Printable View
The 'retrial' for the four hung jury defendants started today. Andrea Olson-Parker tells what they will be facing. The communist judge ruled in favor of the pesecution at the last minute. The defense had to request additiinal time for preparatiin because of the short notice. New rules for the protesters on the sidewalk . . . .
http://youtu.be/HmHw2k-qNV4
https://youtu.be/HmHw2k-qNV4
Fully Informed Jury Assosiation posted the Las Vegas Review Journal's link to the Bundy Retrial. Carol Bundy in the foto.
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...4e&oe=59FD8F5C
Fully Informed Jury Association
2 hrs ·
"Prosecutors for the U.S. attorney’s office, which declined to comment for this story, have tried in recent legal filings to limit what sort of evidence defense lawyers can introduce at trial. Their primary concern is to control the constitutional rights narrative.
In a motion filed last month, Nevada Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre asked the court to prevent defense lawyers from “seeking to persuade jurors to acquit … based on political beliefs or values rather than upon the evidence.”"
https://www.reviewjournal.com/…/jury-selection-crucial-in-…/
https://external.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...DJiB5WSwS7DwNR
Jury selection crucial in Bunkerville standoff retrial
Another trial in the Bunkerville standoff case opens Monday in Las Vegas.
REVIEWJOURNAL.COM
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Jury selection crucial in Bunkerville standoff retrial
Another trial in the Bunkerville standoff case opens Monday in Las Vegas.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-con...-apr25bt01.jpgCarol Bundy, second right, wife of rancher Cliven Bundy, and her daughters Stetsy Cox, left, and Bailey Louge, second left, read the jury's verdict outside the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse on Monday, April 24, 2017, in Las Vegas. (Bizuayehu Tesfaye/Las Vegas Review-Journal) @bizutesfaye
https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-con...parker_web.jpgEric Parker from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge as protesters gather by the Bureau of Land Management's base camp, where cattle that were seized from rancher Cliven Bundy were being held near Bunkerville, on April 12, 2014. (Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
Another trial in the Bunkerville standoff case opens Monday in Las Vegas, but instead of trying a new set of defendants, prosecutors will launch their second attempt to win convictions against four men accused of conspiring against the government with rancher Cliven Bundy.
The retrial follows a mistrial in April, when jurors deadlocked on 50 of the 60 counts against the first batch of defendants in the three-part case. Prosecutors eventually plan to try 17 men on charges resulting from the April 2014 armed standoff between individual rights activists and Bureau of Land Management agents, who came to Bunkerville to seize Bundy’s cattle from public land.
The hung jury did not come as a surprise to local court observers, who previously have said that the trial against the first group hinged on ideological issues that typically are not litigated inside a courtroom. In a 2 million-population metropolitan area built in the middle of a desert, federal jury pools draw people from rural and urban areas — with different political views, policy priorities and perceptions of law enforcement.
“Every case is about jury selection, but this one is specifically about jury selection,” said attorney Jess Marchese, who represents defendant Eric Parker. “Either you’re going to be OK with Eric Parker on a bridge with his gun or you’re not. And one thing I will do is embrace that more.”
By framing the cattle impoundment operation as an issue of federal overreach and police violence, the Bundy family used the internet to draw hundreds of protesters who espouse libertarian-minded, individual rights principles.
Protesters clashed with federal agents in the days leading up to the standoff, and Parker testified in the first trial that he drove to Bunkerville after seeing online postings that led him to believe constitutional rights were under threat. In the days that preceded the standoff, agents erected a First Amendment zone for protesters in the middle of the desert and used stun guns and police dogs to control angry protesters.
Awaiting judge’s ruling
Prosecutors for the U.S. attorney’s office, which declined to comment for this story, have tried in recent legal filings to limit what sort of evidence defense lawyers can introduce at trial. Their primary concern is to control the constitutional rights narrative.
In a motion filed last month, Nevada Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre asked the court to prevent defense lawyers from “seeking to persuade jurors to acquit … based on political beliefs or values rather than upon the evidence.”
Myhre asked for a broad ban on what represented the marrow of the defense case in the first trial. His motion sought to block testimony about First and Second Amendment rights, police conduct in the days leading up to the standoff and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval’s criticism of BLM agents’ actions prior to the standoff.
U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro has not ruled on the motion.
The government is expected to condense its case the second time around. Two of the first six defendants, Gregory Burleson and Todd Engel, were convicted, so there are fewer defendants in the second trial. Prosecutors also whittled down their lists of witnesses.
New government witness
But they added another weapon to their arsenal with the addition of defendant Blaine Cooper as a government witness. Cooper pleaded guilty in the case and was scheduled for sentencing last week. His sentencing hearing was postponed, leading some people in legal circles to speculate that he negotiated a deal with the government that offered him leniency in exchange for testimony.
Still, defense attorneys remain optimistic as they head into the first day of jury selection.
“I realize that typically retrials are better for the government,” Marchese said. “But this is a unique case, because it wasn’t as if our defense was ever any kind of secret. The government knew where we were coming from from day one.”
Parker’s friend Scott Drexler, also was photographed on the highway with a gun — and his lawyer too expressed confidence.
“As we saw in the last trial, the government had an exceedingly difficult time in communicating their case to the jury,” said attorney Todd Leventhal, who represents Drexler. “That’s because linking our clients to any crime or conspiracy is just not supported by the facts. I imagine the same will hold true in round two.”
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
Andrea Olson-Parker and Niel Wampler with the afternoon developments in the Bundy Ranch Retrial
http://youtu.be/TQoFWo8aRu0
https://youtu.be/TQoFWo8aRu0
In the second part of this video Andrea Parker says something about Attorney General Sessions coming to Las Vegas. The the audio and the visual are both bad in the video I am not sure if she said it was positive that Sessions to coming to Las Vegas. Bundy positive? From what I have read about Sessions I don't think he has much regard for the Constituion.
http://youtu.be/udyUAXbnM_M
https://youtu.be/udyUAXbnM_M
Ryan Bundy's letter to the Idaho Political Prisoner Foundation set up by AnthonymTomas Dephue
https://s19.postimg.org/6xq7euwf7/IMG_2060.png
From a Bundy Ranch/Property rights facebook. Never more truth than what this man, Russ Hinds, wrote,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717...2542832625257/
Cindy Osmer-Eckles Banks MORE BS, MR PRESIDENT TAKE THESE OBAMA THUGS DOWN
Like · 2 · Yesterday at 9:14am
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...08&oe=5A07914B
Russ Hinds Your neighbors who work for the government love you. They are heroes protecting you from the Bundys.
Like · 15 hrs
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...6c&oe=59CCED8E
Cindy Osmer-Eckles Banks THE BUNDYS ARE THE KINDEST, DEAREST PEOPLE I HAVE EVER MET. THE ENTIRE ACTION AGAINST THEM WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE DEEP STATE, NOT THE HONEST HARD WORKING BUNDYS.
Like · 1 · 14 hrs
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...d8&oe=59D06D8D
Russ Hinds I was being sarcastic while at the same time making a true statement about how your neighbors who work for the government think.
Now, what do we do about our out of control neighbors who work for the government? That question has needed to be asked for the last fifty years...
There has been a deliberate dumbing down of your neighbors since the Bible and prayer were taken out of government schools. Your neighbors who work for the government schools have been teaching generations that the government is the highest authority on the planet, instead of teaching the Laws of Nature and Nature's God being the Highest Authority on the planet.
I just zeroed in on the root of the problem... What now?
Like · 14 hrs · Edited
I missed this yesterday, Fox News interviewed Andrea Olson-Parker
Retrial begins for four Bundy supporters from 2014 armed standoff
Posted on July 10, 2017 by Doug Knowles
http://youtu.be/qO1OSysj0BE
By Andrew Craft Published July 10, 2017 Fox News
Jury selection began Monday for a retrial of four men accused of conspiring against the government when they joined an armed protest with Cliven Bundy on his Nevada ranch in 2014.
Eric Parker, Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart and Ricky Lovelien were present during a tense confrontation in Bunkerville between Bureau of Land Management agents who were trying to seize cattle from Bundy.
The case centers around constitutional issues including free speech and land and gun rights. The U.S. attorney’s office for the state of Nevada would not comment on pending litigation.
The retrial follows a mistrial that occurred this past April when jurors couldn’t decide on the first group of defendants in a three-tier case.
Two defendants pleaded guilty last year were found guilty during the first trial, but jurors still didn’t determine 50 of the 60 counts that were brought up leaving four men with no verdict. Prosecutors initially separated the case into three groups based on culpability with a total of 17 defendants. The first trial involved conspirators deemed the least responsible.
No shots were fired in the armed standoff, but the indictment claimed protesters pointed guns at federal agents. The federal indictment said Bundy was under a 1998 court order demanding he remove his cattle from federal lands. Bundy and his supporters said they believed the government was far too encroaching, violating their free speech and gun rights.
“The Bundy’s and their group, I see that, that’s key, but the group of protestors they’re going after so aggressively, that’s where I have trouble making the connection, “ said Ron Bamieh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who questions the federal government’s strategy.
Bamieh added there are significant political implications as a jury is chosen in this case. “There are going to be some people who are like wait these guys are white nationalists who are against the government, we don’t support that. There’s going to be other people who are going to say no, these are patriots who are opposing the federal government that is overreaching completely and limiting these other people rights.”
Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and two other defendants are due for trial later this year. Prosecutors phased out separate trials since it would be logistically impossible to try 17 people at once.
Andrew Craft is a Fox News multimedia reporter based in Las Vegas, Nevada . Follow him on twitter:
@AndrewCraft
Share this:
No updates from the Bundy Retrial. Bundy Supporter Doug Knowles who writes ItMattersHowYouStand.com postedon his facebook that AG Jeff Sessions will be in Las Vegas between 8:00 and 9:00 tomorrow morning.
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...e7&oe=5A112A05
Doug Knowles added 3 new photos — attending Trial It a second time - Bundy Ranch P3s at Las Vegas Federal Courthouse.
6 hrs · Las Vegas, NV, United States ·
Tuesday 7-11-2017. 2nd Day of Jury Selection. Reminder! Tomorrow Wednesday 7-12-2017 Jeff Sessions will be here between 8-9 am. We need as many supporters as possible by 7:30 am. We want to have signs out when he arrives and leaves. Thanks.
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...85&oe=5A06CD94
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...6b&oe=5A0D92A5
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...f6&oe=5A03C829
21 Likes5 Comments47 Shares
B.J. Adams, Mau Guillen, Tangela Les and 18 others like this
47 shares
Comments
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...83&oe=59C35E91
Kath Brady Thank you!
6 hrs
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...bd&oe=59FC1865
Robert Crooks I will see you then!...07:30
5 hrs
Robert Crooks Shared!
5 hrs
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...9f&oe=5A07E3B0
Jody Milam TRYING..
5 hrs
Mau Guillen YOU MUST APPROACH HIM AND TALK TO HIM https://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f64f_1f3fb.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f64f_1f3fb.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoj...f64f_1f3fb.png
2 hrs
Rene Brakefield I hope he is there to look at the corruption
2 hrs
Las Vegas Review-Journal Feederal Judge Rules Bundy's defence will be limited
Retrial in Bunkerville standoff case opens with jury selection
https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-con...-apr25bt06.jpgSupporters pray outside 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
A federal judge dealt a blow to defense lawyers in the Bunkerville standoff case Monday with an early-morning ruling that obliterates the strategy they used in the first trial this year.
The order, from U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro, came hours before prosecutors and defense attorneys started selecting a jury for the retrial against four men accused of conspiring against the government with rancher Cliven Bundy. In April, a jury deadlocked on all counts against Eric Parker, Steven Stewart, Scott Drexler and Ricky Lovelien.
Prosecutors characterize the defendants as violent zealots whose blatant disregard for the rule of law put hundreds of lives in danger. Defense attorneys, meanwhile, describe their clients as passionate but peaceful protesters who, during the April 2014 standoff, exercised their constitutional rights against a militant federal law enforcement presence.
But much of that defense narrative was invalidated Monday by Navarro’s ruling, which amounts to a blanket ban on evidence that comprised the heart of the strategy in the first trial.
“It changes the landscape of where we need to go with our defense, but it doesn’t change the government’s high burden to prove the case,” said defense attorney Todd Leventhal, who represents Drexler. “Despite this uphill battle, we’ll keep fighting.”
Defense attorneys no longer will be allowed to argue that their clients were exercising their First and Second Amendment rights to freely assemble and to bear arms when, in April 2014, they brought their guns to the site where federal agents tried to round up Bundy’s cows.
“The law does not recognize these amendments as legal defenses to the crimes charged,” Navarro wrote.
The order also prohibits defense lawyers from calling people to testify about federal agents’ actions in the days leading up to the standoff, when law enforcement officers used stun guns and police dogs to control angry protesters. Such actions led the Bundy family to issue a call to arms on social media, in which they implored other individual rights activists to drive to the family ranch.
Defense attorneys had argued that they should be allowed to bring in that sort of evidence in order to prove their clients’ “non-criminal state of mind” when they tossed their guns in their cars and drove to Bunkerville to join the ballooning protests.
But Navarro wrote in her ruling that if “evidence is not relevant to any of the elements of a charge or a cognizable defense to that charge, the evidence is not admissible.”
For the same reason, the defendants are prohibited from arguing that they brought their weapons for self-defense against an excessively forceful police presence. The four men are charged as “gunmen,” accused of supplying the force behind a conspiracy to stop the cattle seizure.
The government also was handed a victory Monday when, in a separate order, Navarro ruled that prosecutors can introduce evidence related to the defendants’ prior association with militia groups.
The lengthy process of selecting a jury started Monday and is expected to last several days. Parker, Stewart, Drexler and Lovelien are being tried on charges of conspiracy, assault, threats, extortion and related counts for their role in the 2014 standoff between gun rights activists and federal agents.
Defense attorneys Jess Marchese, Rich Tanasi and Todd Leventhal — the lawyers for Parker, Stewart and Drexler — came to court Monday dressed in matching ties, which were emblazoned with passages from the U.S. Constitution. On each tie, the phrase “We the People” was highlighted in large, bold font.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
The judge’s ruling specifically prohibits defense attorneys from mentioning the following:
-Officers’ encounters with civilians during the arrest of Dave Bundy, the rancher’s son, a week before the standoff.
-Officers’ encounters with Margaret Houston, a middle-aged grandmother who was tackled to the ground by a BLM agent days before the standoff. Prosecutors argue Houston was in the way of an oncoming truck; defense attorneys contend the force was excessive.
-Testimony about the level of force used by law enforcement officers. In the days leading up to the protest, law enforcement officers used stun guns and police dogs to control the crowds. On the day of the standoff, federal police armed themselves, donned SWAT gear, and assumed military “stacking formation.”
-A statement that Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval issued four days before the standoff, in which he condemned federal agents’ actions.
-References to First Amendment zones. Days before the standoff, federal agents cordoned off a First Amendment zone for protesters in the middle of the desert.
-Arguments about Bundy’s grazing, water or legacy rights on the public lands. Bundy let his cattle roam free on public lands for decades but refused to obtain grazing permits. He maintains that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the land.
-First and Second Amendment rights to freely assemble and to bear arms.
-Punishments the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses.
A man in Idaho, Lance Earl has repeatedly demanded the sheriffs and Idaho's elected representatives uphold their oath of office and aid the Idaho Political Prisoners on trial in Nevada. This is his latest:
I Follow Paul or Apollos or the Constitutionally Void
July 11, 2017 Lance
https://i1.wp.com/theword.one/wp-con...?fit=570%2C428
This is a most difficult column to write. I will write it, but first, let me share a short story.
Lance Earl
The people of Corinth were possessed of an evil spirit, according to Paul. While they had the good news of Jesus, they bickered about who they followed. In 1st Corinthians 3:4-7 we read, “4 When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world? 5 After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. 6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. 7 It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow.“[1].
If we desire to grow something good, it is God who will make that happen. I have watched the liberty loving people of Idaho place their trust in a small body of legislators as if they are deity. I have done the same. In doing so, how am I better than the weakest Christians of Corinth?
When I think of Peter, John, James, Timothy, Steven, Paul, Apollos and others, I remember men who did the right thing. The prospect of floggings, prison, and death in the most brutal ways did not dissuade them in planting and watering the seeds of Jesus. Should we be less and should we allow our elected officials to do less? This is the topic of my column.
The federal government came into Idaho and arrested Todd Engle, Scott Drexler, Eric Parker and Steve Stewart. The same happened to a fifth Idaho resident, Ammon Bundy, but the arrest occurred in Oregon. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the actions of these men, one point is clear. The federal government was never delegated judicial power in cases such as these. Therefore, the arrest and prosecution of these men are crimes against the Constitution of the United States.
In February of 2017, I wrote “Resolutions for Political Prisoners” and distributed it to the people of Idaho.[2] In excess of 5000 emails were sent. Every Idaho State Senator, every member of the Idaho State House of Representatives, and every Sheriff in the State received many copies. The resolution clearly identified numerous violations of the United States and Idaho Constitutions. Each recipient has sworn an oath to protect and defend both. The people demanded action from there elected officials. Not one followed the direction of their constituents… not one!
By telephone, I immediately followed up with those legislators who I thought most likely to take appropriate action. These included Reps. Ron Nate of Rexburg; Karey Hanks, of St. Anthony; Dorothy Moon, of Stanley; Christy Zito, of Hammett;Bryan Zollinger, of Idaho Falls; and Priscilla Giddings, of White Bird. The legislative session was still underway and it had been a tough one. Each committed to take appropriate action after the session closed. To date, “crickets”. Not so much as a single word from any of Idaho’s best Liberty Legislators.
There have been additional phone calls to some of these legislators.[3] One asked me how I came to know that the federal arrests and prosecution are unconstitutional? I read the Constitution. One suggested that the resolution was to long to read. She had chosen to not read the instructions of the people because it is inconvenient. By that same logic, King George would have been justified in not reading the Declaration of Independence, which is much longer than the resolution. One told me that the people should “riot” over the lawless federal action, yet he remains silent. Another said that the resolution was too demanding, apparently forgetting that it is the duty of our representatives of hear and act on our demands. One common theme was that the political cost of taking a constitutional stance was too high. I wonder, would the cost to all of them combined be higher than the cost to any one of these men who have lost all their rights?
Rep. Ron Nate has assumed an unofficial position of leadership among the Liberty Legislators of Idaho. My conversation with him was rather earth shattering. Again and again, he claimed that these Idaho men were receiving proper representation in the Federal Courts. How can this be when these very courts are exercising powers not delegated in the Constitution? And, if these powers are not delegated, they remain with the people or the states. And, if these powers remain with the people or the states, then the only proper authority is vested in that Nevada Sheriff and Prosecutor. They, having proper authority, reviewed the case and determined to not bring charges.
The Declaration of Independence provides a list of grievances against King George. One of these states, “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.” Nate cannot see that precisely the same thing is occurring before his eyes. He has done nothing. The people of the State of Idaho have been taken from their homes, from the natural protections of their people, state and government to by tried in the King’s Court, a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution.
Finally, Nate issued a veiled threat. He suggested that if I publicly criticize him, I may affect the next election and that his replacement may not be so conservative as he. Conservative! What the hell does that mean? Virtually every politician in the State of Idaho, from the most decent to the most corrupt, runs on a conservative platform. The term itself is a mist, a vapor, a smoke without form or limitation or definition. Is there any person who can precisely draw the line separating conservative and liberal? No line can be drawn because there is no definition of these terms. Conservative representation is the worst thing for the people of Idaho. The Constitution is defined. The word and law of God is defined. Yet our legislators seldom resort to these. Instead they use a meaningless term that makes the most ignorant of people feel warm and fuzzy.
If Nate does not understand that I am duty bound to examine his work and speak against him when he crosses the line, then he does not understand representative government and has placed himself above the people.
The right thing is to uphold sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and of Idaho. All in our Legislature and every Sheriff have shirked their duties, unlike the great biblical leaders we hold in the highest esteem.
To these named legislators, I am with you. If you need anything, you only need ask. But please remember, you are not the people’s sovereign… we are yours! Jesus is the sovereign of us all, can you make room for him and us?
- [1]1st Corinthians 3:4-7
- [2]Todd Engel, Scott Drexler, Steve Stewart, Eric Parker, Ammon Bundy, What are They to Us
- [3]Constitution 101 the Elected Fail and the Prisoners Pay
Copyright © All rights reserved
Andrea Olson-Parker gave a short report on the jury selection today. She reported Larry Klayman and Bob Barr visited the court this morning. Jeff Sessions will be there tomorrow morning. Court starts at 1:00 pm
http://youtu.be/Zr9E38aO0uw
https://youtu.be/Zr9E38aO0uw
Judge Gloria Navarro has granted all the .gov motions
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...3e&oe=5A09263C
AG Jeff Sessions in Las Vegas to speak about immigration
.Quote:
AG Sessions in Las Vegas to discuss immigration law enforcement
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is scheduled to hold a news conference Wednesday in Las Vegas, where he plans to speak about immigration enforcement issues.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-con...l13-17bt02.jpgProtesters against sanctuary cities ban outside a federal building where Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivers a speech to federal, state and local law enforcement about sanctuary cities on Wednesday, July 11, 2017, at U.S. Attorney's Office, in Las Vegas. (Bizuayehu Tesfaye/Las Vegas Review-Journal) @bizutesfaye
Read more: https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/...w-enforcement/
Sessions throws Bundy's under the bus
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...34&oe=59CCB191
Sessions, needs to walk to his next destination starting from 30,000 feet altitude. He has bought into the for profit criminal justice system , besides his knuckles drag when he walks.
Andrea Olson-Parker video of part of the Jerico March around the courthouse and her comments on Sessions ~ JGrady
http://youtu.be/MbEn6GAN_VU
https://youtu.be/MbEn6GAN_VU
An Oathkeeper from Susanville, California posted several videos interviewing rodeo bucking stock contractor Thom Davis from Harney County, Oregon. Her channel is Rocky Hall https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCWGwH4ngfQu1ybsUrx0LJtA. She has made quite a few videos interviewing people in the Burns, Oregon area right after the murder of LaVoy Finicum.
In this video Thom Davis explains the split estate concept of allotments between mineral rights, timber rights and grazing rights.
http://youtu.be/YsOyPiKp2oI
https://youtu.be/YsOyPiKp2oI
Andrea Olson-Parker Soviet Rigged Jury ~ JGrady
http://youtu.be/W6prj-ZIg5I
https://youtu.be/W6prj-ZIg5I
Andrea Olson-Parker more troubles with jury selection. Possible Tyrrany in Jury Selection #3
http://youtu.be/czpNgtNaWg8
https://youtu.be/czpNgtNaWg8
Did the comunista Judge Gloria Navarro seat the jury for the Retrial? From what we saw in Andrea Parker's videos yesterday that appears to be the case. These bastards blatantly flaunt their corruption and bias in full view of the public and nothing is done to stop them.
Did the Judge Select the Jury in Bunkerville Retrial?
SHE RE-SEATED THE JURORS DESPITE THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES FROM THE DEFENSE.
July 13, 2017 BLM, Constitution, DOJ, Featured, Nevada 1
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...Banner-JPG.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...on-678x381.jpg
Did the Judge Select the Jury in Bunkerville Retrial?
by Shari Dovale
Eric Parker, Ricky Lovelien, Steven Stewart and Scott Drexler are back in a Vegas courtroom for a retrial of charges related to the 2014 Bunkerville Standoff.
Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the case in April when the jury could not reach a consensus for the majority of charges against the defendants.
Two of the defendants, Gregory Burlson and Todd Engel, were found guilty on some of the charges and will not be retried on the remaining charges. They are scheduled to be sentenced later this month.
Jury Selection in the new trial began this week with Judge Navarro immediately taking over the process.
From eyewitness accounts in the courtroom, we were told of the seemingly “rigged” system that the Judge used to select the jury she wanted.
Under Rule 24, The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year. The court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly.
In this case, with four defendants, the defense began with 10 strikes and the prosecution with 6. Each party was given one additional strike. Specifically, each defendant was given an additional strike and the prosecution should have been given an additional strike as well.
Prior to jury selection beginning, the prosecution filed several motions. One of these motions was to have the prosecution receive an equal number of additional strikes as the defense. This is not considered fair to the defense of multiple defendants, and is not normally allowed.
Keep in mind that the “system” is supposed to be set up with the presumption of innocence for the defendants, and the burden placed upon the prosecution.
Judge Navarro, however, agreed with that motion and granted the prosecution 4 additional strikes. She also ruled in favor of the prosecution on every single pre-trial motion!
Her ruling brought the total challenges to 14 for the defense and 10 for the prosecution.
During the course of jury selection, after all strikes for “cause” were completed, the process began to strike members from the jury pool by both sides. This process does not need explanation, as each side has their own criteria to decide who they want removed. The exception to this rule is called a “Batson Challenge”.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. (Wikipedia)
This is important for several reasons. The Batson case itself was a civil rights case. The Supreme Court was ruling on a Prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude people strictly because of their race. This was, again, to keep the trial fair for the defendants.
Therefore, when a Batson challenge is made, the prosecutor needs to explain why his striking a juror was not based on their race. Most prosecutors can easily handle these questions, but it is important for them to put it on the record.
In today’s hearing, the challenges were such that the defense struck 7 men and 7 women. The prosecutions strikes were for 8 women and 2 men.
However, it was the prosecution that made an objection based on a Batson challenge and claimed that the defense was biased against men. They claimed that there were men removed from the jury pool wrongly. They accused the defense of gender-bias.
The defense should not have had to explain their criteria to the court. It is the defense, after all, and they do not have the burden of proof. However, Judge Navarro made the defense cite their reasoning for every challenge they made against the jurors, with one juror receiving what seemed to be special attention.
They explained that they felt an underlying deception from the prospective juror. Their ‘gut’ told them the person was not being honest. They did not want the person on the jury.
“There is a level of deception that has taken place here,” was the response from the defense team.
The judge made comments to the effect that the juror’s answers were what she would expect the defense to want.
They judge did not find any reason acceptable that the defense should have had 5 particular men removed, and she put them back on the jury. She re-seated these jurors despite the challenges from the defense. She effectively told the defense that they cannot have a say in who is kept or removed from the jury.
Not only did she put them back on the jury, but she took the 5 challenges completely away from the defense. They were now down to 9 when the prosecution still had 10. So the advantage again went straight to the government.
The defense, to their credit, then objected to the prosecution for the same Batson challenge, citing the fact that the prosecution used 80% of their challenges against women. Judge Navarro refused to rule on that objection and did not even open an inquiry on it. She completely brushed it under the rug and moved on.
This judge took complete control of selecting the jury by not allowing the defense their challenges. She had particular people she wanted on the jury (specifically juror number 296?) and she was not about to allow the defense to remove him. Could this be considered jury tampering?
Navarro has already shown her disregard for the US Constitution. She has already made it clear that she has an agenda with these defendants. She is clearly not going to allow another mistrial in this case and will do whatever it takes to get the verdict she desires. These citizens, that have been held for 18 months without bail, do not stand a chance.
This is how the communists in the former Soviet Union used to run their courts. Blatant rigging of the system. We have now, almost unbelievably, seen it in our own country. The country that is the supposed to be where Freedom Rings.
This has actually happened in the United States of America, in the Year of Our Lord 2017.
God help us!
Roger Stone Bundy Support Rally in Las Vegas July 15
http://youtu.be/CEh9TatvXXE
https://youtu.be/CEh9TatvXXE
Roger Stone Announces Rally FOR FREEDOM For Bundys
roypotterqa 80 views
12K
8
0
Published on Jul 13, 2017Roger Stone Announces RALLY FOR FREEDOM July 15 for BUNDY POLITICAL PRISONERS by Lorri Andersonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7HOb...
- Category
- News & Politics
- License
- Standard YouTube License
^AG Session's visit to Lav Vegas yesterday
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...1e&oe=5A1195F3
Chastity Bendele is the lady who held the terrified little girl yesterday in the federal courtroom while the U.S. Marshal was yelling at her mother. Chastity tells about her experience in a Facebook video:
https://m.facebook.com/itmattershowy...96185317196601
Another very powerful Facebook video on It Matters How You Stand. I have not found it on the jewtube
https://m.facebook.com/itmattershowy...96156853866114
http://youtu.be/Xmz-BPF6Rz4
https://youtu.be/Xmz-BPF6Rz4
Before Its News BUNDY RANCH: U.S. Federal Marshals Terrorize 6 Yr Old Girl . . . . .
The link in this post won't play the video. It is the video 2 posts above.
Bundy Ranch: U.S. Federal Marshals Terrorize 6 Yr Old Girl at Bundy Ranch Trial (Video)
(Before It's News)
http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor...2013_39_53.png
Day 3 Jury Selection July 12,2017 :Today was day 3 of Jury selection at the high profile Bundy Ranch Trial where political prisoners Eric Parker, Steven Stewart, Scott Drexler, and Ricky Lovlein are facing up to 90 yrs prison time if they are convicted on all the trumped up charges filed on behalf of the federal government.
I have been a court observer since the beginning of said first trial, and have been truly amazed at all the corruption and tyranny that occurs in that court on a daily basis. However, what I witnessed today July 12,2017 truly took my breath away. The U.S. Marshals, who get their orders from Judge Gloria Navarro, have always tried to be an intimidating force in that court room to show all of us Serfs who is the boss in this unconstitutional federal court room, But today, I truly believe that they crossed a line and will hopefully face appropriate consequences.
After we all came back from our last break of the day, a single mom with her adorable 6 yr old little girl came back to their seats, and apparently, a federal marshal named Josh saw that this single mom was eating something, that turned out to be a Tic Tac,and came over to where she was seated and got within 6 inches of her face and started barking at her for daring to have said tick tac in her mouth. This Federal Marshal towers over this 5ft 5inch girl by about 10 inches and out weighs her by at least 150 lbs. If this wasn’t enough, one of the other federal marshals came over to join in and scream at this single mom which finally made this 6 yr old girl so scared that she literally jumped over the court bench and into our row where she jumped into the arms of another woman who said, "she clinged to her like a spider monkey while shaking like a leaf and asked her to cover her ears because she thought the big men where going to hurt her mommy”.
I don’t know about you ladies and gentleman, but this is not the America I want our children to grow up in.
<<iframe allowfullscreen=”true” frameborder=”0″ height=”400″ scrolling=”no” src=”https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?
href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fchastity.ben dele%2Fvideos%2F10156362513553452%2F&show_text=0&w idth=225″ width=”225″> >
http://thepetesantillishow.com
https://www.facebook.com/petesantillinotguilty/
http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate/
There was nothing reported for the Bundy Retrial for yesterday. Maybe there was no court yesterday July 13. Court is in recess today. The trial will resume Monday. Tomorrow, Saturday July 15 Roger Stone has his Freedom Rally.
I am going to post this Alex Jones video with former Congressman Bob Barr because it is relevant to the Bundy situation. I don't plan on watching myself because I can't stomach Alex Jones.
This commenter pretty much sums up my feelings about Alex Jones:
https://yt3.ggpht.com/-ZRNjeRR5oTY/A...ffff/photo.jpg
John Wolf[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176)][/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176)]
You want to put a bow on this Alex because you want to constantly talk about trailer park trash Megyn Kelley while telling us how wonderful you are in destroying her career. We get it, Alex, you the man now do something about all the men that have been in solitary confinement for over a year in Las Vegas and what about LaVoy Finigan who was shot dead by the FBI, Pete Santilli another reporter who was jailed for simply reporting the news a man you never talked about that I know of. You should be doing monthly updates if it's only 2 minutes until those men are free. This was such a big story when it happened and you gave it you utmost attention at the time, but I guess it's time to put a bow on it because it's simply old news. Shame on you for your lack of compassion so don't be too hard on Megyn Kelly you're getting just as big of a swelled ego. Remember every time you go to bed the Bundys are sleeping in a solitary jail cell with no access to the outside what so ever. Is Megyn really that important?
22 hours ago• [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176)]5
[/COLOR]
http://youtu.be/KceB_Iyy00o
https://youtu.be/KceB_Iyy00o
Briana Bundy and Adrea Olson-Parker interviewed by 'Doc' from Texas, an hour long interview
http://youtu.be/VPj0wFuCc2o
https://youtu.be/VPj0wFuCc2o
'Doc' interview with Deb Jordan
http://youtu.be/R3RRi5FYG9s
https://youtu.be/R3RRi5FYG9s
Retired Sheriff Richard Mack the "Stand for Freedom" rally in Las Vegas
http://youtu.be/v7xlW3ZN3-Q
https://youtu.be/v7xlW3ZN3-Q
Maureen Peltier 'Ssg. Moe' calling out for financial help,for John Lamb. John Lamb lost his brother shortly after returning to his Montana home.
http://youtu.be/4FXjxTeSTpE
https://youtu.be/4FXjxTeSTpE
"Retired Sheriff Richard Mack the "Stand for Freedom" rally in Las Vegas"
Monty, could you please explain the basics of the Constitutional, rule of law, basic tenets that support the Bundys and Hammonds and the families associated with the Oregon and Nevada protests?
I am a conservative and I am a Christian, but I am not the kind of Christian that is totally in line with the founding principles of USA. I do not believe the Consitituion is "divinely inspired" but I do believe it is the best governmental document that I know of in my lifetime that best insures the common good of the people and, IF FOLLOWED, best protects each citizen's Creator-endowed, and Constitutionally enumerated, rights. The social teachings of my church has a rather different take on "freedom" Individualism" and "liberties."
I kind of feel like the phrase "government of the people, by the people and for the people" sure sounds good but it has pretty much been operated as a great racket by the moneyed elites from the get-go.
As far as I understand it the states are supposed to be superior, "states rights", but the states have been bought off. I support the Texas Nationalist Movement of Texas but really at the same time I think the USA was supposed to be group of states forming a UNION. So at the same time, I do not like the idea of breaking away from the federal government. Texas may have the assets or characteristics to make it possible for it to survive and function on its own, but almost no other states happen to be so blessed.
I have been through the Birch Society, Oath Keepers, Sheriff Mack, Mormon patriots, Gun rights, Constitution / rule of law, libertarian, conservative, patriot, indoctrinations but now I am out of all that, but I will always be a Christian conservative but I guess I just cling o the Middle Ages Catholic way of governing all the Europeans peacefully in true freedom under God, but I know that does not exist today and I do not see how that could ever exist again unless the Lord does something miraculous in that regard. My Church still exists and will until the Lord returns, but today on the surface it is not the true Church, the Church Jesus Christ called "My Church", but is Freemasonic, communistic, fascistic, one world death and slavery system for all, fake church.
I always just looked at the federal land grab as Agenda 21 and recently looked upon the western states happening to be sitting on the largest uranium deposits in the nation and Hillary & co. intend to own that and sell it to foreign countries, especially Russia, and take down the USA. All, repeat ALL, of our leaders have sold all of us out. They have given over our industries to foreign countries to line their own pockets and reduced we the people to a third world nation.
Please tell me, Monty, what the Constitution says about the federal government owning land, like a large percentage of land the BLM says is theirs. Please tell me the basics of the law that supports the Bundys and Hammonds. Thank you.
The Constitution say in Article I Section 8 Clause 17 that the United States can own up to 10 miles square (to become the Seat of government for the United States) which is now The District of Columbia "by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States and to exercise Authority over all Places purchased by Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;"
The above clause is the only place in the Constitution that authorizes the United States to purchase land within a State.
The "Property Clause" Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 says "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property of the United States . . . . ."
After gold was discovered in Sutters Creek in California the wealthy eastern bankers and entrepreneurs realized the vast mineral and timber wealth in the Western United States. I presume these same wealthy individuals lobbied their Congressmen to not turn title to the unappropriated land over to a newly admitted state. The United States has held title to the unapproriated land in every state admitted to the Union since 1850.
The Congress did dispose of some land through land grants to the railroad and by passage of various homestead Acts and mining laws.
in 1946, during the Truman Presidency the Congress reorganized the federal government and the federal court system.
I am not educated in law, but digging through the USC Title 28 I have concluded that the current US District Courts are not Article III Judicial Branch courts, with the exception of the US District Court in Washington D.C. which is backed up by the notes in USC Title 28 and the US District Court for the District of Hawaii because their Enabling Act to be come a State required the court remain an Article III court.
Also in this reorganization of the federal government Congress had been attempting to pass an act for more than a decade to give the numerous bureaucracies, agencies and commisions the power to write their own rules and regulations. In 1946 Nevada's Senator Patrick McCarran was successfull in getting the Adminstrative Procedures Act passed. I believe this Act of Congress is unconstitutional because it abdicates the power of Congress to the Administrative Branch whose duty is to Execute the Laws of the United States, not to write them.
As you can see that has given the President and his Cabinet unlimited power with no Congressional oversight.
Early on in the history of the United States Congress created the General Land Office who administered the Homestead Acts and issued Land Patents and Mining and Mill Patents. In the 1930's Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and created the National Grazing Service because many of the ranchers were overgrazing the lands. The Supreme Court has ruled they have authority over the range lands in the Western States through the Property Clause to regulate grazing on the federally owned lands. In 1946 Congress merged the General Land Office with the Grazing Service and created the Bureau of Land Managemnet. In 1976 Congress passed an Act that they would no longer dispose of federally owned land. The Bureau of Land Managemant, like boiling frogs, has gradually usurped more and more power. They defy Congress as can be seen in the way they have treated Wayne N. Hage and Jeanette Finicum.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled once man has interacted with the land it is not public land in Bardon v Northern Pacific RR.
Quote:
5. According to Bardon v Northern Pacific Railway Company they are no longer "public lands" once rights have been established on them. Wayne Hage explained it best shortly before he passed away:
Quote:
TNA: This raises another question. Why are vast segments of the West designated “public lands”?
Hage: You are referring to what I often call the public lands myth. On much of the western land area, particularly the vast western range lands, the underlying land itself, the mineral estate, is held by the United States just as it had previously been held by the King of Spain and later by the Mexican government. What the rancher acquired were grazing easements over the lands of the government. These were inheritable rights. An inheritable right is known as a fee. The lands covered by these grazing easements, called grazing allotments, are in fact held by the United States, but are referred to properly as fee lands because the fee, the inheritable right to use, is owned separately from the underlying lands.
The term “public lands” has been erroneously applied to these lands. I say erroneously because the United States Supreme Court held in Bardon v. Northern Pacific Railway Company that “lands to which rights and claims of another attach do not fall within the classification of public lands.” Rights and claims of ranchers to water rights and grazing easements (range rights) cover virtually all these lands. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ranchers’ grazing allotments cannot be public lands.
TNA: The case you just cited — Bardon, I believe you called it — is that still applicable?
Hage: Bardon v. Northern Pacific Railway Company has been cited 133 times by other courts and has never been overturned in whole or in part.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...roperty-owners
Dr. Angus McIntosh explains ranchers property rights in this article. It may address your questions
[http://freerangereport.com/index.php...operty-rights/
Daschie, I am highly opinionated and biased on this subject, but all long winded theories and explanations aside, down to the basics, the federal courts do not have Constitutional authority to take jurisdiction in Nevada, Oregon, Texas, California, or any other State of the Union.
I intended to state that several environmental groups using federal grant money routinely sue the Bureau of Land Management. The environmentalists usually prevail. This forces the BLM to act unfavorably towards the ranchers who they are supposed to be assisting. The rancher ends up bankrupt because the new BLM regulations have made his business unprofitable. The environmentalist buys the property fro pennies onmthe dollar and turns it back to the governemnt. This is one way the United States owns land without the consent of the legislature.
Thank you, Monty.
Splendid clear and simple explanation and just what I needed to be straight on.
You write in what we Texans call cornbread English.
Here is a link to the US District Courts that used to appear in Wikipedia, but got scrubbed after Dr. John Parks Trowbridege Jr. filed his Objection for Denial of Due Process . . . https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...and-091415.pdf. After much searching I was able to find it here:
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/forms/ufc99.pdf (Understanding the Federal Courts 1999 page 5)
Edit:Page not found
The requested page "/forms/ufc99.pdf" could not be found.
the original text:
"The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. within limit set by the Congress and the Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all category of federal cases, including both civil an criminal matters." http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/forms/ufc99.pdf (Understanding the Federal Courts 1999 page 5)
Ryan Bundy's still unanswered Motion for Habeas Corpus update
http://youtu.be/2yRfAdKzTVY
https://youtu.be/2yRfAdKzTVY
The Stand For Freedom Rally at the United States District Court House in Las Vegas, Nevada 111°F 44°C. That is cool for Las Vegas, I've seen 112° at midnight.
Andrea Parkers Labrador dog got out, is at the vet, heat prostration, not out of the woods yet, they are asking donations for the $1800 vet bill.
http://youtu.be/mIRFMXkCjs8
https://youtu.be/mIRFMXkCjs8
Attorney General Jeff Session appears to be compromised by Obama's Deep State or lacks the courage to oppose them.
Larry Klayman HELP PROTECT CLIVEN BUNDY FROM OBAMA's DEEP STATE publidshed by WND
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
HELP PROTECT CLIVEN BUNDY FROM OBAMA'S DEEP STATE
Exclusive: Larry Klayman laments fact prosecution continues under AG Jeff Sessions
Published: 2 days
http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/01/Lar...man_avatar.jpg
LARRY KLAYMAN
About | Email | Archive
http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes...ages//feed.png Subscribe to feed
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugin..._famfamfam.gif Print
The political prosecution of Cliven Bundy, his sons and tens of other defendants is an outrage begun by President Barack Obama and his Justice Department, then run by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, essentially because Cliven used the word “Negro” in commenting that he and his family could appreciate how African-Americans were mistreated by the federal government, given how this same federal government, under Obama and Lynch, with the aid of former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, had attempted to enslave them, too. As just one example of how Obama took offense and then threatened Cliven, just watch the video below.
At a White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which occurred just after the successful standoff at Bunkerville, land Cliven’s family had ranched for over 150 years, Obama, with a sick, arrogant smirk, mocked and disparaged Cliven and in effect warned him about the consequences of using the word “Negro,” not coincidentally a term used by the great civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. to refer to himself and his fellow “Negroes.” Ironically, in the days of King, the use of the term “black,” which later gained acceptance, was thought racist. That is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was with King when he was tragically assassinated, later coined another term, “African-American,” to refer to his race.
Two years after the successful Bunkerville standoff, which resulted after Bureau of Land Management (BLM) mercenary goons, at the direction of Harry Reid’s handpicked head of the agency, whom Obama was happy to appoint, threatened the lives of the Bundys if they did not roll over to government power and then beat up Cliven’s sister, tased his two sons, attacked the family dog and secretly killed and buried tens of cattle when they did not submit – Cliven and the others were indicted. This occurred around the same time as two of Cliven’s sons traveled to Oregon in support of other ranchers who were also being harassed and persecuted by Obama’s BLM with the aim of driving them off their land.
During the course of this peaceful armed protest, whereby Cliven’s sons and others legally exercised their Second and First Amendment rights, necessary particularly after what had occurred earlier at Bunkerville, one of the protesters was shot dead by an FBI agent. It was recently revealed that this agent, under the direction of – you guessed it – corrupt former FBI Director James Comey, lied about and covered up this unprovoked murder at the hands of Obama’s federal government.
In this context, and to try to remedy the injustice that had occurred and was continuing to occur, after the confirmation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I called him and left messages on his cell and home phone to call me back. Having met Jeff many years ago when we both were young lawyers, I was impressed by both his gentlemanliness and legal competence. Later, during my years as the founder, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, I also encountered Jeff on several occasions and was always favorably impressed.
Consistent with his courteousness, Jeff did call me back, around 3 p.m. on a Sunday. During the call, I asked him if he would review the Bundy prosecution in an unbiased fashion, as it had been commenced, I believed for political and retaliatory reasons, by the previous administration. He said that he would do so but only after the nomination for deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, was confirmed. Of course, Jeff said that he and his staff would have to consult with the U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Nevada. I told him that I had no problem with this, as the truth and facts should be laid bare on the proverbial table.
In the meantime, both before and after Rosenstein’s confirmation, I sent to Jeff and his staff various materials about the case, including video footage of the BLM attacks on Cliven’s family and dog. In so doing, I asked his scheduler, Erical O’Brien, to set up a meeting with the attorney general, Rosenstein and others at the Department of Justice after the materials were reviewed. She assured me that this would be done and that responsible persons would be reviewing the case in the meantime.
But after that, despite my many inquiries, Erical never set up a meeting and later did not respond at all to my further emails and telephone messages. As a result, and needing to get some response as time was running short before Cliven’s prosecution was scheduled to begin, I decided to physically go to the Justice Department and ask for some dates for this eventual meeting. After I did so, about an hour or so later I was emailed a letter at the direction of the attorney general advising that the materials I had provided to him and his staff were being sent to the Acting U.S. attorney, Steve Myhre, who was prosecuting Cliven, his sons and the others.
I was shocked, as this obviously was nonsensical if Jeff and his staff indeed were conducting an independent review to determine if the prosecutions begun under Obama and Lynch should proceed, or in some way be cut back in scope. It became clear that Jeff, with all of his problems – he is under constant attack by the leftist media and rabid Democrats – simply went into a “defensive crouch” and thus punted on his commitment and referred me instead to the very Obama Deep State prosecutor who has been and continues to engage in prosecutorial misconduct, too numerous to list in this column. To say the very least, I was not just disappointed, but saddened as I thought that this new attorney general would have the courage to do the right thing and honor his word. While over the years I have become more than cynical about the honesty of government officials, I held out hope that Jeff Sessions was different.
The crowning blow to my confidence in Jeff and my hope that he might be different came just in the last few days, when I traveled to Las Vegas to visit with Cliven in federal prison. Coincidentally, I learned that the attorney general was in Las Vegas also to give a speech at the U.S. attorney’s office about sanctuary cities. I therefore emailed Erical again, and asked if she could schedule 15 minutes of Sessions’ time for me to meet with him over the Bundy prosecution. In response, I was told that he did not have time. A day later, it was reported that during his time in Las Vegas, Jeff told the media that he fully supported the prosecutors for their courage to pursue justice, but was “not taking sides or commenting on the case.”
This “double talk” regrettably is at best what not just Cliven but the American people have come to expect from their government and the justice system. And, it’s why I urge you to go to www.clivenbundydefensefund.org and donate to Cliven’s legal defense. While its now clear that even the attorney general has been compromised, and that Cliven’s prosecution will proceed in the next few months, the good news is with your strong support he can wage a full and aggressive legal defense, not just to protect his rights but the constitutional rights of all of us to be free of government tyranny.
Media wishing to interview Larry Klayman, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/help-prot...tecpb87AEvc.99
The Stand for Freedom Rally With Roger Stone
Rallies support defendants in Bunkerville standoff case
Posted on July 16, 2017 by Doug Knowles
https://itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-...1517cs_010.jpg
https://itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-...1517cs_006.jpgAttendees listen at a fundraising event in support of the Bundy family at Rainbow Gardens in Las Vegas on Saturday, July 15, 2017. Chase Stevens Las Vegas Review-Journal @csstevensphoto
By Jessie Bekker and Max Michor Las Vegas Review-Journal July 15, 2017, 11:57 pm
Hundreds of supporters turned out at a Las Vegas event Saturday night supporting the defendants facing trial in the Bunkerville standoff case.
They gathered at Rainbow Gardens to hear speeches from Las Vegas City Councilwoman Michele Fiore, members of the Bundy family and even Roger Stone, an on-and-off adviser for President Donald Trump.
A trial in the Bunkerville standoff case opens Monday at the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse, but instead of trying a new set of defendants, prosecutors will begin their second attempt to convict four men accused of conspiring against the government with rancher Cliven Bundy.
The retrial comes after an April mistrial, when jurors deadlocked on 50 of the 60 counts against the first group of defendants in the three-part case. Prosecutors eventually plan to try 17 men on charges stemming from the April 2014 armed standoff between individual rights activists and Bureau of Land Management agents, who came to Bunkerville to seize Bundy’s cattle from public land over unpaid grazing fees.
The overarching theme at Saturday event: The “mainstream media” hasn’t given the Bundy family a voice.
“They’re supposed to be unbiased. They’re supposed to be dealing with facts and truth,” said Jeanette Finicum, wife of the late LaVoy Finicum, who was present at the 2014 Bunkerville standoff and who was shot by an Oregon state trooper during another standoff at an eastern Oregon wildlife refuge last year.
Fiore recalled explaining her understanding of the Bundy case — “the ‘B word,’” she said — to constituents preceding her election. “I would say to them, after five minutes, ‘Now you support the Bundys,’” Fiore said.
Throughout speeches, members of the crowd shook their heads, clapped and wiped away tears. On and off, they hollered and shouted affirming yeses.
Stone closed the evening Saturday by accusing the FBI and the Bureau of Land Management of “threatening death, … slaughtering livestock and laughing in our face about it.”
The crowd whistled and offered a standing ovation to welcome him to the podium.
“I am here for one important reason. I stand in solidarity with every member of the Bundy family,” Stone said. The crowd responded by chanting, “Roger! Roger! Roger!”
“I have not followed this case with the intensity that I might have,” Stone said. Still, he noted, “The more I read, the angrier I got.”
Over time, he said, Americans’ constitutional rights have been eroded to the point of being unrecognizable. “This is the oppressive and of a military jackbooted government that has lost all sense of law or morality.”
Stone called out U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not offering direct support to the 17 defendants.
Then, he appealed Trump to “review this case in the name of justice, in the name of mercy … pardon every member of the Bundy family.”
Again, the crowd chanted his name.
Stone announced he plans to post a petition on the InfoWars website, urging the president to review the Bundy case.
For Carol Bundy, wife of Cliven Bundy, the message was strength, despite feeling that her “heart is in a prison cell.”
“God let you hit rock bottom so that you can discover that he is the one at the bottom,” she said, choking back tears. “I’m tired, I’m tearful, I don’t know how to help everybody that needs help, but come morning time, I pull myself up by the bootstraps and say, ‘Yup, I’ve got this for one more day.”
In addition to fighting for the release of the 17 men being held on charges stemming from the April 2014 standoff, speakers advocated for a militia over an organized military and a traditional reading of the constitution that would ban federal control over land.
Doug Knowles, who runs activist group It Matters How You Stand, said the event was, besides a fundraiser, an effort to raise awareness.
“These are real human stories here,” he said. “We’re not against the government. We’re anti-corrupt government.”
Peaceful protest
Earlier Saturday, several dozen people rallied peacefully in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Las Vegas in solidarity with defendants.
Ace Baker, a rally organizer who said he was with the American Warrior Revolution, said the morning rally participants wanted to send a message to Judge Gloria Navarro and prosecutors in the case: “We, the people, the fourth branch of government, have you in our sights and all we’re asking for is a fair, constitutional trial.”
“Everything’s at stake here — for any American, anyone who’s a proud American,” Baker said. “If they think you’re too proud or too patriotic, suddenly you’re being charged for terrorist acts.”
Maureen Peltier, who said she was a citizen journalist and a retired staff sergeant with the National Guard, said she believes the “mainstream media” has done a poor job covering the issues surrounding the case.
“We see men taking a stand and we see their plights and the mainstream media is ignoring it,” Peltier said.
“This is much bigger than a few individuals. This is much bigger than us all,” she said. “Our First Amendment right has been attacked. All our rights are at stake.”
Billy Sessions of Arkansas expressed skepticism about the upcoming trial.
“They’re not gonna give them a fair trial,” he said. “They’re going to make an example of them — anyone who stands up against the federal government is labeled a domestic terrorist.”
Contact Jessie Bekker at jbekker@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-4563. Follow @jessiebekks on Twitter.
Contact Max Michor at mmichor@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0381. Follow @MaxMichor on Twitter.