Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

The Irony of Gloria Navarro Whose Parents Were Refugees From Castro's Cuba


The Irony of Judge Gloria Navarro


AMONG THE REFUGEES WERE THE PARENTS OF GLORIA NAVARRO

April 19, 2017 Constitution, News, Opinion, US
https://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/...9211/image.jpg

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...4/castro-4.jpg

The Irony of Judge Gloria Navarro

by Loren Edward Pearce

I have relatives who are refugees from Castro’s Cuba. I have heard many stories about Cubans who supported Castro and thought he was the real deal in supporting freedom of the people.

He would broadcast from a hidden radio station deep inside the Sierra Madre mountains about his desire to be a liberator in the tradition of George Washington and Simone Bolivar. He would often interlace his words with references to the Virgin Mary and to God Later he revealed his true colors as he betrayed the people by revealing that he was a communist and an atheist.

This set in motion many years of repression and expulsions​ of his enemies leading to a mass Exodus to the United States. Among the refugees were the parents of Gloria Navarro presumably seeking the protection of a constitutional republic and leaders Guided by a moral compass.

However any appreciation for the Constitution or the freedoms we enjoy in the United States have been lost on Gloria Navarro who was born in Las Vegas and raised in America. I know nothing about her parents or what she was taught but I know the other Cuban refugees understand what government corruption is and understand how leaders can use and manipulate the people to their own advantage.

So what is surprising to me is that many Americans never experienced what happened in Cuba are able to detect the Corruption of Harry Reid who who nominated Navarro to her current position and who is less disguised than Fidel Castro.

Gloria Navarro probably grew up listening to many stories about the treachery of Fidel Castro but somehow has been unable to see how it correlates with people like Harry Reid. In future articles we will talk about Harry Reid’s relationship to the BLM and his corrupt dealings in buying and selling BLM property.

Navarro set a trial dare for Cliven, Ammon, Ryan Bundy and Pete Santilli for June 5, now she is moving it to June 26. Cliven Bundy's motion objecting


https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...25&oe=59835346


https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...41&oe=59990AA3


https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...20&oe=5990C67F

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...94&oe=59866126


https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...cd&oe=59858F46

Message from John Lamb, "jurors are silent . . . ."

John Lamb

1 hr ·
END OF 4TH DAY OF DELIBERATING
NO VERDICT
JURORS ARE SILENT back at 8am 4/20/17

Waiting for the Verdict, 4/19/2017

http://youtu.be/dlCESiUlrSE

https://youtu.be/dlCESiUlrSE

John Lamb and Andrea Olson-Parker - jury has more questions

video on John Lambs facebook

https://www.facebook.com/john.lamb.1...type=3&theater

J Grady has uploaded the video

http://youtu.be/izRnvfZ74KI

https://youtu.be/izRnvfZ74KI

Commentary from John Lamb's video report

Kathy Asch · 5:12 Let me get this straight... After five days of deliberation... the Nevada jury is asking questions about the wording on the jury instructions.

The jury instructions are 15 pages long and the document that they will turn back into the judge on guilty or not guilty is 11 pages long.

Those two have wording on them that conflicts with the other one.

So after five days of deliberation... they have not even begun to tackle the evidence and testimony presented during the trial.

John Lamb pointed out this morning that the jury has to decide whether there was a conspiracy.

If there wasn't a conspiracy then all of the defendants are not guilty.

If the jury concludes that there was a conspiracy then people who were not even at this trial (but were at The Wash in 2014) are guilty of conspiracy even though they were not allowed to attend or allowed to speak to defend themselves at this trial.

1 · 18 mins

Bunkerville Jury confused by conspiracy

Bunkerville Jury Confused by Conspiracy


EVEN JUDGE NAVARRO SEEMED CONFUSED BY THE JURY'S QUESTIONS.

April 20, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada

https://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/...9211/image.jpg

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...-5-678x381.jpg
On April 12, 2014, the Bundy family and their supporters fly the American flag as their cattle is released by the Bureau of Land Management back onto public land outside of Bunkerville, Nev. (photo: AP)

Bunkerville Jury Confused by Conspiracy

By Shari Dovale and John Lamb

During the 5th day of deliberations, the jury for the first tier Bunkerville defendants have come back to the courtroom with another question.

Though the specific questions remain sealed, the responses from the court indicate the question pertained to contradictions in the jury instructions on how to determine if there was a conspiracy.

Judge Gloria Navarro responded that the conspiracy could have existed from people who are not in this room. She was referring to future defendants and also those that have not been indicted.

At one point, Judge Navarro attempted a convoluted analogy involving baseball. If there was a conspiracy to play a game of baseball, did these defendants bring the tools (bat, ball, glove) to play the game?

If the jury finds that no conspiracy existed, then several of the charges would automatically be found as not guilty. However, it does not mean that all the charges would have a blanket not guilty. There are several charges that are not tied to the conspiracy charge.

The jury questions also indicated that they are having difficulties on unanimity. There could be a possibility of a hung jury on some of the charges.

The jurors must decide on over 70 charges in this case. There are 15 pages of jury instructions and 11 pages of verdict sheets.

This has become very confusing for everyone today, as even Judge Navarro seemed confused by the jury’s questions. The defense attorneys argued that, with today’s responses, their defendants are being tried for crimes possibly committed by other people.

The jury seems to be needing a break, and they have indicated they would like to leave early today and possibly take tomorrow off as well, returning Monday morning. The jurors are setting their own schedule at this point.

It does seem that if the jurors are have having trouble defining a conspiracy on the 5th day of deliberations, then the verdict pendulum could possibly be swinging away from the government.

In related news, many of the defendants have been incarcerated for over 400 days now. It was determined early on that the second trial would commence 30 days after the first was completed. The third trial would then begin 30 days after the second trial completed.

The prosecution filed a motion to delay the start date of the second tier trial until June 5th. Judge Navarro set the date back to June 26th. Cliven Bundy filed a motion contesting that ruling based on the defendants rights to a speedy trial.

The court has continuously delayed these trials for their own convenience. Judge Navarro has cited her reasons for delay, again, as the logistics of responding to pre-trial motions. This is something that she should have planned for from the beginning.

Nevada Attorney Steven Stubbs voices his opinion of this trial ~ J Grady

http://youtu.be/dzPfNRy5VVM

https://youtu.be/dzPfNRy5VVM

Where will you stand? THOSE WHO STAND FOR NOTHING YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING . . . . . .


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0ePj-HRiqu...sofliberty.jpg
Welcome to Friends Of Liberty We hope you enjoy our Blog

Home About Our Blog Friends Of Liberty Where to Follow Us TOWN CRIER : Submit an Article American History Tenth Amendment Radio And Talk Radio Cartoons-Toon BLogs Satire - Blogs+Web Blogroll Plus Websites Plus Thomas Paine And The American Crisis Constitution is for the American citizen ▼

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

WHERE WILL YOU STAND ?:,Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...



https://www.searchlock.com/mirror/p?...l-1280x720.jpg


EXCELLENT SUMMATION OF BUNDY RANCH; UPDATE

Anthony Thomas Dephue


Post-Yesterday


Some wonder if they will take a hard or soft shell on Taco Tuesday tomorrow. Four Idahoans lay on a paper thin mattress in a cell wondering if tomorrow is the day that they will return to their families after 412 days of pretrial incarceration... or if 412 days was just the start. The Government wonders too. They wonder if their long-term progressive, leftist agenda to curtail natural rights will advance one more baby step on the backs of their work in this trial.

The fool believes that Bundy Ranch was about cattle.

This is about rights. We have the right to assemble. The Government wants the right to confine it to the area of a parking lot when their behavior could fall into scrutiny. No. Never. We will peaceably assemble when and where we choose.

This is about rights. We have the right to keep and bear arms. That right doesn't exist solely for hunting or self defense. In many Western states, we have the right to carry openly, in plain sight... chambered or empty, our choice. What the firearm looks like is immaterial. Long gun, pistol, revolver... and for those who want to put down the cash, fully-automatic rifles and submachine guns. Doesn't matter. We will carry our weapons within the rule of law whenever, wherever, and however we choose.

This is about rights. There exists no prohibition for assembling while in lawful possession of a weapon. If we have something to say, and we want to assemble while lawfully armed, for the purpose of elevating our grievance with one voice; guess what... we'll assemble en masse, armed to the teeth, and we'll scream at the top of our lungs until we are done.

This is about rights. The Government wants the right to be able to intimidate and threaten us for the lawful exercise of those unalienable rights. That is the outcome they are gunning for... the right to walk up, point a weapon in your face, and operate with a level of impunity that guarantees an avalanche of criminal charges if you posture to defend yourself from unlawful grave bodily injury or harm.

The Government is the head of an Axis of Tyranny, colluding with the Judiciary to use Congressional lawmaking to advance a leftist, progressive agenda that seeks to further dilute the Constitutional Republic with the poison of Representative Democracy.

I stand for rights. I stand with my brothers from Idaho. I stand with the Bundy's. We'll stand together or hang separately...

join, or die.

If You Don’t Stand for Something, You’ll Fall for Anything

(1) If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.
(2) Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
(3) When you stand for nothing, you fall for everything.


Note: We at Friends of Liberty cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information.

Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to Educate, protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE
TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Join The Resistance and Share This Article Now!

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--eaOPSHua...nts%2BDuty.jpg








https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WUr0wOUs7...2Bcomments.jpg




https://www.facebook.com/images/emoj.../1/16/203c.png‼️️ https://www.facebook.com/images/emoj.../1/16/267b.png♻️ PLEASE SHARE https://www.facebook.com/images/emoj.../1/16/267b.png♻️ https://www.facebook.com/images/emoj.../1/16/203c.png‼️️

Interview with Niel Wampler ~ J Grady, I haven't watched,

http://youtu.be/_BmJSWz52Ak


https://youtu.be/_BmJSWz52Ak

Gavin Seim ~ Ammon Called Me From The Hole Of The Prison

http://youtu.be/v1NI-2eKhEY

https://youtu.be/v1NI-2eKhEY

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/04/ever...re-case-bundy/

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...y1-610x381.jpg

redoubtnews.com


Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy - Redoubt News

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.

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.

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...b1&oe=598D057C
Anthony Thomas Dephue

3 hrs ·

Imagine being the object of a 16-count indictment alleging crimes that prescribe a lifetime of incarceration, all because you lawfully exercised 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, delivered by a Grand Jury based on the testimony of a morally bankrupt sociopath who has a string of questionable ethics violations that accompany criminal acts of witness tampering, coercion, and obstruction of justice.

Then imagine, to your horror, that you are not allowed to call the individual to the stand in order to impeach his credibility and defend yourself against your accuser.

This shit is real. Google "Dan Love".

https://external.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...DDKI_e4gJDYP_m



dan love not killing cattle - Bundy Ranch
#googleDanLove
YOUTUBE.COM

The Prosecution is supposed to have an uphill battle, by bearing the burdon of proof beyond a reasonable doubt


Dan Love Testimony Blocked By Judge Navarro


THE PROSECUTION IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN UPHILL BATTLE, BY BEARING THE BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

April 23, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada, US 1

https://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/...9211/image.jpg

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ny-678x381.jpg

DAN LOVE AND OTHER DEFENSE WITNESS TESTIMONY BLOCKED BY JUDGE NAVARRO

by Loren Edward Pearce

As follow-up to Shari Dovale’s article, “BLM Agent Daniel P. Love Named In Investigation”, it was noted that Agent Love is being investigated for ethics violations and illegal activity.

It was also noted that Love will be the prosecution’s star witness in upcoming Bunkerville, Nevada trials. However, during the trial of the six first tier defendants in Las Vegas who are awaiting a jury verdict, the defense tried to call Love as a “hostile witness” for the defense and was denied upon a prosecutorial objection sustained by the court. It is not clear to this writer the reasons why the court would not allow Love’s testimony and cross-examination by the defense. It appeared to be based on grounds of relevancy and that his testimony would not be “helpful for the jury”. Certainly, if Dan Love’s testimony is relevant to the prosecution in upcoming trials, it is also relevant to the six first tier defendant trials and defense.

WHY DAN P. LOVE’S TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT AND CRITICAL TO
ALL THE BUNDY, ET. AL. NEVADA DEFENDANTS

1.He was the main actor for the BLM at Bunkerville. He orchestrated and supervised the BLM’s activities that impinged on the protesters.

2.He had numerous conversations with Bunkerville protesters and with local law enforcement, conversations that are highly relevant to the case.

3.He made claims in a recorded conversation that none of the cattle were being mistreated when the exact opposite is true. The mistreatment of the cattle is clearly relevant to the case and the actions taken by the defendants. The defense had a constitutional right to impeach his testimony if used by the prosecution and if not used by the prosecution, then the defense had a right to show how Dan P. Love was using overreach and abuse of authority in performance of his federal duties and why the defendants had a right to protest him the performance of those duties.

4.He supervised other wrongful actions of the BLM such as the destruction of water installations and works for animals that had been in use for generations.

5.The defense had a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction and authority as it relates to his role as a federal law enforcement officer.

6.His actions in other matters that are being investigated, may not be admissible evidence since the investigation is ongoing and not concluded. Nevertheless, his overall reputation in the community is admissible evidence as it may relate to his credibility.

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CALL AND CONFRONT WITNESSES
“the conviction of our time that the truth is more likely to be arrived at by hearing the testimony of all persons of competent understanding who may seem to have knowledge of the facts involved in a case, leaving the credit and weight of such testimony to be determined by the jury or by the court. . . .”
Rosen v. United States,245 U. S. 467, 245 U. S. 471.

The Supreme Court in In re Oliver,333 U. S. 257 (1948), described what it regarded as the most basic ingredients of due process of law. It observed that:
“A person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense — a right to his day in court — are basic in our system of jurisprudence, and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.”

“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury, so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.”

The prosecution is supposed to have an uphill battle, by bearing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants are supposed to be at the top of the hill with the presumption of innocence until the prosecution can convince beyond a reasonable doubt, their guilt and then the burden shifts at appeal. The defense is supposed to have preferential treatment and only in rare cases should the defense be denied its right to call witnesses regardless of whether they are favorable or hostile witnesses, as they deem appropriate.

During the first tier trial, the defense repeatedly told the court that it was for the jury to sort out the truth as triers of fact. Judge Navarro thought it was her role to prevent the jury from hearing things not helpful to them rather than let them decide for themselves as competent adults, if Dan Love’s testimony was helpful and relevant in determining a verdict.

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.

The most important prerequisites to be a witness are memory and perception. To be a witness, a person must have perceived the matter in question, and they must remember it. If they do not remember, or did not perceive, the matter, then their testimony is speculation and it is inadmissible.

This is why the court’s ruling that Love, as well as Margaret Houston, could not testify for the defense, was so outrageous. They had personal knowledge, as much, if not more, than anybody else present at the events for which the defendants are being charged.

Under rules of evidence, if the testimony of Love or Houston stray into forbidden territory, not relevant or not truthful, then the other side can object. But, it is for the jury to hear the knowledge they do have and then make a determination.

A search of Federal Rules of Evidence says nothing about relevancy of a witness’ testimony as being grounds for preclusion from testifying. The only requirement is that they have memory and perception. While the perception may not agree with the federal team (judge, prosecutors and marshals), the constitution gives the defense the right to present knowledgeable testimony and the defense, being in the enviable position of being on the top of the hill, should be given broad leeway in presenting witness testimony.

THE EVOLUTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES AND LAWS
This writer read in another scholarly article by a law professor, that the reason so many changes are being made to the Bill of Rights and to the constitution is because judges and legislators no longer consider the constitution relevant and applicable.

The reasoning goes something like this: “The British monarchy was bad, British law based on the divine right of kings, was very bad, very bad” (copying language style of Trump). However, today, in our modern world, we no longer have a monarchy and divine right of royalty nor do we follow British law. The colonists had a right to rebel against the monarchy and those “bad, bad people” (Trump again).

Today, we have replaced the bad monarchists with good people, who are democratic, balanced, trustworthy and honorable. So, the paranoia of the colonists in making a one-sided document such as the Bill of Rights which is wholly in favor of the accused, is no longer applicable. The fears of an abusive, centralized government are unfounded. Now, we must balance it with the State or Government’s interests.

In other words, the old fears about government overreach, abuse by royalty and tyranny, is no longer applicable as we now have checks and balances in place with competent and honest judges who do not have a monarchist background. The judges and prosecutors today, are “good, good people “(Trump again).

CONCLUSION
Therefore, any resistance to present day government is automatically wrong and automatically punishable. The federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals) approaches the Bunkerville defendants with the above irrelevancy of the constitution in mind and justifies defendant pretrial detention because, unlike the colonists, there is no excuse for rebellion or resistance. The purpose of the federal team is to protect government interests and to minimize the defense to one of plea deals and levels of sentencing, because, it is fair to say that the behavior of the federal team leads us to this conclusion:
The defendants are guilty and cannot be proven innocent. They can only be adjudged less guilty and their sentencing reduced. Jury nullification must be prohibited at all costs. The jury, who is a rag-tag group of local citizens, really is not competent enough to make an informed decision based on thousands of pages of laws, precedence and court rules Therefore, we, the federal team, will reduce the jury’s role and substitute our own judgement, whenever we can get away with it.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...e3-638x381.jpg

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 101
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  101
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

Brand Thornton "There is no federal jurisdiction" ~ J Grady

http://youtu.be/Kq_XLFGmCf0

https://youtu.be/Kq_XLFGmCf0

Partial Verdict, Gregg Burleson guilty on 8 counts, Todd Engel guilty of obstruction of justice and interstate travel charge

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...76&oe=598DE946


http://youtu.be/-MreGRELoRA

https://youtu.be/-MreGRELoRA

Andrea Olson-Parker video https://www.facebook.com/andrea.olsonparker/videos/vb.100000137187963/1703969769617579/?type=<a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.olsonparker/videos/vb.100000137187963/1703969769617579/?type=3&amp;theater" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/fvNgirTd9WE

https://youtu.be/fvNgirTd9WE

John Lamb Video

https://www.facebook.com/john.lamb.1...type=3&theater

http://youtu.be/NzsQe4fKTOM

https://youtu.be/NzsQe4fKTOM

Stacy Benner with the Review-Journal story on the partial verdict



http://youtu.be/TFM_NxgQvbY

https://youtu.be/TFM_NxgQvbY

http://youtu.be/tQHvIp0ZDlk

https://youtu.be/tQHvIp0ZDlk

Bundy Ranch mistrial

http://youtu.be/ochnGb3zh3c

https://youtu.be/ochnGb3zh3c

Kelli Stewart with comments on the hung jury trial

http://youtu.be/MmI0HsXfxsw

https://youtu.be/MmI0HsXfxsw

Jury Stats from the Review-Journal with commentary by Stacy B.

Edit: The jury was deadlocked 10 to 2 in favor of the defendants on the conspiracy charges.

http://youtu.be/agWdDgfAzyc

https://youtu.be/agWdDgfAzyc

Kelli Stewarts comments from facebook

Kel Stewart was live.21 hrs

Jury tampering from the supporters outside the Nevada Court house?

Here's my take on the verdicts today.

Quote from Ammon Bundy after he heard the verdict , "No suffering was relieved today. The courts, the attorneys, the marshals and the Judge will continue to be the only ones to benefit through financial gain."
Greg Burleson guilty on 8 counts, Todd Engel guilty on 2 counts. (Hung jury results: 10-2 on everyone but Parker who was 7-5, all favoring the defense)

I'm hearing from the court house that Todd's charges are the least offenses and he will likely get time served since the max is 1 yr 1 month for what he was found guilty of. Greg will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

As of now The government is saying that Todd Engel will not be retried in June, nor will Greg Burleson, they will drop the other hung jury charges on them and only continue going after the 4 who had full hung juries. We shall see..

LikeCommentShare

Cheyenne Jones Turner and Robert Jones like this.

American Justice - The Bundy (hung jury) verdict, the government, and American Justice from the American Thinker

April 25, 2017
The Bundy verdict, the government, and American justice

By Leesa K. Donner
Perhaps it is not too much to say there is no other event in America today more polarizing than the standoff at Bunkerville. Liberty-minded folks who wish to dial back the reach and power of the federal government see Bunkerville as a touchstone. Others, however, see the case of the United States v. Cliven Bundy et al. as a bunch of vigilantes and a law-breaking cowboy out make their own rules and ignore those the rest must follow.
Yesterday, a jury in the first of several trials reached a partial verdict regarding six men who joined Mr. Bundy in his fight against the federal authorities in the 2014 standoff. Each defendant faced ten charges, including obstruction, extortion, weapon violations, threatening and assaulting a federal officer, and conspiracy.

Prosecuted in this case were Eric Parker, Scott Drexler, Todd Engel, and Steven Stewart, who are all from Idaho, while Richard Lovelein hails from Oklahoma. Greg Burleson, a defendant who was also named during the trial as a longtime government informant, is from Phoenix, Arizona.
Amid a heavy media and law enforcement presence outside the courtroom, the following verdicts were made public, according to reporter Jenny Wilson of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Gregory Burleson, former FBI informant, is guilty of eight counts – but not of the conspiracy charge. Todd Engel was found guilty on two charges, obstruction of justice and interstate travel to aid extortion, and the jury is hung on the rest. Federal judge Gloria Navarro has reportedly sent the jury back to deliberate further on the other counts.

At its core, this story is about land rights, ownership, and power. It is a long, complicated, and winding tale that began back in 1989 over a desert tortoise. Designated as an "endangered species," the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) designated "hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land" for conservation, as reported by The Washington Post.

This did not sit well with Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch back in 1877 and called the move a government land grab. As well, others were upset and felt the heavy hand of the federal government on their backs. But it was Mr. Bundy who ultimately became the unmovable object that ignited a militia of freedom fighters out to stop the U.S. government.

http://admin.americanthinker.com/ima.../198414_5_.jpg
Artist Micah McGuire* illustration used by permission

Thus, the existential question "What happens when an unstoppable object collides with an immovable object?" became a reality as an armed citizen resistance met up with armed federal officials in April of 2014, and the standoff at Bunkerville ensued. Observers of the event say it was nothing short of astonishing that no one was killed.

Though the standoff ended without fatalities, the legal battle had just begun. The U.S. government wields an enormous amount of power that is nothing with which to be trifled. Weapons may have been put down, but sides were drawn up, with the first of several controversial court cases coming to an end yesterday.

Freedom fighters who stand with Mr. Bundy are labeled fringe conspiracy theorists the likes of which critics say hearken back to places like Ruby Ridge and Waco. On the other side stand federal officials armed with the law and the sheer force and power of the U.S. government. Some see it as the classic David versus Goliath. Others see this as a case of a vigilante trying to get his way.

The complexity of the case came to a head in a Las Vegas courtroom, where witnesses to the proceedings cried foul, citing prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. One courtroom observer was removed from the proceedings crying, "Treason, treason!" Indeed, there do seem to be legitimate concerns of just how the trial was conducted and if lawyers for the accused were truly able to mount a reasonable defense on behalf of the six men involved in this first Bundy trial.

Author Kit Perez recently captured the spirit of the debate when she wrote:

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?

Increasingly, many across this country view the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty of the government as oppressive. They do not plan to suffer it or surrender what they believe to be their God-given rights. Their defiance will continue to develop into confrontation. Their struggle and resistance will persist unabated. Today's verdict will do nothing to stop it and may indeed do much to propel it forward.

If this does amount to a metaphorical David and Goliath story, it seems Goliath has won the first battle. But the question remains: who will win the next campaign in a war that is not likely to end anytime soon?

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

*McGuire is an upcoming defendant in the Bundy Trial

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz4fJFTlLqK
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

This video is an interview with Brand Thornton from May 2014 regarding the FBI's interest in him at Bundy Ranch. The inteviewer is a retired Lt. Colonel. His channel currently features videos on Trump's latest shenanigans: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCEo9S5mMQ7z4n7ZiuUoBFRw

Quote:

---

I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.https://m.youtube.com/undefinedTWITTER @RoystonPotter

https://s2.googleusercontent.com/s2/....webstarts.comcougarridgeproductions

https://s2.googleusercontent.com/s2/...07162202973614Google+

---

I haven't watched any of his current videos


http://youtu.be/JkL4uQ2dNDo

https://youtu.be/JkL4uQ2dNDo

Another video from April 13, 2014 regarding Clark County/Las Vegas Metro Police Sheriff Gillespie and his SWAT team presence from Retired Lt. Colonel Roy Potter's jewtube channel

http://youtu.be/ilDfAqDNUe4

https://youtu.be/ilDfAqDNUe4

Live video conversation recorded earlier today 4/25/2017 between Kelli Stewart, Ammon Bundy's attorney Morgan Philpot and a Mr. Rick Koerber. I believe Koerber works with Philpot' s office.

https://www.facebook.com/freecapital...type=3&theater

Video has been uploaded by Lo K

http://youtu.be/JIrGNTA8gMo

https://youtu.be/JIrGNTA8gMo

This sounds really f'ked up.

Deb Jordan,
The jury found first round of defendents NOT GUILTY of conspiracy, then went back and changed their minds because of confusion


https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...54&oe=597D8724

Deb Jordan added 11 new photos.

1 hr ·

JURY FINDS FIRST ROUND DEFENDANTS IN BUNDY CASE - NOT GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY!! THEN BECAUSE OF CONFUSION THE JURY CHANGES IT'S MIND. ??? CLEARLY THE JURY DID NOT THINK THEY WERE GUILTY. BUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED BURLESON WAS GUILTY OF EVERYTHING ELSE AND FOUND HIM TO BE -- THEY WENT BACK AND CROSSED OUT THEIR ORIGINAL RULING --- IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?? NAVARRO POLLED THE JURY OVER THIS BEFORE SHE READ THE VERDICT BUT NEVER ASKED IF THEY NEEDED CLARIFICATION -- WHAT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE THIS IS!!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...ca&oe=598482EE



https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...f6&oe=5977B073

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...c4&oe=597D0154


https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...16&oe=599457C7


Edit: comments posted on facebook re the altered verdict

Buzz Izard
Like · 1 hr

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...40&oe=59758090

Teresa Brookshire Right.
Like · 1 · 1 hr



Buzz Izard Teresa Brookshire so sad that this judge is clearly at fault for this whole miscarriage of justice , I have lost faith in our judicial system , something is terribly wrong here ,
Like · 1 hr



Buzz Izard Teresa Brookshire my continued thoughts and prayer for all..
Like · 1 hr

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...40&oe=59758090

Teresa Brookshire There definitely were check marks beside EVERY single name and the final. Not guilty. So, at one time this jury form had not guilty for everyone on the 2 conspiracy charges. It looks as if someone then came back and "marked through" the not guilty verdicts. Why. I want the full story.
Like · 1 hr



Nora Albrecht Someone was either threatened or paid off on the jury.
Like · 1 hr



Sue Sorg Michelle Richter
Like · 1 hr

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...e4&oe=59948277

Teresa Brookshire We had heard there was a 10-2 vote on the conspiracies. Just guessing, the jury had it right when they voted all not guilty because they clearly had to find then ALL guilty or not guilty and they understood that. An all or nothing. I would guess that when Judge Navarro polled the jury 2 spoke up and said they really felt (one or more) of the defendants were guilty. So then she marked through them and sent them back to deliberate. They came back and said none of their positions had changed. The instructions WERE NOT clear and this jury was misled. JMO. I don't care if there is a mark through it or not, they were found not guilty.
Like · 54 mins

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...74&oe=5982D32F

Tim Lohr Judges fault

Ryan Bundy sues the federal government


Ryan Bundy sues federal government

Posted on April 26, 2017 by Doug Knowles

https://i1.wp.com/itmattershowyousta...40%2C427&ssl=1FILE – This Jan. 27, 2016, file photo provided by the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, shows Ryan Bundy. Bundy and his brother, Ammon Bundy, are being transferred from a Portland, Ore., jail to Nevada Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2016, where they will be tried early next year on charges stemming from a 2014 standoff with federal agents near their father’s ranch.(Multnomah County Sheriff via AP, File)

By Jenny Wilson Las Vegas Review-Journal April 25, 2017 – 5:12 pm

Ryan Bundy, a son of embattled rancher Cliven Bundy who is incarcerated pending trial on conspiracy charges, has sued the federal government.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas, Bundy challenges the constitutionality of prison policies and alleges deprivation of rights after he was punished for refusing to obey those policies.

Bundy was transferred to prison in Nevada last fall after he was acquitted of conspiring to stage an armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon. He is scheduled to stand trial later this year on separate federal conspiracy charges that result from an armed standoff near his father’s ranch in Bunkerville in April 2014.

“Plaintiff Bundy has been forced and threatened to undergo oppressive, intrusive, and unlawful body cavity searches multiple times per day where his clothing is removed, where his genitals are or would be exposed to Defendant Doe’s during these multifarious and nonconsensual intrusions against his fourth, fifth, eight and fourteenth amendment rights,” Bundy, who is representing himself, wrote in the lawsuit.

“Plaintiff Bundy has been forced and threatened to bend over and expose his anus by spreading his butt cheeks wide open while Defendant Doe’s peer up into Mr. Bundy’s rear body cavity hundreds of times,” he wrote.

The constitutionality of prison strip searches has been litigated extensively. In such cases, the courts generally are concerned with how to balance the prison’s interest in maintaining security with a detainee’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 2012, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld prison strip searches of detainees arrested for minor offenses like traffic violations. Bundy is charged with multiple felonies.

The issue generally causes split decisions, but since 1979, courts consistently have upheld blanket strip search policies for pretrial detainees.

“On or around March 20, 2017, Plaintiff Bundy refused to undergo any further strip/body cavity searches imposed upon his person,” Bundy wrote in his filing. He said prison employees “continue to ‘punish’” his decision to refuse to be strip searched by “keeping him locked down in disciplinary segregation for twenty-four hours per day, with no opportunity for meaningful daily exercise.”

Bundy acknowledges in his filing that prison officials offered to transport him to a hearing on the constitutionality of strip searches.

But, in a convoluted sentence, he seems to claim that is unconstitutional, because he would have to be strip searched to attend the administrative grievance hearing.

He says that while in disciplinary segregation, he has been deprived a working toilet, toilet paper, a pencil and paper and thus has “no way to prepare for his own defense against the Government.”

“As of April 18, 2017, Plaintiff Bundy has been in “the hole” for approximately (40) days,” he said in his filing.
Bundy lists United States Inc. as one of the defendants in his lawsuit, choosing to refer to the federal government as a corporation. He is seeking roughly $35 million in damages from a multitude of defendants, who include the Corrections Corporation of America, Nevada Southern Detention Center Warden Charlotte Collins and a number of federal employees whose names were not listed in the filing.

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


Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook
  548
• Google
• Email
• Print
• More

So there was no "mistrial". The Jury gave their verdict of Not Guilty.

Now the US wants to re try those found NG on same charges but not re-try those who have been found guilty (on the other charges) on those charges as well.

If the process were about justice and not just "Convictions of Any Kind at Any Cost so long as Every One is at least convicted of Something ", they would retry every defendant on the same charges for which there was, what they are claiming, a mis trial. The important point was There was No Mis Trial. Defendants all found NG.

If it really is NG on those charges then this is Double Jeopardy.

What is the precedent for higher authorities to intervene in an ongoing matter? Who can petition? There are clear ongoing breaches of the law by the law that should be stopped in their tracks. If convictions result, these men will be dead before any kind of judicial review can occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

So there was no "mistrial". The Jury gave their verdict of Not Guilty.

Now the US wants to re try those found NG on same charges but not re-try those who have been found guilty (on the other charges) on those charges as well.

If the process were about justice and not just "Convictions of Any Kind at Any Cost so long as Every One is at least convicted of Something ", they would retry every defendant on the same charges for which there was, what they are claiming, a mis trial. The important point was There was No Mis Trial. Defendants all found NG.

If it really is NG on those charges then this is Double Jeopardy.

---

I suppose this could be called jury tampering by the government court. If the conspiracy charge was not guilty none of the other charges can be guilty.

Review-Journal reporter Jenny Wilson, she often puts her mainstream spin on things she writes


Questions remain after mistrial in Bunkerville standoff case

Posted on April 26, 2017 by Doug Knowles

https://i2.wp.com/itmattershowyousta...20%2C468&ssl=1Supporters pray outside the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse as they await the jury’s verdict in the first Bunkerville standoff trial on Monday, April 24, 2017, in Las Vegas. Bizuayehu Tesfaye Las Vegas Review-Journal @bizutesfaye

By Jenny Wilson Las Vegas Review-Journal April 25, 2017 – 6:24 pm

A federal jury’s failure to reach a unanimous verdict on 50 of the 60 counts in the first Bunkerville standoff case — and the mistrial that resulted — has spurred a flurry of concerns about speedy-trial rights among others accused of conspiring with rancher Cliven Bundy.

Eleven people still await trial on charges that they organized a mass assault on federal agents who tried to seize Bundy’s cattle from public land in April 2014.

The first trial ended Monday when U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial and set a new trial date of June 26. Jurors convicted two of the first six defendants on some of the counts but deadlocked on most of the charges contained in the indictment. The new trial date coincides with the previously scheduled start date for the second group of defendants: Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy; Ryan Payne; and Peter Santilli.

One question is hanging over the federal courthouse in the wake of Monday’s mistrial: What happens next? Federal prosecutors still have not decided whether to retry the defendants. Taxpayers already have been saddled with significant costs, which only will balloon in a repeat trial. And the remaining 11 defendants who have been in prison for over a year do not want to wait any longer for their day in court.

That is why some defense attorneys who represent the second group of defendants, charged as “leaders” of the armed protests in Bunkerville, are hoping that if prosecutors decide to retry any or all of the men in the first group, they will do so by combining them with the second group.

“The sensible thing would be to take the three or four and just push them into our group and let it go forward,” defense attorney Christopher Rasmussen said.

The attorney represents Santilli, a local radio personality who plans to argue at trial that he is innocent because he was a member of the media reporting on what he viewed as government overreach.

“Why keep the Bundys and Santilli in custody another four months?” asked Rasmussen, who has filed a motion requesting that Santilli be tried on June 26, when the first group of defendants is retried. “We’re just hoping to go forward as quickly as possible.”

The original plan was for the second trial to open 30 days after the first. Navarro already pushed that back to give prosecutors time to regroup and to prepare in between trials.

“They’re happy that the jury believed there was no conspiracy. That’s what they’ve always said, that nobody conspired with anybody,” Rasmussen said of Santilli and the others awaiting trial. “But they’re really frustrated. They want to go to trial.”

Supporters of the Bundy family and those closest to them, who, like Santilli, are charged as “leaders” of the standoff, also were encouraged by Monday’s results.

“If we can’t get a ‘not guilty,’ we’ll take that,” said Deb Jordan, Santilli’s girlfriend, after the jurors revealed they were “hopelessly deadlocked.”

Rasmussen’s recent motion, however, could have other aims. He previously has argued through legal filings that the at-times unruly behavior of the others in Santilli’s trial group — like the Bundy brothers, who have refused to come into the courtroom for a routine hearing and instead chosen to watch proceedings from a holding cell — could be prejudicial.

Review-Journal writer Blake Apgar contributed to this report. Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.

Bundy brothers
The Bundy brothers awaiting trial are growing impatient, and they have been causing a stir at the federal facility where they are housed.

“Ryan and Ammon Bundy refused to follow facility rules by refusing to submit to a strip search and put on handcuffs prior to leaving segregation for movement to the lawyer visitation room. As a result, they were not transported to the interview room,” a recent court filing said. The filing also said, “Ammon and Ryan Bundy’s objection to being transported in handcuffs to and from their attorney visits is not a new complaint.”


Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook
  111
• Google
• Email

The Bundy supporters compiled a slideshow of all the exculpatory evidence the judge wouldn't allow. They hav uploaded it to jewtube hoping to get enough exposure for the jury members see they were lied to and manipulated. . .


https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...b2&oe=598D9BE6

Mollie Dunn Powell shared a link.
2 h
We are trying to share this short video of photos judge Gloria Navarro blocked the jury from seeing in Nevada. She barred almost all exculpatory evidence the defense intended to present. We hope that once the jury has an opportunity to see how manipulated and lied to they were, they will speak out which could impact the prosecution's continuing forward. Please help us by sharing this! Thank you!


Bundy Ranch Trial Slideshow

A Slideshow of information that Judge Gloria Navarro didn't want the jury to see.
YOUTU.BE


http://youtu.be/rppsvdHGO7c

Kelli Stewart, John Lamb, Morgan Philpot and Rick Koeber discuss the official jury verdict with apparent lines through the not guilty check marks on Docket 1903 that Deb Jordan pulled up in Pacer.

This video is about an hour and a quarter.

http://youtu.be/XDY943GE57o

https://youtu.be/XDY943GE57o

Did Judge Navarro manipulate the verdict?


Did Judge Navarro Manipulate The Verdicts?


WHAT DID JUDGE NAVARRO KNOW, AND WHEN DID SHE KNOW IT?

April 27, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada



https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ct-678x381.jpg

Did Judge Navarro Manipulate The Verdicts?

By Shari Dovale

The first tier defendants in the Bundy-Bunkerville Protest Trial completed this week with mixed verdicts. The jury found former FBI Informant Greg Burleson guilty on 8 of 10 charges, with brandishing enhancements for the firearms charges.

Additionally, the jury found Todd Engel of Boundary County, Idaho, guilty of 2 of the charges against him.

But what about the main charges of Conspiracy?

• Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States
• Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer

Court documents were released this week that suggest the jury had unanimously found all defendants Not Guilty of these two charges.

It is important to review the timeline for the events as we look at the documents.

The jury received the case for deliberations on Thursday, April 13^th, though they did not have their first full day of deliberations until the following Monday, April 17^th.

The jury sent questions to the court, which Judge Navarro promptly sealed from public view. No one has access to the actual wording of the questions from the jury, except the judge and the attorneys. This becomes an important point later in the discussion.

Based on the responses and discussion from the court, the gallery surmised that the jury had ‘hypothetical’ questions pertaining to the possibility of a hung jury. This meant they did not have consensus on all of the charges the defendants were facing.

Judge Navarro’s main concern through this entire trial has been the possibility of jury nullification. She appeared to have the same fears regarding the jury’s questions and responded that she was concerned with the jury considering sentencing or other extremes. She wanted to guide the jury “back down to a more narrow point of view.”

Three days later, the jury had more questions, which the court promptly sealed again from public view. These questions specifically seem to pertain to the conspiracy charges.

It was felt that the jury was confused on the jury instructions. The instructions apparently contradicted themselves, in that on one page they refer to “the defendants” yet another page would refer to “a person”.

The jury appeared unsure that if they found the defendants ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ of the conspiracy charges, would they then be required to find all other charges with the same verdict?

Therefore, on April 20^th, it would indicate that they had found agreement on several of the charges.

The jury took the weekend off and resumed their deliberations on the following Monday, April 24^th. It was shortly after beginning that they came back with a response of having an agreement on some charges, yet they were deadlocked on many others.

Judge Navarro sent them back to deliberate longer under an “Allen Charge”, which is an instruction given by a court to a deadlocked jury to encourage it to continue deliberating until it reaches a verdict.

Some states prohibit Allen charges, because they deem them coercive, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their use in Allen v. U.S., 164 U.S. 492 (1896). Also called dynamite charge, nitroglycerin charge, shotgun charge, and third-degree instruction.

The prosecution had asked for the Allen charge, but the defense did not.

Later that same day, the jury stated they could not reach a full agreement and Judge Navarro accepted guilty verdicts on the aforementioned charges while declaring a mistrial on the remaining charges, including the two main conspiracy charges.

This is where it gets interesting.

*Disclaimer: I do not claim to be a legal expert, so my conclusions are not based on legal training.

The documents released are the official jury verdict forms. You can view them below.

The official forms are a part of the trial documents and cannot be altered or removed from the record. These documents are given to the jury for their deliberations. If a mistake is made on these documents, the jury foreman is to destroy that copy and request a new form.

The documents clearly show that the jury had reached an agreement on the conspiracy charges, marking ‘not guilty’ next to the names of all the defendants for both charges. However, it does appear that there had been a ‘strike-through’ made on these checkmarks.

However, there are no marks at all listed on the ‘guilty’ side of these charges. If the jury had changed their minds, it would be reasonable that they would have either gotten a new form, or marked the other side of the current form.

This suggests that the jury had unanimously decided that there was no actual conspiracy.

Going back to the questions that the jury posed to the court last Thursday, the jury gave the impression they were confused on whether or not they would be required to find all charges not guilty if they found the conspiracy charges not guilty. They clearly were in agreement on the guilty charges for Greg Burleson and Todd Engel.

There was a very interesting discussion between several people that was broadcast live. The points were made that this could be a case of “implied acquittal”. Following the case of Brazzel v. Washington, 484 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007), the court observed that:
“The doctrine of implied acquittal states that when a jury convicts on a lesser alternate charge and fails to reach a verdict on the greater charge–without announcing any splits or divisions and having had a full and fair opportunity to do so–the jury’s silence on the second charge is an implied acquittal.

A verdict of implied acquittal is final and bars a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Putting a defendant in jeopardy a second time is not necessarily harmless error or moot, even if the defendant is only convicted of the lesser crime, because the Double Jeopardy Clause is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict.”

This begs the question of whether or not the jury was genuinely deadlocked on the conspiracy charges? It also asks, “Did Judge Navarro know about the verdict before she ruled on the mistrial?”

If the jury was unanimous, then the acquittals should be entered into the record. However, Judge Navarro ruled a mistrial, therefore declaring the jury to be NOT unanimous on the conspiracy charges.

They were clearly unanimous at one point, so when did they become Not Unanimous? Before or after the Allen Charge?

Navarro accepted the guilty verdicts, yet did not accept the not guilty verdicts. It does seem plausible that she could have known the jury had reached consensus on the two main charges but they were confused, based on her instructions, as to the remainder of the charges. They clearly intended to find guilt on the 2 charges against Todd Engel and the 8 charges against Greg Burleson.

If Judge Navarro knew that the jury had reached an agreement on the 2 main conspiracy charges, yet did not accept them, could there be an argument to her manipulating the verdicts?

Additionally, there is the question that, if Judge Navarro knew of the not guilty agreement before she issued the Allen Charge, did she use that instruction as a tool to coerce the jury to change their verdict?

Therefore, the ultimate question is: “What did Judge Navarro know, and when did she know it?”

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m1-150x150.jpgJury Form 1	https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m2-150x150.jpgJury Form 2	https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m3-150x150.jpgJury Form 3	https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m4-150x150.jpgJury Form 4
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m5-150x150.jpgJury Form 5	https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m6-150x150.jpgJury Form 6	https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m7-150x150.jpgJury Form 7	https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m8-150x150.jpgJury Form 8
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...m9-150x150.jpgJury Form 9	Jury Form 10	Jury Form 11

We thank Deb Jordan for releasing the documents to the public.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• 88
  Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  88
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

This is a must read. You cannot imagine how low and disgusting these so called public servants are.

Deb Jordan published information today that reveals what the jury did not hear, and also the conspiracy involving the US Attorney Bogdon, Senator Harry Ried, BLM Director Niel Kornze, Sheriff Gilespe and others. I cannot believe how low these bastard politicians have stooped to frame Cliven Bundy.

Guerilla Media Network

Home Of The Pete Santilli Show

APRIL 28, 2017

• HOME
• ARCHIVES
• DONATIONS APPRECIATED HERE
• PRESS CREDENTIALS
• SEND MESSAGE TO THE PETE SANTILLI SHOW
• UPDATES — BUNDY RANCH TRIALS

Home › News › A Deadly Game: What the Jury didn’t hear about what really happened at Bundy Ranch

A Deadly Game: What the Jury didn’t hear about what really happened at Bundy Ranch

petesantillishow 04/28/2017 News

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...-1-300x226.jpg
GMN – PROVEN – STRONG – ADVOCACY – JOURNALISM

Prosecution in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al, was dealt a heavy blow as they were forced to except a mistrial after almost 3 months of bringing what they felt was their best evidence to a Jury in Las Vegas, Nevada, against 6 men who say, it wasn’t about cows as much as it was about civil rights abuses .

But how much was it about the cows to Special Agent In Charge Daniel P. Love, and The United States Attorney’s who continue to protect him?

After the mistrial was announced Defense attorney’s in the case were given opportunity to speak with jurors who told them they felt the government had brought forward way to much evidence that went nowhere (proved nothing) and that some of it, along with a good deal of their witnesses, were not to be believed.

Judge Gloria Navarro gave the prosecution in the case broad authority during the trial to pile on hour after hour of sometimes repetitive, meaningless Facebook and YouTube analysis that bogged down their case with confusion and boredom, and literally put some jurors to sleep.

According to one alternate juror I spoke with, it was not lost on the jury that the government was working very hard to keep damaging information from them. The Juror also stated that Myhre’s final closing rebuttal had very little impact on the Jury in the end.

Prosecutor Steven Myhre went to great lengths to keep certain information from reaching the ears of the Jury. For instance, motions were filed before the trial began asking Judge Gloria Navarro to not allow defense attorneys to talk about Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Special Agent in Charge, Daniel P. Love’s horrendous record of abuse before during or after the protest, that led to his mysterious disappearance because of misconduct. The document also stated, as does many other motions filed by the Prosecutor’s office, that Prosecutor Myhre feared Defense Attorney’s would turn the trial around and effectively put Dan Love and the BLM on trial. When she refused to do that Myhre went another route and decided not to call Love to the stand at all.

Defense attorneys were incensed for a number of reasons. The first of which they argued, was their client’s right to face and question their accuser as outlined in the “confrontation clause” of the Sixth Amendment. The defense threatened, that if the Prosecution failed to call Love to the stand then they would meet the Sixth Amendment obligation by calling him for the defense.

After a valiant argument by the defense team, Navarro still granted the Prosecution’s request and forbid the Defense from calling the agent in charge to testify. Based on her belief in obscure case law, she speculated the court had discretion to fore-go the Constitution if she felt they were going to call Dan Love for the sole purpose of impeaching him. From that point on, no derogatory statements or information that made Dan Love look bad was allowed.

This ruling by Navarro had a staggering effect on the information the defense could and could not bring forward to reveal the true nature of Dan Love’s conduct on April 12th, 2014. Nothing spoke louder about how far Navarro and Myhre would go to keep the information about Dan Love from the Jury than when Defendant Todd Engel, who was representing himself, asked a Government witness — “Isn’t it true that Daniel P. Love is now under investigation for misconduct?”

Mr. Engel was immediately stripped of his right to represent himself.

The failure of Prosecutor Steven Myhre to call star witnesses Daniel Paul Love, and former Sheriff of Clarke County NV, Douglas Gillespi to the stand, at one point could have weighed heavily in the Prosecution’s inability to get the desired guilty verdict against the first round defendants, but reality holds out that it was a lose-lose proposition for Myhre. One alternate juror said, everyone on the jury already knew about Dan Love —

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT KEPT HIDDEN FROM THE JURY

After the April 9th, 2014 video of BLM officers assaulting protestors’ Margaret Houston and Ammon Bundy went viral and subsequently aired on Fox News on April 10th, Love was livid about the bad press and eager to get out from under the scrutiny of the media. Media outlets, both mainstream and independent, descended on the ranch and the idea that government over-reach had led to the violent attack on protestors spread like wild-fire. The video aired around the world and brought news crews from as far away as Japan to Bunkerville, Nevada.

On or about the 11th, the FBI has a conversation with Love where he pleads to have more agents dispersed to Bunkerville, and the FBI refuses that request stating;

“We will not be throwing anymore 3 letter agencies at this thing Agent Love; If you proceed you are on your own.”

The FBI told Dan Love that it was their opinion he had lost control of the situation and that his obvious escalation was now a matter of public safety. They further advised him it would be in the best interest of public safety to cease all operations and that further activity would risk creating a flashpoint situation if he did any of the following;

• Continue to gather cattle
• Transport cattle from the compound
• Continue to occupy the area
• Create ANY situation where the BLM confronts – the Bundy’s – the Militia – or Protestors in any way, and not to;
• Put BLM officers in a situation where they must leave in mass

What happened on the ground after the FBI had that conversation with Daniel P. Love speaks for itself. Obviously Love was not listening to anyone at this point — Not even the FBI.

During a telephone meeting where Gillespi tries once again to reason with Love – [S.A.C] Love tells the Sheriff he planned to do one of 3 things;

1. Stay at the compound and continue the operation
2. Get the cattle to a auction house in California, or
3. Start killing [shooting] the cattle

What Love failed to tell Gillespi was, he had been killing the cattle all along. Evidence collected after the fact showed [*S.A.C*] Dan Love chose option 3 early on during the operation. Had that evidence been allowed to be brought forward it would have clearly explained why the Bundy family had become so desperate over the course of the cattle roundup and why they went to meet the BLM convoy on the morning of April 9th, 2014. The objective was not to impede the BLM, because obviously whatever they were doing with the equipment seen coming out of the desert had already been done, but to have Gillespi meet the family on Riverside Drive the morning of the confrontation and get answers from the BLM about gunfire from helicopters being used to herd the livestock, gunfire heard coming from the compound, and to explain the use for earthmoving equipment and dump-trucks. They also wanted Gillespi to check on the condition of the herd. Gillespi refused over and over again to assist the family in any way when it came to dealing with the BLM but in an exclusive interview with the Las Vegas Sun 3 months after the protest this information emerged;

Gillespie said he initially agreed to a request from Bureau of Land Management officials to assist in the roundup of Bundy’s cattle from public lands —

But when he learned the feds weren’t being truthful with him and he saw they weren’t going to listen to his advice, he told them he wouldn’t send his officers to Bundy’s ranch near Bunkerville.

“‘This is what normally happens,'” Gillespie said, paraphrasing the BLM’s conversation with him before the roundup began in April. “‘The local sheriff backs out. We know what we’re doing.'” —

“I go up there to talk to Cliven (before the roundup), see if I can talk some understanding to him, and the boys are there,” Gillespie said. Further, he learned the BLM had no place to take the cattle.

“That’s when I call the BLM and say my folks are not participating in this,” Gillespie said. “‘You’re telling me things that I’m finding out not to be true. I don’t like the way this is going, and I think you need to put this off and look at the fall.‘”Source Article here courtesy Las Vegas Sun

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...e1-300x300.jpg

Some would argue Sheriff Gillespi’s unwillingness to come when called numerous times by the family to check on the well-being of the cattle, enabled Dan Love to remain at the compound unchecked, and to ultimately kill cattle and destroy vital infrastructure. Had Gillespi come when called much of the herd would have been saved. But according to Cliven Bundy, many were lost during the roundup process after Love, the BLM, and inexperienced contract cowboys, had run the hooves right off some of the herd, and left newborn babies in the desert to die. Despite having no court order to do so, Dan Love killed Approx. 27 head of cattle that had been shot and buried in a pit that was uncovered shortly after the BLM left the area. Dan Love had denied he was killing cattle to Journalist Pete Santilli on April 10th, 2014.

Click here to see a video of the pit being uncovered.

DAN LOVE DEFIES ORDER FROM GOVERNOR BRIAN SANDOVAL TO RELEASE CATTLE

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...ow-300x200.jpg

During one of a number of conference calls beginning on April 9th and lasting through the 12th, Sheriff Douglas Gillespi informed Love that Governor Brian Sandoval had given the order to release [State owned cattle] being held by the BLM. Sandoval instructed Gillespi to make it clear to the BLM;

Any cattle rounded up by the BLM not carrying the Bundy Brand was now considered property of the State of Nevada and it was his order those cattle be released back out onto public lands. The Federal Government could only claim ownership of cattle carrying the “Bundy Brand” and all others were to be released immediately.

Instead, Dan Love floated an idea back to Sheriff Gillespi, that completely dismissed the Governor of Nevada’s order .. They wanted Gillespi to broker a deal on behalf of the United States Government, where if Cliven Bundy allowed them to sell all of his livestock, “with a promise to later give him the money they made after the cattle were successfully sold at auction,” the BLM would back down and leave the area.

This would explain clearly why testimony from various BLM agents exposed the fact Love was still trying to find a willing auction house in California to take the cattle off his hands in the last hours before the protest on April 11th & 12th.

THE HARRY REID CONNECTION

At some point during the early hours of April 12th, 2014, Sheriff Gillespi received a phone call from the Office of Harry Reid.

It is not clear whether or not it was Harry Reid himself who made the call or a member of his staff, but the message from Reid to Gillespi was clear;

“The Department of The Interior has lost faith in your ability to negotiate the deal with Cliven Bundy. You are no longer authorized to offer him that deal. “

Meaning, the deal that involved the selling of Mr. Bundy’s cattle and giving him the profit from the sale was no longer an option.

It was then Harry Reid’s office told Sheriff Gillespi exactly what to say when he took the stage at the Bundy Ranch “rally” on the morning of April 12th. Suddenly, any attempt at de-escalating the situation was forsaken, and a new plan was put into action.

DANIEL BOGDEN’S PLAN

At 7:00 am on the morning of April 12th, 2014, Sheriff Douglas Gillespi hosted a conference call at his home that included;

• Clark County-Under Sheriff – Joe Lombardo
• Clark County-Under Sheriff Kevin – McMahill
• Clark County-Under Sheriff – James Dixon
• Nevada State Attorney – Daniel Bogden
• [SAC-BLM] – Daniel P. Love
• Head Of BLM – Neil Kornze
• Head of Terrorism Task Force-FBI – Laura Bucheit

It is believed it was during this conference call that a plan was set into motion that would involve the entrapment of Cliven Bundy and protestors on the ground in order to create a case for future prosecution. The legal advise was spearheaded by then US State Attorney Daniel Bogden; In fact, it would be Daniel Bogden who in the background advised Daniel P. Love to allow the release the cattle, but to be sure it was Cliven Bundy who pulled the pin ..

What Nevada’s US State Attorney Bogden was now proposing, would change the course of history and put hundreds of lives in danger. This fully explains why a BLM agent was both seen and heard multiple times in courtroom video evidence saying;

” If Love’s plan works, he’s a fucking genius; If it doesn’t — well — “

On the video the agent never finishes his thought.

It also ends the mystery of why the BLM was still on the ground and ready to kill, when the unsuspecting protesters arrived. At least one of the agents knew of a plan.

Whether he meant to or not, Gillespi went to the rally on the morning of the 12th and gave an ambiguous statement claiming the BLM was ceasing operations and the Lands would be re-opened to the public. By the time Gillespi made that statement on the stage the wheels were in motion for a confrontation in the Toquop Wash; Daniel P. Love was ready and waiting.

The only thing Dan Love had left to accomplish in the Wash was to create a situation which he and Bogden hoped would lure Cliven Bundy to the compound where he could be coaxed into pulling the pin on the gate.

During a planning meeting on the 11th, the Nevada State Highway Patrol was told to go to the BLM compound on the morning of the 12th to help escort the BLM out of the compound. This information would account for the confusion on the ground between the BLM and the NHP.

It is unclear as to whether or not the NHP knew the plan had changed by the time they arrived on the scene, but either way they learned after they got there the BLM was not prepared to leave and had dug in with weapons pointed at protestors.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...13-300x200.jpg

Gillespi was nowhere to be seen after his initial speech at the Bundy rally site on the morning of the 12th, and Under-Sheriff’s Joe Lombardo and Tom Roberts took over the so called negotiations for the cattle release.

Did Lombardo and Roberts know the objective was to get Cliven Bundy to break the plain of the main gate and have him pull the pin on the gate of the cattle holding area?

Only a thorough cross-examination can get to that truth.

THE ALMOST DEADLY END

Dan Love had obviously been told he had lost the support of Sheriff Gillespi, Metro P.D. and the FBI. Governor Brian Sandoval made clear his position throughout the event. State Legislators from Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Washington State who were in the Toquop Wash the day of the protest, all condemned Love’s actions for still being there when they arrived. The Nevada State Highway Patrol was completely unaware they would be assisting in a standoff.

So did Dan Love fool all of these people into believing they were coming to assist in a departure when in reality the plan was always to prolong the event just long enough to entrap Cliven Bundy?

Was a militarized BLM and Park Service protecting government assets that day, or were they protecting Dan Love while he worked desperately to buy Daniel Bogden’s plan enough time to get Cliven Bundy on the scene – so they could prosecute him in the future?

Did Dan Love, with the assistance of Daniel Bogden, risk hundreds of lives just to get Cliven Bundy to pull a pin on a gate?
Failing to convince Cliven Bundy to come to the BLM Compound, Dan Love ran out of time and left the area, but before he left he asked Under-Sheriff Tom Roberts to make sure a Metro-PD Officer turned on a Body-camera to film the release of the cattle.

Who pulled the pin?

I guess we will find that out in the next trial. #googledanlove

TO SUPPORT PETE SANTILLI PLEASE CLICK HERE – DONATIONS ARE APPRECIATED

AMMON BUNDY, BLM, Bundy Ranch, Bundy Standoff, Bundy Trial, Cliven Bundy, Daniel Bogden, Daniel Love, FBI, Gunmen, Harry Reid, Jury, Mistrial, Nevada, Pete Santilli, Ryan Bundy, Special AgentPost navigation

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

---

Archives

• April 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• July 2016
• June 2016
• May 2016
• January 2016

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympl...EYZ#.dnqWVl08A

Armed Standoff Leader Claims He's Been Strip Searched "Hundreds Of Times" In Jail While Awaiting Trial

Ryan Bundy says in a lawsuit that he has been forced to strip down while jail authorities "peer" up into his "rear body cavity hundreds of times."

n the suit filed Monday, Ryan Bundy says he has been forced to "undergo oppressive, intrusive, and unlawful body cavity searches multiple times per day" while housed at the Southern Nevada Detention Center. The searches, which required him to remove his clothing and expose himself to jail personnel, were "nonconsensual intrusions" against his Constitutional rights.

Bundy "has been forced and threatened to bend over and expose his anus by spreading his buttock checks wide open" while jailers "peer" into his body cavity "hundreds of times," the lawsuit states. Bundy also alleges there have been 40 "highly intrusive strip/body cavity searches."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheka.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympl...EYZ#.dnqWVl08A

Armed Standoff Leader Claims He's Been Strip Searched "Hundreds Of Times" In Jail While Awaiting Trial

Ryan Bundy says in a lawsuit that he has been forced to strip down while jail authorities "peer" up into his "rear body cavity hundreds of times."

n the suit filed Monday, Ryan Bundy says he has been forced to "undergo oppressive, intrusive, and unlawful body cavity searches multiple times per day" while housed at the Southern Nevada Detention Center. The searches, which required him to remove his clothing and expose himself to jail personnel, were "nonconsensual intrusions" against his Constitutional rights.

Bundy "has been forced and threatened to bend over and expose his anus by spreading his buttock checks wide open" while jailers "peer" into his body cavity "hundreds of times," the lawsuit states. Bundy also alleges there have been 40 "highly intrusive strip/body cavity searches."

---

Ammon Bundy's wife reported that Ammon and Ryan have been released from solitary and were able to take their first shower in 40 days

Gavin Seim posted a video:

http://youtu.be/oquoFDrQROs

https://youtu.be/oquoFDrQROs

Post-trial. Interview with Eric Parker ~ Uploaded by MrsB Stacy

http://youtu.be/NXc_3azKh5Y

https://youtu.be/NXc_3azKh5Y

After the Bundy's stood up to the feds in 2014. The BLM also writes its own rules and regulations and ignores provisions of stautory law that say prior established rights must be honored.

http://newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike147.htm


http://newswithviews.com/Coffman/images/text.gif

Page has been removed, it must be too revealing,

Guerilla Media Network

Home Of The Pete Santilli Show

APRIL 29, 2017

• HOME
• ARCHIVES
• DONATIONS APPRECIATED HERE
• PRESS CREDENTIALS
• SEND MESSAGE TO THE PETE SANTILLI SHOW
• UPDATES — BUNDY RANCH TRIALS

404 - Oops. Page Not Found

Whoops. The page you were looking for has gone extinct. Maybe you can find what you were looking for below.
Page List

• Archives
• Donations Appreciated Here
• Press Credentials
• Send Message To The Pete Santilli Show
• UPDATES — Bundy Ranch Trials

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

This is a must read. You cannot imagine how low and disgusting these so called public servants are.

Deb Jordan published information today that reveals what the jury did not hear, and also the conspiracy involving the US Attorney Bogdon, Senator Harry Ried, BLM Director Niel Kornze, Sheriff Gilespe and others. I cannot believe how low these bastard politicians have stooped to frame Cliven Bundy.

Guerilla Media Network

Home Of The Pete Santilli Show

APRIL 28, 2017

• HOME
• ARCHIVES
• DONATIONS APPRECIATED HERE
• PRESS CREDENTIALS
• SEND MESSAGE TO THE PETE SANTILLI SHOW
• UPDATES — BUNDY RANCH TRIALS

Home › News › A Deadly Game: What the Jury didn’t hear about what really happened at Bundy Ranch

A Deadly Game: What the Jury didn’t hear about what really happened at Bundy Ranch

petesantillishow 04/28/2017 News

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...-1-300x226.jpg
GMN – PROVEN – STRONG – ADVOCACY – JOURNALISM

Prosecution in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al, was dealt a heavy blow as they were forced to except a mistrial after almost 3 months of bringing what they felt was their best evidence to a Jury in Las Vegas, Nevada, against 6 men who say, it wasn’t about cows as much as it was about civil rights abuses .

But how much was it about the cows to Special Agent In Charge Daniel P. Love, and The United States Attorney’s who continue to protect him?

After the mistrial was announced Defense attorney’s in the case were given opportunity to speak with jurors who told them they felt the government had brought forward way to much evidence that went nowhere (proved nothing) and that some of it, along with a good deal of their witnesses, were not to be believed.

Judge Gloria Navarro gave the prosecution in the case broad authority during the trial to pile on hour after hour of sometimes repetitive, meaningless Facebook and YouTube analysis that bogged down their case with confusion and boredom, and literally put some jurors to sleep.

According to one alternate juror I spoke with, it was not lost on the jury that the government was working very hard to keep damaging information from them. The Juror also stated that Myhre’s final closing rebuttal had very little impact on the Jury in the end.

Prosecutor Steven Myhre went to great lengths to keep certain information from reaching the ears of the Jury. For instance, motions were filed before the trial began asking Judge Gloria Navarro to not allow defense attorneys to talk about Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Special Agent in Charge, Daniel P. Love’s horrendous record of abuse before during or after the protest, that led to his mysterious disappearance because of misconduct. The document also stated, as does many other motions filed by the Prosecutor’s office, that Prosecutor Myhre feared Defense Attorney’s would turn the trial around and effectively put Dan Love and the BLM on trial. When she refused to do that Myhre went another route and decided not to call Love to the stand at all.

Defense attorneys were incensed for a number of reasons. The first of which they argued, was their client’s right to face and question their accuser as outlined in the “confrontation clause” of the Sixth Amendment. The defense threatened, that if the Prosecution failed to call Love to the stand then they would meet the Sixth Amendment obligation by calling him for the defense.

After a valiant argument by the defense team, Navarro still granted the Prosecution’s request and forbid the Defense from calling the agent in charge to testify. Based on her belief in obscure case law, she speculated the court had discretion to fore-go the Constitution if she felt they were going to call Dan Love for the sole purpose of impeaching him. From that point on, no derogatory statements or information that made Dan Love look bad was allowed.

This ruling by Navarro had a staggering effect on the information the defense could and could not bring forward to reveal the true nature of Dan Love’s conduct on April 12th, 2014. Nothing spoke louder about how far Navarro and Myhre would go to keep the information about Dan Love from the Jury than when Defendant Todd Engel, who was representing himself, asked a Government witness — “Isn’t it true that Daniel P. Love is now under investigation for misconduct?”

Mr. Engel was immediately stripped of his right to represent himself.

The failure of Prosecutor Steven Myhre to call star witnesses Daniel Paul Love, and former Sheriff of Clarke County NV, Douglas Gillespi to the stand, at one point could have weighed heavily in the Prosecution’s inability to get the desired guilty verdict against the first round defendants, but reality holds out that it was a lose-lose proposition for Myhre. One alternate juror said, everyone on the jury already knew about Dan Love —

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT KEPT HIDDEN FROM THE JURY

After the April 9th, 2014 video of BLM officers assaulting protestors’ Margaret Houston and Ammon Bundy went viral and subsequently aired on Fox News on April 10th, Love was livid about the bad press and eager to get out from under the scrutiny of the media. Media outlets, both mainstream and independent, descended on the ranch and the idea that government over-reach had led to the violent attack on protestors spread like wild-fire. The video aired around the world and brought news crews from as far away as Japan to Bunkerville, Nevada.

On or about the 11th, the FBI has a conversation with Love where he pleads to have more agents dispersed to Bunkerville, and the FBI refuses that request stating;

“We will not be throwing anymore 3 letter agencies at this thing Agent Love; If you proceed you are on your own.”

The FBI told Dan Love that it was their opinion he had lost control of the situation and that his obvious escalation was now a matter of public safety. They further advised him it would be in the best interest of public safety to cease all operations and that further activity would risk creating a flashpoint situation if he did any of the following;

• Continue to gather cattle
• Transport cattle from the compound
• Continue to occupy the area
• Create ANY situation where the BLM confronts – the Bundy’s – the Militia – or Protestors in any way, and not to;
• Put BLM officers in a situation where they must leave in mass

What happened on the ground after the FBI had that conversation with Daniel P. Love speaks for itself. Obviously Love was not listening to anyone at this point — Not even the FBI.

During a telephone meeting where Gillespi tries once again to reason with Love – [S.A.C] Love tells the Sheriff he planned to do one of 3 things;

1. Stay at the compound and continue the operation
2. Get the cattle to a auction house in California, or
3. Start killing [shooting] the cattle

What Love failed to tell Gillespi was, he had been killing the cattle all along. Evidence collected after the fact showed [*S.A.C*] Dan Love chose option 3 early on during the operation. Had that evidence been allowed to be brought forward it would have clearly explained why the Bundy family had become so desperate over the course of the cattle roundup and why they went to meet the BLM convoy on the morning of April 9th, 2014. The objective was not to impede the BLM, because obviously whatever they were doing with the equipment seen coming out of the desert had already been done, but to have Gillespi meet the family on Riverside Drive the morning of the confrontation and get answers from the BLM about gunfire from helicopters being used to herd the livestock, gunfire heard coming from the compound, and to explain the use for earthmoving equipment and dump-trucks. They also wanted Gillespi to check on the condition of the herd. Gillespi refused over and over again to assist the family in any way when it came to dealing with the BLM but in an exclusive interview with the Las Vegas Sun 3 months after the protest this information emerged;

Gillespie said he initially agreed to a request from Bureau of Land Management officials to assist in the roundup of Bundy’s cattle from public lands —

But when he learned the feds weren’t being truthful with him and he saw they weren’t going to listen to his advice, he told them he wouldn’t send his officers to Bundy’s ranch near Bunkerville.

“‘This is what normally happens,'” Gillespie said, paraphrasing the BLM’s conversation with him before the roundup began in April. “‘The local sheriff backs out. We know what we’re doing.'” —

“I go up there to talk to Cliven (before the roundup), see if I can talk some understanding to him, and the boys are there,” Gillespie said. Further, he learned the BLM had no place to take the cattle.

“That’s when I call the BLM and say my folks are not participating in this,” Gillespie said. “‘You’re telling me things that I’m finding out not to be true. I don’t like the way this is going, and I think you need to put this off and look at the fall.‘”Source Article here courtesy Las Vegas Sun

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...e1-300x300.jpg

Some would argue Sheriff Gillespi’s unwillingness to come when called numerous times by the family to check on the well-being of the cattle, enabled Dan Love to remain at the compound unchecked, and to ultimately kill cattle and destroy vital infrastructure. Had Gillespi come when called much of the herd would have been saved. But according to Cliven Bundy, many were lost during the roundup process after Love, the BLM, and inexperienced contract cowboys, had run the hooves right off some of the herd, and left newborn babies in the desert to die. Despite having no court order to do so, Dan Love killed Approx. 27 head of cattle that had been shot and buried in a pit that was uncovered shortly after the BLM left the area. Dan Love had denied he was killing cattle to Journalist Pete Santilli on April 10th, 2014.

Click here to see a video of the pit being uncovered.

DAN LOVE DEFIES ORDER FROM GOVERNOR BRIAN SANDOVAL TO RELEASE CATTLE

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...ow-300x200.jpg

During one of a number of conference calls beginning on April 9th and lasting through the 12th, Sheriff Douglas Gillespi informed Love that Governor Brian Sandoval had given the order to release [State owned cattle] being held by the BLM. Sandoval instructed Gillespi to make it clear to the BLM;

Any cattle rounded up by the BLM not carrying the Bundy Brand was now considered property of the State of Nevada and it was his order those cattle be released back out onto public lands. The Federal Government could only claim ownership of cattle carrying the “Bundy Brand” and all others were to be released immediately.

Instead, Dan Love floated an idea back to Sheriff Gillespi, that completely dismissed the Governor of Nevada’s order .. They wanted Gillespi to broker a deal on behalf of the United States Government, where if Cliven Bundy allowed them to sell all of his livestock, “with a promise to later give him the money they made after the cattle were successfully sold at auction,” the BLM would back down and leave the area.

This would explain clearly why testimony from various BLM agents exposed the fact Love was still trying to find a willing auction house in California to take the cattle off his hands in the last hours before the protest on April 11th & 12th.

THE HARRY REID CONNECTION

At some point during the early hours of April 12th, 2014, Sheriff Gillespi received a phone call from the Office of Harry Reid.

It is not clear whether or not it was Harry Reid himself who made the call or a member of his staff, but the message from Reid to Gillespi was clear;

“The Department of The Interior has lost faith in your ability to negotiate the deal with Cliven Bundy. You are no longer authorized to offer him that deal. “

Meaning, the deal that involved the selling of Mr. Bundy’s cattle and giving him the profit from the sale was no longer an option.

It was then Harry Reid’s office told Sheriff Gillespi exactly what to say when he took the stage at the Bundy Ranch “rally” on the morning of April 12th. Suddenly, any attempt at de-escalating the situation was forsaken, and a new plan was put into action.

DANIEL BOGDEN’S PLAN

At 7:00 am on the morning of April 12th, 2014, Sheriff Douglas Gillespi hosted a conference call at his home that included;

• Clark County-Under Sheriff – Joe Lombardo
• Clark County-Under Sheriff Kevin – McMahill
• Clark County-Under Sheriff – James Dixon
• Nevada State Attorney – Daniel Bogden
• [SAC-BLM] – Daniel P. Love
• Head Of BLM – Neil Kornze
• Head of Terrorism Task Force-FBI – Laura Bucheit

It is believed it was during this conference call that a plan was set into motion that would involve the entrapment of Cliven Bundy and protestors on the ground in order to create a case for future prosecution. The legal advise was spearheaded by then US State Attorney Daniel Bogden; In fact, it would be Daniel Bogden who in the background advised Daniel P. Love to allow the release the cattle, but to be sure it was Cliven Bundy who pulled the pin ..

What Nevada’s US State Attorney Bogden was now proposing, would change the course of history and put hundreds of lives in danger. This fully explains why a BLM agent was both seen and heard multiple times in courtroom video evidence saying;

” If Love’s plan works, he’s a fucking genius; If it doesn’t — well — “

On the video the agent never finishes his thought.

It also ends the mystery of why the BLM was still on the ground and ready to kill, when the unsuspecting protesters arrived. At least one of the agents knew of a plan.

Whether he meant to or not, Gillespi went to the rally on the morning of the 12th and gave an ambiguous statement claiming the BLM was ceasing operations and the Lands would be re-opened to the public. By the time Gillespi made that statement on the stage the wheels were in motion for a confrontation in the Toquop Wash; Daniel P. Love was ready and waiting.

The only thing Dan Love had left to accomplish in the Wash was to create a situation which he and Bogden hoped would lure Cliven Bundy to the compound where he could be coaxed into pulling the pin on the gate.

During a planning meeting on the 11th, the Nevada State Highway Patrol was told to go to the BLM compound on the morning of the 12th to help escort the BLM out of the compound. This information would account for the confusion on the ground between the BLM and the NHP.

It is unclear as to whether or not the NHP knew the plan had changed by the time they arrived on the scene, but either way they learned after they got there the BLM was not prepared to leave and had dug in with weapons pointed at protestors.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...13-300x200.jpg

Gillespi was nowhere to be seen after his initial speech at the Bundy rally site on the morning of the 12th, and Under-Sheriff’s Joe Lombardo and Tom Roberts took over the so called negotiations for the cattle release.

Did Lombardo and Roberts know the objective was to get Cliven Bundy to break the plain of the main gate and have him pull the pin on the gate of the cattle holding area?

Only a thorough cross-examination can get to that truth.

THE ALMOST DEADLY END

Dan Love had obviously been told he had lost the support of Sheriff Gillespi, Metro P.D. and the FBI. Governor Brian Sandoval made clear his position throughout the event. State Legislators from Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Washington State who were in the Toquop Wash the day of the protest, all condemned Love’s actions for still being there when they arrived. The Nevada State Highway Patrol was completely unaware they would be assisting in a standoff.

So did Dan Love fool all of these people into believing they were coming to assist in a departure when in reality the plan was always to prolong the event just long enough to entrap Cliven Bundy?

Was a militarized BLM and Park Service protecting government assets that day, or were they protecting Dan Love while he worked desperately to buy Daniel Bogden’s plan enough time to get Cliven Bundy on the scene – so they could prosecute him in the future?

Did Dan Love, with the assistance of Daniel Bogden, risk hundreds of lives just to get Cliven Bundy to pull a pin on a gate?
Failing to convince Cliven Bundy to come to the BLM Compound, Dan Love ran out of time and left the area, but before he left he asked Under-Sheriff Tom Roberts to make sure a Metro-PD Officer turned on a Body-camera to film the release of the cattle.

Who pulled the pin?

I guess we will find that out in the next trial. #googledanlove

TO SUPPORT PETE SANTILLI PLEASE CLICK HERE – DONATIONS ARE APPRECIATED

AMMON BUNDY, BLM, Bundy Ranch, Bundy Standoff, Bundy Trial, Cliven Bundy, Daniel Bogden, Daniel Love, FBI, Gunmen, Harry Reid, Jury, Mistrial, Nevada, Pete Santilli, Ryan Bundy, Special AgentPost navigation

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

---

Archives

• April 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• July 2016
• June 2016
• May 2016
• January 2016

---