people who can’t be bothered to fight for themselves.

What is it going to take for American’s to wake up and see that we are about to lose everything that matters?!!! When will *YOU* finally stand up and get involved ??? What is it going to take to get you to start caring about what’s happening?!!!

Your time is seriously running out to decide which side you’re with: Those fighting FOR your rights or those doing all they can to take them away.

The story of the song of the "Star Spangled Banner" is a good one to listen to while we wait for the verdict on the trial of the patriots in Nevada. They have stood up against the traitors who have taken control of our government and are working to destroy what the founding fathers of this country gave us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxGNQE5ZLA

It is State of Nevada highway right of way, not federal land . . . . .


It Is Nevada DOT Land, Not Federal Land


THE WORDS "TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE" APPEAR IN A HOST OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES.

April 15, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...3-678x381.jpeg

“YOU DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION, THE GROUND UNDER THE BRIDGE IS NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LAND, NOT FEDERAL LAND”

By Loren Edward Pearce

During the trial in Las Vegas, Nevada, the prosecutors played a video which showed one of the protestors screaming at the armed men hired by the federal government (whether they were federal contractors or employees was uncertain) that they did not have jurisdiction. This evidence submitted by the federal prosecutors, opened the door to question the whole concept of federal jurisdiction. Unfortunately, this key opportunity was not seized upon by the defense attorneys as they apparently had already conceded jurisdiction to the federal government. It is my opinion, that jurisdiction should have been disputed by the defense and that failure to do so was a major error.

As discussed previously, federal jurisdiction wherein there is a federal judge, on the federal payroll, managing a case for her employer, the United States government, and who was appointed by a federal executive at the request of a federal Senator, is entirely a conflict of interest. It is impossible for her to be unbiased, or avoid the appearance of being biased, because she is ruling on behalf of her employer, her co-workers and her federal sponsors. Therefore, the question of federal versus state jurisdiction is at the core and center of the controversy and it is tragic that it was not attacked by the defense.

Establishment of State and Federal Courts

State and local courts are established by a state (within states there are also local courts that are established by cities, counties, and other municipalities). Federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution to decide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...o-150x150.jpeg
Judge Gloria Navarro

The irony and the injustice are that federal judge Gloria Navarro, who is supposed to preside over constitutional questions, would not permit discussion of the constitution in her courtroom, especially the 1^st and 2^ndamendment. She stated that any constitutional question or violation would be handled by the federal court of appeals, not by her. But, if a federal District Court cannot hear a constitutional question, then why do they exist? Deferring constitutional questions to the appellate court, means more prison time for innocent political prisoners.

To add insult to injury, Navarro would not allow pocket constitutions in her court room (not the people’s court room, but hers) unless it was turned around with rear cover facing outward. One defendant supporter was physically thrown out of the court room because his constitution was facing the wrong way.

Most crimes that occur within a state’s borders, or within three miles of its coastline, are prosecuted in state court. But some federally owned land rests entirely within one state’s borders—if a crime occurs on that land, then it’s typically a federal offense.

As the protestor in the video correctly pointed out, the land in the wash belonged to the City of Mesquite according to Clark County records and the bridge was an easement granted by the city to the Nevada Dept of Transportation.
There is no mention of federal ownership or easement. Therefore, under the doctrine of lex locus delicti, law of the scene of the crime, the crime must be tried in the jurisdiction that owns the land. Even if the federal government had an interstate easement through Interstate 15, the easement does not give them exclusive jurisdiction. In other words, the federal charges should be heard in a state court first, and if the state court determines that the federal government has jurisdiction, then it can be removed to a federal court.

Federal criminal jurisdiction commonly arises where:

• the crime occurred on land owned or controlled by the federal government (such as national parks and military bases)
• the offense took place on a ship flying the American flag, even if it occurred in foreign waters, and
• the crime crossed state lines or involved interstate commerce (for example, kidnapping or drug trafficking).

The federal prosecutors will argue that the federal courts have jurisdiction because the criminal charges are for violations of federal statutes. But the defense attorneys should argue that, no, you cannot have violation of federal statutes unless the crime took place on federal land. If the alleged violation of federal statutes occurred on state land, then the defendant has the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the federal government court, which is saturated with bias and with conflict of interest. A state court is more likely to have a judge and jury who reflect local values and local interests.

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...2-150x150.jpeg

The federal team (judge, prosecutors and marshals) tried to argue that Eric Parker and his friends came under federal jurisdiction by crossing state lines and thereby invoking the interstate commerce jurisdiction of the federal team. But, no crime was committed by crossing state lines and no conspiracy was committed as they did not know the Bundys nor were they harkening to any organized conspiracy.

The words “transportation in interstate or foreign commerce” appear in a host of federal criminal statutes. These statutes prohibit the interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, forged checks, prostitutes, explosives, obscene materials, kidnap victims, counterfeit phonograph records, and numerous other items. In all of these statutes the predicate for federal jurisdiction might reasonably be identified in either of two ways: first, it might require that the subject be transported across a state line; second, as the Court reads this language, it may merely require that the subject be transported during an interstate journey. 455 U.S. 642 – McElroy v. United States

Neither Eric Parker, his friends nor any of the hundreds of protestors came in response to an organized conspiracy, rather it was a spontaneous response to scenes of a woman being thrown to the ground and other acts of excessive force. Their travels across state lines did not invoke the interstate commerce provision of the constitution because they were not transporting illegal items nor were they committing conspiracy. Nevertheless, the federal team prevented the defense from hearing testimony from the woman thrown to the ground and other relevant witnesses.
In some cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state court or to federal court.

There was enough reason to doubt federal exclusive jurisdiction such that the defense should have challenged it and should have taken the option to go to a more unbiased state court to determine jurisdiction. In state court, they would have been allowed to present evidence of land records showing state ownership of the land where the cattle were impounded. They could have also presented evidence showing that this was not a federal question because the federal government had no authority there. They could have showed that the BLM had no constitutional roots and especially had no constitutional authority to enforce their own administrative rules and procedures. Any court order issued by the government against the Bundys, must be enforced by local law enforcement, not the BLM.

Unfortunately, the defense attorneys did not go on the offensive by challenging federal jurisdiction and citing violations by rogue BLM law enforcers.

(The defense did challenge jurisdiction, but I think they misssed the most relevant arguments. I think jurisdiction can be challenged on appeal. These guys need better lawyers.)

(This former dept. of justice attorney offers his opinions on the "Property Clause". http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr/vol24/iss1/4/. " The Power of Congress "Without Limitation" in theTwenty-First Century)

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...4/bridge-1.jpg

Terri Linell, informant, adds her views on the FBI and their involvement at Bundy Ranch and Malheur reserve

Curiously, since Syrian 'Bay of Pigs' when Trump fired 59 missles on the Syrian air base we've heard no more from Mr. Comey or the Susan Rice affair. The MSM is too quiet

Politics, Russia, and the Bundy Ranch by Terri Linnell


PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PRESS SECRETARY PUBLICLY STATED IT WAS A LOCAL ISSUE, ADDING CREDIBILITY TO THE STANDOFF JUST BEING A PROTEST.

April 11, 2017 BLM, FBI, Nevada, Politics

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ey-600x381.png

Politics, Russia, and the Bundy Ranch

by Terri Linnell
Clinton Watts, a former FBI agent, testified on March 30^th, 2017 during the Russian Congressional Hearings last week regarding the potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections. His testimony was riveting.

“In late 2014 and throughout 2015, we watched active measures on nearly any disaffected U.S. audience,” Watts said. “Whether it be claims of the U.S. military declaring martial law during the Jade Helm exercise, chaos amongst Black Lives Matter protests, or a stand-off at the Bundy Ranch, Russia’s state-sponsored outlets of RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News — characterized as “white outlets” — churned out manipulated truths, false news stories, and conspiracies.”

Bundy Ranch Standoff? Why was a spontaneous event mentioned in the Russian congressional hearings?

Now I, Terri Linnell, a wife and mother of 3, was at the Bundy Ranch Standoff on Saturday, April 12, 2014. A few days prior, on Wednesday, April 9^th, I’d watched a video of an older woman (Ammon Bundy’s Aunt) being thrown to the ground while videoing a dump truck towing a back hoe away from a BLM roundup.

Curious, I then watched a video of the unarmed family screaming to the BLM agents, asking for a reason for the dump truck, fearing their cattle had been killed. Then I saw a man (Ammon Bundy) being tazed, with his wife pulling the tasers off. A dog was commanded to attack the wife, who was pregnant. Wow. I researched further.

The family’s cattle was being rounded up because they hadn’t paid their grazing fees for over 20 years. With my real estate background, I knew Cliven Bundy had created a permanent easement under Preemptive Land Rights or Adverse Possession. I packed my things and arrived at their Nevada ranch by 11am the next morning. I had no idea it was going to be a national event, big enough for the history books a mere two days later. What I can tell you all is there was no conspiracy. People saw the same videos I did and started showing up from all over the nation. This was simply a land rights issue, but the family was clearly in danger.

Over a year and a half later, on January 2^nd, 2016, Ammon Bundy took over the headquarter buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, to call attention to the Hammond family, another rancher who had legal problems with the BLM.

The Hammond father and son who had done their time and paid their fine were being put back in jail over a mandatory sentence requirement. I was a newly paid FBI informant and was asked to go to the Malheur Refuge in Oregon, aka the Oregon Standoff.

How this protest was conducted inspired people. All across the country people were starting to rise up to fix things, one of the more notable events was the Flint, MI Water Crisis which is still in the news today. During the protest, the media kept sounding the drums of white militia, avoiding filming the black people who’d joined the protest. I’d even gone into town and found the majority of the people supported the Hammonds and the Oregon Standoff. So why did the media refuse to tell the truth?

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...er-150x150.png
Mark Kessler

Lets look back a couple years. In September of 2013 a Pennsylvania police chief, Mark Kessler, received national attention for calling for an armed march on DC on the same date another march peacefully was being done, which received no media. It later turned out, announced on national news, that Chief Kessler was actually working for the FBI for that protest.

Kessler had collected a list of Americans over 250,000 in the first week of his (or the FBI’s) website. It’s not a big step to realize the FBI can get the national media to do their bidding. Kessler mentioned Nancy Pelosi in a video, and her response gave it instant national attention. This was odd, since typically politicians don’t respond because they know by saying nothing, it’ll typically go away, gaining no ground.

23 days into the occupation of the Oregon Standoff, on January 26^th, 2016 the FBI conducted a ‘routine traffic stop’ (as they publicly put it) and murdered LaVoy Finicum. LaVoy was one of the drivers of Ammon Bundy’s caravan as they went to a neighboring county’s speaking event. There was zero reason to pull the caravan over, nor had an arrest warrant been issued for any of them. Charges were pressed 8 days later while they still sat in jail, mourning their friend’s murder.

After the Oregon Standoff, later in 2016, I was told by the agent I worked with that the most elite FBI team, called HRT for Hostage Rescue Team, had orders signed by President Obama himself to deal with the protesters at the Oregon Standoff.

On January 4^th, 2016, President Obama’s press secretary publicly stated it was a local issue, adding credibility to the standoff just being a protest. “The White House on Monday was careful not to label an armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon as an act of terrorism, instead referring to the standoff as a “local law enforcement matter.” Please note, in the average video press people saw only this short part, whereas the written press discussed FBI involvement. This added credibility to the protesters, since the President felt it was just a local issue.

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ma-150x150.png

The main problem with the FBI is that it wasn’t there to keep everyone safe. Had they done so as sworn law enforcement officers, they would have protected the protesters and helped protesters obey any obscure laws, as was their duty since the sheriff refused. Every protest has anti protesters and the volunteer security protected them, escorting them throughout the refuge, so no clashes occurred. This was in fact the duty of real police officers, who were nowhere to be found.

The fact President Obama himself signed the papers to place the FBI there is simply too incredible to believe. However, the Oregon governor, Governor Kate Brown, did in fact appeal to the President to hurry up and end the Standoff. She did not ask him to step in, she asked him to end it.

“In two letters, which she made public Thursday, Brown told President Obama that she spoke with Jerry Abramson, his deputy assistant and director of international affairs, along with FBI director James Comey about the occupation. Brown wrote that in those conversations, she told Abramson and Comey the occupation must end peacefully and “without further delay from federal law enforcement.”

In October of 2016, right before I testified for the defense (the FBI didn’t know I was testifying), I was asked by the FBI how the ‘movement’ was VOTING. I answered they were voting on both sides of the isle… while notes were being taken.

Now one would naturally wonder why the FBI would care about how someone votes, let alone take notes, but they did. The obvious answer is this “law enforcement agency”, the FBI, has clearly entered into politics. They had done this to Martin Luther King’s civil rights marches during the McCarthyism era in the 70’s. (McCarthyism is where the FBI colluded with politicians with the mere accusation of being a communist to destroy political rivals.)

Is this an attempt at a cover up by FBI Director Comey so President Trump doesn’t look into the Bundy Ranch case? Although ‘McCarthyism’ does appear to be happening once again, this time they appear to be blaming Russia to cover up their own actions. The Russia hearings mentioning Bundy Ranch can have but one conclusion. The FBI has entered into politics.

Personally, considering President Obama signed the documents for this operation, Comey definitely knew. I would recommend President Trump tell Director Comey, “You’re fired!” and open a full criminal investigation. Comey deserves no less.

Ryan Budy's daughter's message from her facebook

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00013162061593

Jamie Bunny
March 26 at 1:24pm ·

It honestly amazes me how much tribulation, heartache, and violation my dad will take to stick by and stand for what he knows, believes, and loves. Again, again, and again his rights are being violated. Some of the things that have been done to him and have been gotten away with are stomach turning, inhumane, and unbelievable.

"They deserve to be in jail" people have told me.

Well guess what, my dad and the other men being held are serving more than just time, WAY more than just time. They've been beaten, they've been treated inhumanly, they've been placed in solitary, they've been denied the access to see they're families, they've been denied the access to TALK to their families, they've been denied the right to a fair and speedy trial, they've been completely stripped of their rights and freedom.

Recently, they have been subject to "strip searches".

Every single time they enter the courtroom, leave the courtroom, or visit their lawyers they are forced to have a strip search done to them.

Don't know what a strip search is? It isn't pretty. Numerous rights get violated each time, it's intrusive, violating, uncalled for, and completely wrong. Knowing that this act is just done to violate more rights, and wear them down, my dad and others have refused to comply with any more strip searches.

What is the result? Solitary confinement.

This means that they can't call, they are held in a tiny cement room, they are hardly fed, and they are basically being treated like animals.

"Land of the free because of the brave"? Ha. Far from it.

It makes me sick. It makes me sick to think that there are still people who think that "they're getting what they deserve", or "it's not my place to say or do anything" or "if I just comply and ignore the fact that my rights are being violated I can be happy".

No. No, no, no. I don't know what more my family needs to do to prove to you that you MUST not allow these idiotic thoughts to fill your head.

PROOF, proof has been laid out before you, right in front of your very eyes, this is real. I can't stress it enough. Laugh at it? Fine. Ignore it? Fine.

But when you finally decide to open your eyes and realize how real this, you can't say that you weren't warned.

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...30&oe=594F3AF1

133 Likes80 Comments510 Shares

The day Las Vegas became the political master of Nevada, forced on us by the Supreme Court

SCOTUS partly to blame for America’s ‘Rural vs Urban’ resentment

April 16, 2017 editor Leave a comment

Thus the concept that was established in the US Constitution for representation of the people in Congress, held true for the states as well until the 1960s. It was obliterated at the state level by these court decisions, leaving our rural regions and cultures at the mercy of urban politicians.

Commentary by Bill Goode

Loss of Representation for Rural America

Most of us are aware of the imbalance of representation in the state legislatures for rural areas in the US. It wasn’t always that way. It changed as a result of a series of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions in the 1960s.

It used to be that states modeled their state legislatures much after the US Congress. State assembly representatives were elected from districts based on population, just as US Congressmen are. State senators were elected to represent geographical districts such as counties, just as US Senators are elected based on states, instead of population districts. That changed in the 1960s by a series of three SCOTUS decisions.

In 1946 in the Illinois case of Colegrove v. Green, the SCOTUS actually properly stated in its 4–3 ruling that the court had no jurisdiction over how states elected their legislators. Justice Rutledge, concurring with the majority opinion, stated that the court had no jurisdiction as the issue was covered in Article I, Sections 2 and 4 of the Constitution. He declined to violate that.

Colegrove v. Green (1946)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/328/549.html
In 1901 the State of Tennessee set the number of state house seats for each of its 95 counties. US Constitution Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 stipulates that redistricting take place by a new census every ten years. The State of Tennessee made the mistake of neglecting that law from 1901 to 1961, as no redistricting took place in Tennessee for that time frame for either Congressional districts or for state representatives. As the state became more urbanized, Mayor Baker of Nashville pleaded in 1962 that his city was under represented in the state house of representatives. He lost his case in a federal court, but appealed to the SCOTUS.
In 1962 the SCOTUS gave itself and other federal courts the right to review redistricting issues, which had previously been considered outside the court’s jurisdiction. In the 1962 Tennessee case of Baker v. Carr, the court ruled in a 6–2 decision that federal courts have the power to determine the “constitutionality” of a state’s voting districts.

Baker v. Carr (1962)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/369/186.html
Had Tennessee redistricted every ten years, as called for in the Constitution, the Baker v. Carr case may well never have come about. Nevertheless it gave the SCOTUS the opportunity to grant itself new powers, an interesting capability, an entity granting new powers to itself.

In 1917 the State of Georgia created an excessively complex and unique “County Unit System” by which to count votes by each of it’s 159 counties. The system tended to overly favor the rural counties. The system was challenged in the SCOTUS in 1963 by the Gray v. Sanders case. By a vote of 8 to 1, the court struck down Georgia’s system. In this decision the court formulated the concept of “one person, one vote”, ignoring the differences between rural and urban values.

The State of Georgia was given the option to either 1) make its “County Unit System” more equitable or 2) base districts strictly on population. The state went with option 2).

Gray v. Sanders (1963)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/372/368.html
The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1901, stipulated one state senator per each of its 67 counties. In 1964 voters of Jefferson County (Birmingham, largest city in Alabama) pleaded in the Reynolds v. Sims case that they were under represented. The population ratio of the most populated county (Jefferson) to the least populated county was 41 / 1. The voters took their case to the SCOTUS. In an 8–1 decision the court decided, based on the “one person, one vote” concept it had established in the 1963 decision, that Jefferson County was under represented.

In the lone dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan likened the “one county, one senator” system to the manner of election of US Senators.
Subsequently all states in the United States were ordered to elect state senators by population districts instead of by counties.

Senator Evertt Dirksen of Illinois threatened a constitutional amendment to counteract the court’s decision, but that obviously never went anywhere.
At the time of the court decision, example divergences in county populations within single states varied to just over 1000 to 1. In 2010 the divergence between California (largest population) from Wyoming (least population) was 66 to 1.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/377/533.html
Thus the concept that was established in the US Constitution for representation of the people in Congress, held true for the states as well until the 1960s. It was obliterated at the state level by these court decisions, leaving our rural regions and cultures at the mercy of urban politicians.

As Justice Rutledge recognized in 1946, the federal government has no constitutional authority to tell states how to apportion their legislatures. These Supreme Court decisions of the 1960s need to be reversed.

Even after such a reversal, restoring the rural representation will be difficult, unless forced by the federal government. Los Angeles County currently has 14 state senator districts either touching or wholly within the county of the 40 member state senate. It will be difficult to convince Los Angeles County to give up its dominance. Nevertheless, another Supreme Court decision could bring that reversal. If the court forced the states to change in 1960s, the court might just as easily force them back.

State of Jefferson or No?

What about the State of Jefferson? Personally I favor the concept of the State of Jefferson, forming a new state from northern California and southwestern Oregon. I feel it’s a great idea to politically separate those rural areas from the urban centers that dominate them politically due to the wide divergence in population and culture.

However, from a practical standpoint, it will never come about constitutionally. The state legislatures in Sacramento and Salem will never be willing to let go of the resources of those areas now under their control. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 very clearly stipulates that the concept must be approved by the state legislatures concerned, and then by Congress. Never happen. If the case were taken to a court, any court would likely refuse to hear the case, as the Constitution is so clear on this point.

The only other option for the establishment of the State of Jefferson is to outright assert itself and throw out the California and Oregon officials and the feds. But that’s tantamount to secession and / or revolution, and that didn’t work out so well for other states in the 1860s.

Nevertheless, if we look back at the basic problem that these counties are attempting to resolve, there is another solution. The State of Jefferson rightly pleads that it is under represented in the state legislatures in Sacramento and Salem. Rather than push for a new state, it’s far more likely to reverse the three court decisions of the 1960s that ordered the reapportionment of state legislatures. This is supported by the decision of SCOTUS, Colegrove v. Green (1946), which stated that states have the right to designate how their state legislatures are apportioned and elected.

Then California and Oregon would reapportion their state senators, likely to one or two per county. As difficult as this seems, it’s much more likely than getting the state legislatures to relinquish control over the areas in question.

The concept might spread across the country. Some states would likely do it a bit differently. Delaware has only three counties and Rhode Island has only five. So they might further divide their counties or assign more senators per county. Texas has 254 counties and may not want to have that many senators. They may chose to have some counties combine into common districts for election purposes.

Regardless, as Justice Rutledge recognized in 1946, the federal government has no constitutional authority to tell states how to apportion their legislatures. These Supreme Court decisions of the 1960s need to be reversed.

Even after such a reversal, restoring the rural representation will be difficult. Los Angeles County currently has 14 state senator districts either touching or wholly within the county of the 40 member state senate. It will be difficult to convince Los Angeles County to give up it’s dominance. Nevertheless, another Supreme Court decision could bring that reversal. If the court forced the states to change in 1960s, the court might just as easily force them back.

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=150%2C161

Bill Goode, Kanab, Utah

Bill Goode has been involved in the public lands issue since April 2014 in Nevada as well as in Oregon. Though not a rancher, he does what he can to support the ranching community, as it is so suppressed. Suppression of ranchers and farmers is a measure of the plight of rural America, which is where our natural resources come from.

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C523
Free Range Report

​

This podcast of the new Phyllis Schlafly radio show seems important as an overall update as of April 6

The Ranch issue starts at 20:44 Kelly Stewart is the guest reporting.

https://soundcloud.com/pseagles

4/6/17 | Court Watch, Ranchers and Land Rights

John Lamb earlier today, no verdict. Teresa Brookshire reported 45 minutes ago the jury had questions, the defense attorneys were called back to court.

http://youtu.be/sr1ea2lksSY

https://youtu.be/sr1ea2lksSY

Final Report from John Lamb and Brand Thornton 4/17/2017, Jury has not reached a verdict

http://youtu.be/_LpVbolGCiM

https://youtu.be/_LpVbolGCiM

Navarro Gets Dramatic in the Courtroom


Navarro Gets Dramatic in the Bunkerville Courtroom

The jurors continue their second day of deliberations Tuesday.

April 18, 2017 BLM, DOJ, Nevada

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ms-678x381.png

Navarro Gets Dramatic in the Bunkerville Courtroom

by Shari Dovale



Monday marked the first full day of jury deliberations in the first of three trials being held in Las Vegas.


6 men are on trial for their roles in the Bunkerville protest with Cliven Bundy in 2014.


After 5+ weeks of the government presenting their case with over 35 witnesses, the defense was not allowed to present the case they originally planned. They had attempted to call 30 witnesses, but Judge Navarro did not allow some of them, and most were threatened with prosecution if they testified. They ended with about 2 days for their case.


Eric Parker was the only defendant to testify, and that was due to his belief that it would be the only way Navarro would allow their side to be told.


The jury sent questions back to the court, which Judge Gloria Navarro promptly sealed from the public’s view. The public was, however, allowed to hear the court consider their responses to the jury. It was possible to get a general idea of what the questions involved.


It seems the jury had ‘hypothetical’ questions pertaining to the possibility of a hung jury. This means they do not have consensus on all of the 60+ charges the defendants are facing.


Judge Navarro was concerned enough that the jury was considering all of the possible implications that, at one point, she threw her arms wide, then bringing them slowly back together. She said that they need to guide the jurors back down to a more narrow point of view as they could be looking at sentencing implications, and other extremes.


Navarro still seems to be mostly concerned with the prospect of jury nullification.


The prosecutors also talked about the probability of a hung jury.


It would seem that the court, Navarro and the government prosecutors, are concerned the jurors are looking at more than the government’s case. There appear to be some jurors that do not agree with the court’s narrative.


The jurors continue their second day of deliberations Tuesday.

Share this:

Solitary Confinement for Refusing a Strip Search

Punished With Solitary For Refusing a Strip Search

This happens each time they go to court or visit an attorney.

April 17, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada 1

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ry-678x381.png

Punished With Solitary For Refusing a Strip Search

*Editor’s Note: There are graphic pictures included in this article. They are important to the story, however, some might find them disturbing
.

By Loren Edward Pearce

“He has refused your visit”. The words smacked me in my ears as the prison receptionist told me that I would not be able to visit with Ammon Bundy after waiting for over an hour. But, it took me only a second to recover. I knew why Ammon had refused to visit with me. Ammon was in solitary confinement at the CCA Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada because he refused to submit to the strip/body cavity searches at the prison. To punish Ammon Bundy for his refusal to cooperate, the prison staff threw him in a solitary confinement cell.

When a prisoner is taken to visit somebody, they must submit to a strip/body cavity search round trip, as they go out and as they come back in. This happens each time they go to court or visit an attorney, round trip strip searches. What is a strip search? They must undress completely, totally naked and are subject to having their genitals and rectum inspected by bending over, spreading their butt cheeks and coughing. Guards, with rubber gloves, may touch them in their private areas if they deem it necessary and the physical inspection includes mouth, nose and ears or any part of the body they deem appropriate.

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ch-150x150.jpg
Click on photo for larger view

The prison justifies this practice under the pretense of security and safety for prison staff to avoid contraband and dangerous items from entering the prison through transport in or on a body. Ammon’s position is that:

1. He is not convicted. He has not been found guilty of anything through a trial. Because he has not been found guilty, nor does he have any kind of criminal record, there is no probable cause to suspect him of having contraband.
2. He is entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights, including the 4^th amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and invasions of privacy without probable cause.
3. While he is in pre trial detention, he is to enjoy a presumption of innocence and treated like any other citizen with full access to the Bill of Rights and he is to be treated differently than other prisoners who have been convicted.
4. Solitary confinement is a horrible punishment, beyond the comprehension of people who have never experienced it. Yet, it is preferable to the personal violation by strip/cavity searches.

In addition to the above, I would add:

1. These strip/body cavity searches are sexual abuse. Among the organizations that have branded them as sexual abuse is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). For further analysis of the sexual abuse component of these strip searches, see:
   ACLU: Invasive Search
   
   Univ of Minn Duluth: Strip Searching as Sexual Assault

1. The prison uses computer screens and phones for prisoner visitations. There is no physical proximity between prisoner and visitor. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS CONTRABAND THROUGH A COMPUTER SCREEN. Therefore, the need for a strip search is null and void and the only reason for its use is 1) punishment and/or 2) sexual gratification by prison staff through sexual contact with prisoners and/or 3) control and submission of prisoners through humiliation, manipulation, degradation and displays of prison staff power.
2. The prison allegedly has body scanners such as used in airports as an alternative to the strip searches but does not use them.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

While Ammon Bundy did not agree to visit with me, his brother Ryan did agree, much to my delight. However, my happiness was short lived as I realized the sacrifice that Ryan had to make to see me, subjecting himself the sexual violations mentioned above. Ryan is also in solitary for an overall refusal to submit to these strip/cavity searches and he described the horrors of being in solitary. A partial list includes:

1. No working toilet, they had thrown him a toilet plunger and he got it to work for a short time but it returned to being stopped up. I did not ask him how he took care of his biological needs absent a working toilet.
2. No toilet paper. Likewise, I don’t know what he did absent toilet paper.
3. Isolation, except for brief (15 minutes per day) outside his cell.
4. Restrictions on paper and writing tools for his legal notes and defense.

I did not want to focus on this with Ryan but rather talk about other subjects that would distract his mind from these horrors.

Like the sexual abuse of strip searches, solitary is a prison tool designed to humiliate and control prisoners. Its life long destructiveness to a person, is well documented and much can be found by googling it:
Bangor Daily News: 10 destructive myths about solitary confinement

Washington University Journal of Law & Policy: Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement


Ryan educated me on the Bill of Rights by pointing out that they are one sided, a one way street, exclusively designed to protect the accused and say nothing about protecting the accuser. There is nothing about “complex cases” or convenience for the prosecution in delaying a trial. It is wholly and exclusively for the benefit and enjoyment of the accused. Nevertheless, the federal team (the judge, prosecutors, marshals) have usurped the constitution and the Bill of Rights for their benefit and convenience.

PRE-TRIAL DETENTION
The horrors and injustices are made possible by the grossest injustice of all, pre trial detention through denial of bail or release on recognizance. Like sinking the Titanic in a sea of icebergs, the discussion about solitary confinement, strip searches and other mistreatment of prisoners, is like straightening the deck chairs and arguing about the orchestra music during the sinking when the real issue is the iceberg that caused the disaster in the first place. In this case, the iceberg is the pre trial detention and the denial of bail. Sadly, most Americans have no idea how bad their rights have been sunk by the iceberg of bail denial and the denial of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty making the strip searches and abuse possible.

For an excellent review of the the process that led to this fundamental loss of a presumption of innocence and to pre trial detention, please see:
OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL: Restoring the Presumption of Innocence

WHAT CAN BE DONE
While I was in the prison waiting area, the prison receptionist received a call from a political prisoner supporter. He began to lecture her on what they were doing wrong and she simply replied, “You call me every week, and I give you the same answer, do you want me to transfer you to public relations?” I thought to myself, any calls to the prison is a waste of time. Nothing will change, no matter how many calls are made. Prison staff are not the decision makers nor do they care about lectures on their duty to uphold the constitution. They only care about getting paid and making their mortgage payment.

Please contact the decision makers. The U.S. Marshals division of prison operations, the Inspector General who oversees the Dept of Justice and the Marshals service. Make an appointment with your congress person. Talk to a senior staff member about the horrors being experienced right now, in U.S. prisons. Because, the same thing may happen to you or someone you care about.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...enied-bail.jpg
Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

John Lamb, no verdict yet ~ J Grady

http://youtu.be/xCbyx-8hwws

https://youtu.be/xCbyx-8hwws

John Lamb reported jurors went home, back tomorrow at 8:00 am

Lorri Anderson with a report on the Bundy Trial

http://youtu.be/mz1PvsEIx-I

https://youtu.be/mz1PvsEIx-I

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction Lawrence Becraft Jr.

FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION by Larry Becraft Jr. Constitutional Attorney


http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html


It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears;" see Caha v. United States, 152
U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S.
347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922);
Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S.
281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and
United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963).

This particular principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
as territorial);
Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts
Claims Act as territorial);
United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding
federal wiretap laws as territorial);
Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cleary v.
United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (holding federal age discrimination
laws as territorial);
Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding same
as Cleary, supra);
United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding marine
mammals protection act as territorial);
Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th
Cir. 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial);
Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v.
Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial);
Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding age discrimination
laws as territorial);
Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir.
1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial);
Reyes v. Secretary
of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as
territorial);
and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding
securities act as territorial).

This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha v. United States,
152 U.S., at 215, where the Court declared:
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the
states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."


But, because of treaties as well as express statutory language, the federal drug laws operate extra-
territorially; see United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833, 851 (9th Cir. 1976). The United States has
territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the
territories and insular possessions of the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction
over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American
Union, and this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases.


As a general rule, the power of the United States to criminally prosecute is, for the most part,
confined to offenses committed within "its jurisdiction" in the absence of treaties. This is born out
simply by examination of 18 U.S.C. §5 which defines the term "United States" in clear jurisdictional
terms. [2] Further, §7 of that federal criminal code contains the fullest statutory definition of the
"jurisdiction of the United States." The U.S. district courts have jurisdiction of offenses occurring
within the "United States" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3231.


Examples of this proposition are numerous. In Pothier v. Rodman, 291 F. 311 (1st Cir. 1923), the
question involved whether a murder committed at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the State of
Washington was a federal crime. Here, the murder was committed more than a year before the
U.S. acquired a deed for the property which was the scene of the crime. Pothier was arrested and
incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his release on the grounds
that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over this offense not committed in U.S. jurisdiction. The
First Circuit agreed that there was no federal jurisdiction and ordered his release. But, on appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct. 360 (1924), that Court
reversed; although agreeing with the jurisdictional principles enunciated by the First Circuit, it held
that only the federal court in Washington State could decide that issue. In United States v.

We the People Against Tyrrany: Seven Principles for Free Government ~ John W. Whitehead -Newsbud.com

This video explains what Bundys are standing for

http://youtu.be/VEwbMPM07ro

https://youtu.be/VEwbMPM07ro

"When you stand with truth and righteousness, you stand with God" - Carol Bundy


As jury weighs Bundy Ranch standoff, Carol Bundy awaits her husband’s fate

Posted on April 18, 2017 by Doug Knowles

Video Player

Error loading this resource



Robert Anglen , The Republic | azcentral.com Published 12:08 p.m. MT April 18, 2017

Verdict expected on first six defendants; Cliven Bundy and sons will be tried next.

BUNKERVILLE, Nev. — Carol Bundy sits alone in the living room of her family’s home, restlessly awaiting word that a federal jury is ready to render its verdict on the fate of “the custom and culture of the West; the cowboy way of life.”

Outside the front window, a sprinkler splashes water onto a small square of grass. Inside, a washing machine with worn bearings grinds through another load.

It’s hard to imagine this pastoral setting, past the concrete walkway and on the other side of a wagon-wheel entry gate, as the staging ground of what nearly became the 21st century’s first range war.

Three years ago this month, more than 400 ranchers, militia members and protesters from every state in the union congregated in front of this modest house off a dirt road in one of Nevada’s remote desert corners.

Hundreds brought guns, others brought signs. They came in answer to a social-media call to arms, to mount a show of force against federal agents who had court orders to seize Cliven Bundy’s cattle from federal lands, where the family has grazed them for more than a hundred years.

The standoff lasted six days before the agents, outnumbered and flanked by gunmen in a dusty wash about seven miles from the ranch house, abandoned their mission and released 300 head of cattle from a makeshift pen beneath Interstate 15.

This was where the West was won again, protesters proclaimed. No shots were fired and no arrests were made. Then.

But the government came back last year. Seventeen protesters, including Cliven Bundy and four of his sons, were arrested on conspiracy and weapons charges. They have been held in a Nevada correctional facility without bail for more than a year.

“We weren’t there to break the law. We weren’t there to have anybody get hurt. The price of freedom isn’t free. We felt what we did was right. We still feel that way.”

Carol Bundy, on the standoff with federal agents at the Bundys’ Nevada ranch in 2014

Carol Bundy, in an interview with The Republic, said her husband, sons and others are really being tried for making federal authorities look bad and forcing them to back down in the face of a citizen uprising.

“When we made our stand in 2014, we embarrassed the federal government,” the 63-year-old mother of 14 told The Arizona Republic. “I say we embarrassed the federal government because they came with force and we said, ‘No. Because we have a Constitutional right to stand and we are going to stand.’ ”

She said federal prosecutors are using the court to mount their own show of force and make an example of those who exercised their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

“This isn’t about the truth,” Carol Bundy said. “I don’t think the truth has been told.”

As prosecutors in federal court last week delivered closing arguments against the first six defendants in the Bundy Ranch standoff, Carol Bundy and several others stood up and walked out of the courtroom.

“We walked out during (the lead prosecutor’s) speech because he was telling the jury we have no Constitutional rights,” she said. “We the people have rights.”

Prosecutors described the defendants as thugs who took the law into their own hands in an armed assault on agents from the Bureau of Land Management.

None of the Bundys are on trial yet. The six defendants, from Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma, are the first of 17 to be tried in three separate trials based on levels of culpability.

Although the six men are considered the least culpable, militia members and government protesters who answered Bundy’s call, all 17 face identical charges. All could spend the rest of their lives in prison if convicted.
Defendants in the second trial, including Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, are considered leaders of the standoff.

Carol Bundy said she doesn’t know the six men on trial. But she said every day since their trial began on Feb. 6, she and others have held a prayer vigil for them on the street outside the courthouse.

She said the outcome of this first trial will likely signal how it will end for her husband and sons.
“My husband will be 71 in a couple of weeks. I might never get to see him again,” she said.

https://i2.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.co...12%2C384&ssl=1
A protester, who declined to give his name, holds up a flag outside of a federal courthouse, on April 10, 2017, in Las Vegas. The protester and others stood outside the courthouse in support of six defendants accused of wielding weapons against federal agents during a 2014 standoff involving cattleman and states’ rights advocate Cliven Bundy. John Locher/Associated Press

History of a fight

Carol Bundy said she believes in the jury system, but the jury in this case has been prevented from learning the truth. She said U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro made sure the jury didn’t learn the history of Bundy’s dispute with the federal government.

Navarro also did not allow defendants to use the First and Second Amendments as a defense in the case and advised potential witnesses willing to testify in the cases that they could be subject to arrest if they admitted wrongdoing in support of the Bundys. Carol called it a threat.

“We weren’t there to break the law,” she said. “We weren’t there to have anybody get hurt,” she said. “The price of freedom isn’t free. We felt what we did was right. We still feel that way.”

The Bundy family dispute with the federal government is rooted in land, water and grazing rights going back more than 150 years.

Carol Bundy said her family doesn’t recognize the right of the federal government to own or regulate public land where the family has been grazing cattle since the 1800s.

BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF

She said her family has purchased and inherited valuable “livestock water rights” issued and owned by the state of Nevada. These rights allow the Bundys to graze their cattle on public lands.

“We don’t claim to own the land, only to use it to run cattle,” Carol Bundy said, challenging the federal government’s right to claim ownership of public land. “We believe the state of Nevada is a sovereign state.”

She said the family has established water systems and for years has been a good steward of public lands. She said the land where the family’s 500 head of cattle roam has always been considered free range.

About 20 years ago, however, she said, the Bureau of Land Management sought to enforce a new contract and demanded fees for grazing rights that put many ranch families out of business. She said her husband refused to sign the contract.

She said Cliven refused to pay the BLM and years ago sent the grazing fees to Clark County, which they recognize as a valid legal authority. But the checks were returned.

The feds meanwhile continued to rack up interest and fees while Bundy sought redress in court. He lost.

The BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

Carol Bundy said BLM agents showed up armed and aggressive. She claims they killed cattle, threatened her relatives with arrest. A pregnant woman who protested was thrown to the ground. Her son was shocked with a stun gun three times.

“This wasn’t really happening in our country, in America, this couldn’t really be happening,” she said. “They came in like vigilantes. They came in and tore out water structures that had been there for hundreds of years. They killed my cattle, they terrorized the people of the town. They were just totally out of control.”

Federal prosecutors argued in court the case isn’t about the First or Second Amendments; that the Constitution doesn’t give people the right to threaten federal officers or prevent them from doing their jobs.

They said the Bundy’s dispute with the BLM was adjudicated and the court issued a lawful order to roundup the cattle. When ranchers and the militia made the decision to force the release of the cattle, they broke the law.

Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre, who led the prosecution’s team, said there was nothing noble about the behavior of Bundy and his supporters.

“It makes them vigilantes. It makes them into people who took the law into their own hands.”
Carol Bundy said after her son was arrested, the family turned to right wing and militia websites for help in making a stand.

“Our way of life was being threatened,” she said. “This is the custom and culture of the West.”

https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.co...32%2C399&ssl=1
The entrance to the Bundy family ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada. (Photo: Robert Anglen/The Republic)

The uprising

She said the response from people was overwhelming.

“I was totally surprised,” she said. “I am a little grandma. That lives on a little tiny farm in little tiny Bunkerville, Nevada. We didn’t expect this.”

The standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Ammon and Ryan Bundy cited their success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon, Ryan and five others in October.

https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.co...25%2C300&ssl=1
An oil painting of Cliven Bundy by artist Jon McNaughton hangs in the living room of the Bundy family ranch. (Photo: Robert Anglen/The Republic)

No arrests were made in the Bundy Ranch case until after the Oregon siege ended in February 2016.

Carol Bundy said the Nevada standoff was a peaceful protest about government overreach in the West. And she said the protest proved a citizens’ movement could make the government do what years of court cases could not: back down.

“It’s going to end when the American people get fed up and say we own the government,” she said. “This is what America was founded on.”

In court, the government has argued otherwise. BLM agents abandoned the roundup because they were afraid they were going to die, Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Dickinson said. He said Bundy and his militia “used the barrel of a gun to force those officers to leave federal land.”

The jury, which began deliberations Thursday, is working through 37 pages of instructions.

Jurors must decide if the defendants were part of a criminal conspiracy who sought to impede and injure federal officers.

They also must determine if the men are guilty of assault and threatening federal officers, carrying or using a firearm in a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, interference with interstate transportation, extortion and other crimes.

“Up in Oregon, when my sons got not guilty up there, they came back down and said, ‘Oh, they’ve learned a lot.’ I just looked at them and said, ‘So did we… We’ve learned a lot, too.’ ”

That confidence hasn’t helped Carol get a good night’s sleep in the last two months. And with the verdict in the first trial imminent, she is more restless than usual.

“I believe in the jury system. I believe my family will be home soon,” she said. "When you stand with truth and righteousness, you stand with God.”

Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook
  388
• Google
• Email

Cliven Bundy

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...1a&oe=598397F2