Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Shawna Cox: What America Needs To Know About the Bunkerville Trial
Shawna Cox: What America needs to know about the Bunkerville trial
DOZENS OF PEOPLE FILED COMPLAINTS WITH THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AGAINST ALL THE FEDERAL AGENTS WHO POINTED GUNS AND THREATENED TO KILL ALL THE UNARMED AMERICANS PROTESTING UNDER THE TOQUAP BRIDGE.
March 30, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured, Nevada 4
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C360
Shawna Cox: What America needs to know
about the Bunkerville trial
Dear America,
Federal Court in Las Vegas, Nevada: March 22, 2017 during the “Cliven Bundy Trial #1,” the federal prosecutors were still putting on their case. This would be the 22nd day of trial since it began on Feb. 6, 2017. In cross examination of one of the federal agents, the only Pro Se Defendant, Todd Engel, asked the agent if it was true that the Special Agent in charge, Daniel P. Love of the BLM, was under investigation for misconduct. (Remember “Burning Man”?)
The witness did not answer the question before the prosecution immediately jumped to their feet and objected. After all, the defendants were not allowed to talk about the main character in the whole Bundy Standoff. The prosecution has raised his name a number of times but only in the light that is most favorable for them. Judge Navarro immediately sent the jury out of the room. It was time for a break anyway. The prosecutors demanded that Mr. Engel be stripped of his Pro Se status. After a few moments of thought, the Judge agreed to strip Todd of his Pro Se but just for the rest of the day. (I believe she was trying to figure out a way to do it.)
The 6th Amendment provides “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Of which, Todd’s counsel was fired because of falling asleep in hearings, no communication with defendant, no knowledge of the case, refusing to ask the questions put before him of the defendant, only performing when others are looking over his shoulder or trying to assist his client, etc. This would now leave Mr. Engel with no defense!
Judge Navarro did make the ruling to strip Todd’s Pro Se status the very next day.
The same afternoon during cross examination of FBI Agent Caputo, the sage attorney, T. Jackson who represents Greg Burleson, asked the agent if he had worked with Greg Burleson before. “Yes.” When? “2012 – 2013.” So… you could say Greg Burleson was working as a paid informant in 2012-2013? “Um…Yes, we were working on a murder case.” What happened to him in 2103? “I handed him off.”
The audience were in shock with jaws dropping. A few other questions followed, and then the last questions of the day…Who did you hand him off to? “Agent Nixon.” The same Agent Nixon that just testified in this trial the yesterday? “Ah…(looking to the Prosecutors for help)…Ah, Yes.”
So now it is obvious to all of us that Greg Burleson was and has been a paid informant for the FBI for a few years, and now he has been in jail sitting in with the defendants during their client/attorney meetings etc. The defendants are sure this is the basis for a “mistrial” and this information just confirmed what they felt all along: Greg Burleson had a different reason to come to the ranch than all the rest of them.
The next day the Judge acted like nothing happened the day before and waved it off like nothing to see here…move along. The prosecution even went so far as to play all of the Longbow (FBI fake film company interview with Burleson–terrible and overly dramatized! They even showed all of his Facebook posts afterwards, which are boisterous, obnoxious, filled with bad language, and not the spirit that everyone else was feeling there. These fake narratives were used to ramp up the hysteria about the militia and the protests and to sway public opinion.
We just want to tell the truth, so why can’t the media go into court and show the world what really goes on in these Federal Courts? Why are they only allowed to take notes and draw pictures? The defendants want an open court and have asked for it but the Judge still refuses media access. The information that goes out by way of the major media is only a spin because their reporters don’t even stay in the courtroom the whole day. They report things of very little concern and try to keep the public in the dark.
This is criminal!
All the while they keep the Bundy men and all the real patriots, locked up with no bail and no relief. They are treated worse than if they were already found guilty of some horrible crime. These judges, along with many other politically motivated people, have created a conspiracy against We the People.
https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=600%2C475
Harry Reid’s Role
Senator Harry Reid, in April 2014, called all the people at the Bundy Ranch Standoff “Domestic Terrorists” because we exposed his and his son, Rory Reid’s, land deal with China. They had a contract with a company from China to sell the Nevada land Cliven Bundy has been grazing on for over 150 years, for pennies on the dollar. Makes you wonder how politicians go into office to serve and come out filthy rich.
Judge Navarro has a conflict of interest and should have recused herself from this trial.
In 2009 she was working as an attorney for the Clark County Commission with Rory Reid as one of those commissioners. Her husband, Brian Rutledge, was also working in the county and is still working as the District Attorney.
In 2009, Judge Navarro was recommended by Rory Reid a Clark County Commissioner, whom she worked with, to be nominated by (his father) Harry Reid to President Obama to become the Chief Judge in the US District Court of Nevada here in Las Vegas. Harry contacted Governor Brian Sandoval to replace Judge Robert C Jones and Gloria Navarro was appointed on January 1, 2014.
Judge Robert C Jones was demoted at that time probably because he was the Judge who sat on the Wayne Hage case and saw the injustice and out of control BLM and the Hage Case won in court. Her appointment bypassed all the experienced Judges who worked their way to the top and placed a young woman with very little experience, to be their master.
April 19, 2015 Chief US District Judge Gloria Navarro assigned the Hage case to herself and in September 2015 the Wayne Hage case was overturned. She is BIASED and should have recused herself from this Bundy Case. Harry Reid has been placing these people in office to further his own agenda.
She also should have recused herself from this Bundy Case because it is a conflict of interest with her husband, Brian Rutledge was the District Attorney who failed to prosecute anyone after the standoff and dozens of people filed complaints with the County Sheriff’s Office against all the Federal Agents who pointed guns and threatened to kill all the unarmed Americans protesting under the Toquap Bridge that day of April 12, 2014.
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.”
Just like Harry did with Neil Kornze, the former head of the Bureau of Land Management in the Obama Administration. Neil had been tutored as Harry’s personal secretary. Two days before the assault at the Bundy Ranch in 2014, Harry Reid made Neil the head of the BLM. There were a lot of disgruntled people who had been working their way to the top for years with lots of good experience and were bypassed by this young man through the influence again of Harry Reid. Harry needed someone to do his dirty work.
Related Articles:
Identity of paid FBI informant unintentionally disclosed during Bunkerville trial
Recordings show paranoid, abusive attitudes of federal agents during Bundy Ranch standoff
Why Trump’s new BLM director must fire Dan Love
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...3/shawna-2.jpe
Shawna Cox is a native born Utahan. She is a very active wife, mother and grandmother. She has been politically involved for over 40 years. She stood up for her Cowgirl friend Mary Bullock Rucker when the BLM and environmental groups came after her and her cattle in 1996.
She went to Bunkerville to help her friend Cliven Bundy and his family when they came for his cattle and offered the prayer under the bridge. Then believing in Ammon Bundy’s will to serve the Lord, she went to Harney County, Oregon to help the Dwight Hammond Family when they came for his Ranch. She was in the truck when LaVoy Finicum was murdered and was a defendant in the First Oregon Trial, where miraculously they were all acquitted.
She has been helping all the other defendants ever since and can’t go home until they too are all freemen again. They are innocent of any wrong doing. May God Bless us all to restore our Constitution!
H/T Free Range Report
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
An Important Update from John Lamb and Andrea Olson-Parker April 3
Court is over for today, there will be a final report shortly
http://youtu.be/S5TYUh0iXX0
https://youtu.be/S5TYUh0iXX0
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
A couple of belated interviews with Briana Bundy Jim Lamb on Twister radio
http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...on-Updates.m4a March 22
Unjust Judge in Nevada
March 23
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
End of Day - No Defense Witnesses Allowed. John Lamb and Andrea Olson-Parker
http://youtu.be/AsVJQFu_hO8
https://youtu.be/AsVJQFu_hO8
John Lamb & Andrea Parker ~ No defense witnesses! 4/3/17
J Grady 56 views
2,866
5
0
Published on Apr 3, 2017We need everyone to pick up their phones NOW! US Department of Justice AJ Jeff Sessions 1( 202) 514-1555 Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Brand Thornton with more from the April 3 Nevada courtroom proceedings
http://youtu.be/ugeEfZ5X5Z0
https://youtu.be/ugeEfZ5X5Z0
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The Bundy Women April 3, 2017
http://youtu.be/akwy6H6DGRo
https://youtu.be/akwy6H6DGRo
Bundy Ranch ~ The Bundy Women 4/3/17
J Grady 4 views
2,865
0
0
Published on Apr 3, 2017 Chief Judge Gloria Navarro complaint line:702 388 5020
Admin Aaron Blazevich: 1-702-464-542
InspectorGeneral Investigations Division. 202-616-4760
Social media blast twitter and Facebook event already been going on. Help from home. Show up at court if you can. From home link. https://www.facebook.com/events/62419...
Judiciary Committee members. 202 225 3951 (comment line option or speak to staff)
Copyright Disclaimer:
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
COMMENTS
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
4/3/17 Happenings Today in Nevada: Court Update- Clouds Moving In MrsB Stacy channel
http://youtu.be/xvU6acycY_w
https://youtu.be/xvU6acycY_w
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Brand Thornton and John Lamb with more thoughts on today's court in Las Vegas ~ J Grady
http://youtu.be/T9Ehkz7XdVI
https://youtu.be/T9Ehkz7XdVI
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
John Bad Elk v United States
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).
You are also within your rights not to answer any questions without a lawyer present, and if possible, to demand a video recording be made of the entire encounter that you or your lawyer keep as evidence, so that federal prosecutors can't get away with charging you with making false statements to a government investigator and testilying about what you said. See this article.
As a practical matter one should try to avoid relying on the above in an actual confrontation with law enforcement agents, who are likely not to know or care about any of it. Some recent courts have refused to follow these principles, and grand juries, controlled by prosecutors, have refused to indict officers who killed innocent people claiming the subject "resisted" or "looked like he might have a gun". Once dedicated to "protect and serve", far too many law enforcement officers have become brutal, lawless occupying military forces.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
So the people should bust the Bundy's and Co out of the slammer?
