Page 183 of 185 FirstFirst ... 83133173181182183184185 LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,830 of 1847

Thread: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

  1. #1821
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    Bundy Persecution throws ‘Hail Marys’ After Navarro dismissed the case the unethical persecutors want a chance to retry the Bundys and Ryan Payne.

    http://www.freerangereport.com/gross...en-bundy-case/

    “They are apparently hopeful that this court, if an appeal is heard, will relieve them from the prospect that their careers at the Department of Justice are over, much more the potential for disbarment,” Klayman wrote. “Given the record, this ‘Hail Mary’ attempt to skate from their own liability is destined to fail.”


    “Grossly unethical” prosecutors try desperately to re-open Bundy case – Free Range Report
    Navarro initially granted a mistrial after finding that the federal government improperly withheld evidence. She said video surveillance, maps and FBI interview information were willfully withheld by the prosecution in violation of due process required by the U.S. Constitution.
    Greg Henderson
    Drovers
    Bundy prosecutors throw “Hail Mary”

    Federal prosecutors aren’t giving up on their case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. On Wednesday they filed opening briefs in their appeal of a judge’s dismissal of felony conspiracy and weapons charges against Bundy and others.

    The case was dismissed a year ago by U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro, who found “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” by prosecutors against Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and independent militia member Ryan Payne.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth White asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday to reverse Navarro’s decision, defending the Justice Department’s actions at trial.

    “Any missteps were inadvertent (or at worst negligent), and those errors did not merit the court’s strong condemnation of the prosecution team,” White wrote, according to reports by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

    Navarro initially granted a mistrial after finding that the federal government improperly withheld evidence. She said video surveillance, maps and FBI interview information were willfully withheld by the prosecution in violation of due process required by the U.S. Constitution.

    Cliven Bundy’s lawyer, Larry Klayman, responded to the government’s brief in a separate filing, calling the appeal “unprofessional and grossly unethical.”

    Continue reading here

    Free Range Report

    Thank you for reading our latest report, but before you go…

    Our loyalty is to the truth and to YOU, our readers!

    We respect your reading experience, and have refrained from putting up a paywall and obnoxious advertisements, which means that we get by on small donations from people like you. We’re not asking for much, but any amount that you can give goes a long way to securing a better future for the people who make America great.

    For as little as $1 you can support Free Range Report, and it takes only a moment.
    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to monty For This Useful Post:

    Tumbleweed (9th February 2019)

  3. #1822
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    Bundys should file a Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the jurisdiction of the territorial U.S. District Court. I doubt Larry Klayman or any BAR A$$ attorney will.

    Thomas Mitchel 4thSt8.wordpress.com with more on the appeal to the 9th circuis

    https://www.sltrib.com/resizer/KBVw8...ZHBJSKCOTY.jpg
    Cliven Bundy walks out of federal court with his wife Carol on Monday, Jan. 8, 2018, in Las Vegas, after a judge dismissed criminal charges against him and his sons accused of leading an armed uprising against federal authorities in 2014. (R-J pix by K.M Cannon

    This past week prosecutors appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the decision by a Nevada federal judge to dismiss with prejudice all charges against Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy, two of his sons and a self-style militiaman from Montana because the government failed to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.

    Knowing the track record of the liberal 9th Circuit, odds are the court will order the defendants back to face charges.

    The Bundy family has grazed cattle on public land in Clark County since the 1880s, but 25 years ago the Bureau of Land Management told the family it could no longer graze cattle in the spring because they might harm the hatchlings of the threatened desert tortoise — a contention range biologists say is bogus. Since those months are the only ones in which cattle gain weight on the desert range, Bundy refused to comply and stopped paying the BLM its grazing fees.

    In April 2014, saying Bundy owed more than $1 million in grazing fees and trespass fines, contract cowboys backed by heavily armed BLM and FBI agents started rounding up the Bundy cattle. In response, armed men from across the West gathered for a face-off with the federal agents.

    To avert a potential bloodbath the agents backed down and left, but Bundy and others were later indicted on charges that included obstruction of justice, conspiracy, extortion, assault and impeding federal officers.
    Two of three scheduled trials took place, but a year ago during the third trial of Cliven Bundy and his co-defendants Judge Gloria Navarro abruptly halted proceedings and ruled that the prosecutors had willfully and flagrantly failed to disclose evidence that could have been used by the defense, including information about an FBI surveillance camera, documents citing the presence of snipers, certain maps, FBI logs, threat assessments that showed the Bundys weren’t violent, documents reportedly showing that no threatened desert tortoises were ever found to be harmed by Bundy’s cattle, and internal affairs documents detailing possible misdeeds by the Bureau of Land Management agent in charge, who was later fired.

    The judge ruled the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning charges could not be brought against them again.
    Curiously, most of that information cited would have allowed the defense to argue the defendants were provoked and were acting in self-defense, arguments the judge previously ruled were impermissible. The appeal goes into excruciating detail about this seeming contradiction.

    In response to the appeal, Bundy’s lawyer Larry Klayman asked the appellate court to dismiss the prosecution’s appeal because it had missed the filing deadline. Though the prosecution asked for deadlines extensions, the court has not yet granted such an extension.

    According to press accounts, Klayman also called the appeal “unprofessional and grossly unethical,” adding, “They are apparently hopeful that this court, if an appeal is heard, will relieve them from the prospect that their careers at the Department of Justice are over, much more the potential for disbarment. Given the record, this ‘Hail Mary’ attempt to skate from their own liability is destined to fail.”

    But the appeal, penned by Nevada Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth White, argues, “Any missteps were inadvertent (or at worst negligent), and those errors did not merit the court’s strong condemnation of the prosecution team.”

    White also argued that court precedents show the appropriate remedy for failing to disclose would be either the dismissal of some charges or a new trial, not outright dismissal.

    In arguing that disclosure of evidence might jeopardize the safety of witnesses and agents, the appeal dredged up a long-discredited base canard.

    The brief stated, “Its goal was to produce all relevant information while protecting victims, witnesses, and law enforcement officers from harassment and threats, and from the violence that had already taken the lives of two police officers and a civilian at the hands of two of Bundy’s extremist followers.”

    This refers to the fact that in June 2014, Jerad and Amanda Miller, killed two Las Vegas police officers and another man before being killed in a shootout with police.

    What was not mentioned is that the Millers were a couple of leftist lunatics who showed up at the Bundy ranch standoff but were told by the Bundys to leave because of their “very radical” views. They were not Bundy’s “extremist followers.”

    Despite this error, the appellate court is likely to look favorably on the prosecution’s appeal.

    A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

    Posted in Elko Daily Free Press, Ely Times, Eureka Sentinel, Lincoln County Record, Mesquite Local News, Mineral County Independent-News, Nevada, News, politics, Sparks Tribune Tagged 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, BLM, Cliven Bundy, FBI, Gloria Navarro
    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to monty For This Useful Post:

    Tumbleweed (15th February 2019)

  5. #1823
    Iridium Bigjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,415
    Thanks
    3,154
    Thanked 1,932 Times in 1,159 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    The still US Citizens wonder why they can't get an honest court.

    And the Barr scum leads us all down their lying path.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bigjon For This Useful Post:

    monty (16th February 2019),Tumbleweed (15th February 2019)

  7. #1824
    Iridium old steel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North of the 49th
    Posts
    5,180
    Thanks
    898
    Thanked 2,726 Times in 1,502 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    The standoff at the bridge had the feds scared shitless which is another reason for the push for a gun grab by the leftist Democrats.


    Snipers on the bridge and armed riders on horseback had them cowering behind their vehicles in fear.


    https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...ada138.jpg&f=1

    https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...40x756.jpg&f=1


    https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h..._11055.jpg&f=1

    https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h....06-PM.png&f=1
    http://www.apfn.org/images/images8/B...esters0414.png

    https://www.naturalnews.com/images/G...Standoff-9.jpg

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to old steel For This Useful Post:

    Bigjon (15th February 2019),monty (16th February 2019),Tumbleweed (15th February 2019)

  9. #1825
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    The U.S. District Court for the Disrict of Columbia ruled the FBI must respond the the FOIA for disclosure of agents impersonating Longbow Productions


    https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-commi...ry-filmmakers/

    Reporters Committee secures FOIA win in case to uncover details on FBI impersonation of documentary filmmakers

    Q&A: What the Reporters Committee’s recent FOIA win means for the public and journalists

    Pariss BriggsMarch 13, 2019

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled the Federal Bureau of Investigation must search for and produce records related to the agency’s impersonation of documentary filmmakers during investigations in response to a request from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for more information about the practice.

    After learning the FBI impersonated a documentary film crew to investigate Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his followers following a 2014 armed standoff between Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Reporters Committee requested access to records related to this practice under the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI issued what’s known as a Glomar response, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive to the Reporters Committee’s request. The Reporters Committee challenged that response, arguing that it was improper, and the D.C. District Court agreed.

    Jennifer Nelson, a litigation fellow at the Reporters Committee who has worked on the case, discusses the events that led the Reporters Committee to bring this lawsuit, the importance of the D.C. District Court’s ruling and the negative impact that the FBI’s practice of impersonating journalists has on newsgathering.

    What prompted the Reporters Committee to file this lawsuit against the FBI?

    The Reporters Committee has been interested in the FBI’s impersonation of reporters generally for a long time. Before we brought this case, we were already litigating against the FBI along with the Associated Press regarding the FBI’s impersonation of an AP editor in 2007.

    After we learned that the FBI had impersonated a documentary film crew — Longbow Productions — to trick Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his sons, and a few of his supporters to give on-camera interviews, we knew that we wanted to learn more. Documentary filmmakers are also members of the news media, and the FBI’s impersonation of filmmakers is just as troubling as the agency’s impersonation of newspaper journalists. We filed a FOIA request in order to learn more not just about the creation of Longbow Productions, but also about other instances in which the FBI has impersonated documentary filmmakers in criminal investigations.

    This lawsuit was filed in 2017. How has it played out thus far? How did we get to this point?

    We filed the lawsuit after the FBI did not release records in response to our FOIA request. The FBI has since released a small handful of records specifically related to the FBI’s policies and guidelines surrounding the impersonation of documentary filmmakers. After the FBI issued a Glomar response to the portion of our FOIA request related to other instances where the FBI has impersonated documentary filmmakers in criminal investigations, the parties agreed to separate the issues and present the Glomar issue to the court for a decision now.

    What is a Glomar response?

    A Glomar response is when an agency refuses to confirm or deny the existence of materials responsive to a FOIA request. An agency’s argument when it issues a Glomar response is that even confirming or denying that records exist in response to a FOIA request would cause a harm that falls under one of the exemptions to FOIA.

    In this case, the FBI argued that confirming or denying the existence of records related to other instances where the FBI has impersonated documentary filmmakers would cause a harm under Exemption 7(E) — meaning it would disclose secret law enforcement techniques or reduce or nullify the effectiveness of those techniques.

    When agencies like the FBI issue a Glomar response, or when they don’t comply with FOIA, how does that affect the public?

    The whole purpose of FOIA is to provide public records to the public. When you have an agency taking a position that is overly broad, withholding documents or issuing a Glomar response when they shouldn’t be doing so — which the court found was exactly what happened in this case — the public is harmed because it is not getting the information it’s entitled to.

    When the FBI impersonates a member of the news media, such as documentary filmmaker, how does it affect the public’s access to information?

    In our lawsuit, we submitted affidavits from two documentary filmmakers who detailed the negative effects they experienced due to the FBI’s practice of impersonating documentary filmmakers. This included situations where sources of theirs would ask them, “Are you actually an FBI agent?” Their sources implied that they could not trust the filmmakers because they didn’t know if they were FBI agents or actually journalists. If you have instances where journalists — such as documentary filmmakers — are not able to get the full story, that trickles down and limits what information is able to be provided to the public. There’s a chilling effect, and the result is not just harm to the journalist and their work, but also to the public, who is denied information it would otherwise receive.

    This case was a win for the Reporters Committee because the court ruled the FBI couldn’t refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records. Why is this win so important?

    The FBI will now actually have to search for those records. It’s extremely important that we have an understanding of how often the FBI engages in this practice and when else they have used this tactic because it really has a harmful effect on journalists. It has a chilling effect on their work. Understanding how often this tactic is used and being able to report on that and give an understanding to people so they know what’s going on is really important. It’s very much in the public’s interest.

    That being said, any responsive records that the FBI may release are still subject to redaction under the various FOIA exemptions, so this ruling doesn’t mean we’re going to get every document without redactions from the FBI. We’ll still have to see what they produce to us, see what those redactions are, and then decide if we want to challenge those redactions in court.

    Does FOIA guarantee public access to these records? Why is it so hard to obtain them?

    The answer to that is complicated. Certainly, we have the ability to request these records, and the FBI is supposed to search for, process and release those records that are not subject to certain exemptions that are lawful under FOIA. FOIA has a number of exemptions that permit an agency to lawfully redact or withhold some information as needed. This is done to protect, for example, as with Exemption 7E, legitimate law enforcement interests. We didn’t believe that was the case in this matter, which is why we challenged the FBI’s Glomar response.

    When an agency claims information is protected under an exemption — even if it’s believed there’s no reason for it to be — how difficult is it to convince the court this information should be released?

    It varies based on the exemption. Some exemptions are more difficult to challenge than others, so it’s on a case-by-case basis. We have to take a look at the records when we get them, see what the redactions are and if we’re going to challenge them and adjust our arguments accordingly. Also, the case law has developed differently for each exemption, so different standards can be applied. So it depends a lot on what’s being withheld and why the agency is arguing it’s withholding the materials.

    Since this case fell under Exemption 7(E), why did the Reporters Committee argue the FBI’s response was inappropriate?

    We had a number of different arguments. Our first was that the impersonation of documentary filmmakers is an investigation technique that is already well known to the public. As such, the FBI should not be able to issue a Glomar response, because the interest they’re seeking to protect — the secrecy of the tactic — is inapplicable. Courts that have analyzed withholdings under Exemption 7(E) have looked at whether the technique at issue is well known to the public and whether releasing information about that technique would reduce or nullify the effectiveness of that technique. The idea in a challenge is that if the technique is already well known, then the FBI shouldn’t be able to argue under Exemption 7(E) that confirming or denying the existence of records related to the practice would harm their ability to use it. The FBI argued that confirming or denying the existence of records regarding the FBI’s impersonation of documentary filmmakers would reduce or nullify the effectiveness of this technique. That argument doesn’t make much sense, and the judge picked up on that. The judge held that because impersonation of documentary filmmakers is a law enforcement technique that is commonly known to the public and simply acknowledging the existence or absence of records related to it wouldn’t reduce or nullify the effectiveness of the technique, the FBI could not issue a Glomar response.

    We also argued that the FBI’s Glomar response was inappropriate here because the agency has officially acknowledged the existence of records. The court didn’t have to reach that argument because it held that the FBI had failed to justify its Glomar response under Exemption 7(E).

    The third argument we made was that allowing the FBI to issue a Glomar response in this situation would cause First Amendment harms. The court acknowledged we made that argument but didn’t have to reach it because it was able to deny the FBI’s use of a Glomar response based on our first argument.

    We touched upon how the FBI’s impersonation of journalists and documentary filmmakers can negatively affect the public, but what overall impact does this technique have on newsgatherers?

    Journalists and documentary filmmakers are often asked to go into dangerous situations. For example, with this case regarding Longbow Productions, there were documentary filmmakers conducting interviews and research, and practicing journalism during the Bundy ranch standoff. There were armed militias present and violence occurred.

    Journalists are putting themselves into dangerous situations all the time, and if you have a source who does not know if you are a journalist or an FBI agent, and they incorrectly conclude the latter, it can be dangerous for the journalist who does not have access to backup or a weapon or training that would allow them to defend themselves if needed. One of the two documentary filmmakers who submitted an affidavit in this case, Abby Ellis, talked about how nervous it made her to have some of her sources question her and say, “I don’t know if I can trust you.” The FBI’s sting operation using Longbow Productions has made her nervous going into some of these dangerous situations because she can’t predict if someone’s going to assume she’s a government agent and perhaps turn on her. In these current times, where there are many threats of violence against journalists, having the FBI engage in this practice causes a significant harm and threat to journalism and the trust that sources have to place in journalists who are recording and telling their stories. It negatively affects a journalist’s ability to gather the news if they can’t gain the trust of their sources.


    Learn more about the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions, and the history of Glomar responses with the Reporters Committee’s FOIA Wiki.
    Watch to learn more about the Reporters Committee’s public records litigation to uncover information about how and when the FBI impersonates members of the media.
    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to monty For This Useful Post:

    Bigjon (13th March 2019),Tumbleweed (13th March 2019)

  11. #1826
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    These reporters can’t seem to tell the truth. Always mislead the reader. The violence was against the Bundy family, mainly Margret Houston, Ammon and Davy Bundy.

    Journalists and documentary filmmakers are often asked to go into dangerous situations. For example, with this case regarding Longbow Productions, there were documentary filmmakers conducting interviews and research, and practicing journalism during the Bundy ranch standoff. There were armed militias present and violence occurred.
    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to monty For This Useful Post:

    Bigjon (13th March 2019),Tumbleweed (13th March 2019)

  13. #1827
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    Breaking ~ Supreme Court Delivered 2 Major Blows Against Gun Control Act of '68 ~ J Grady

    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to monty For This Useful Post:

    Bigjon (9th July 2019),Tumbleweed (9th July 2019)

  15. #1828
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    Royston Potter believes Trump signing an executive order reigning in the bureaucrats was directly related to the Bundy Ranch standoff. He posted 3 videos, 2 with him and his friend Brand Thornton because they were both at the Bundy Ranch standoff & Brand could share his thoughts.

    The first video is nearly an hour, the second is over 2 hours, and the third is 11 minutes.

    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to monty For This Useful Post:

    Bigjon (12th October 2019),Tumbleweed (12th October 2019)

  17. #1829
    Potmetal Cebu_4_2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    25,528
    Thanks
    4,872
    Thanked 6,450 Times in 4,272 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    EXCLUSIVE: Massive Cover-up – BLM leases Hammond ranch land to Russia through Clinton Foundation donors for uranium


    02/11/2016 / By Greg White

    2016-02-11-exclusive-massive-cover-up-blm-leases-hammond-ranch-land-to-russia-through-clinton-foundation-donors-for-uranium

    The Hammond Ranch controversy continues to sink into a rabbit hole without end. Evidence has surfaced that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been taking land with plans to lease it to Clinton Foundation donors.

    Russia gradually gained control of Uranium One, a major mining company, in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State. Canadian records reveal that the company’s chairman used his own family foundation to make four donations to the Clinton Foundation during that time, resulting in a sum contribution of $2.35 million. Secretary Clinton approved the deal for Russia soon after her family’s slush fund received the donations. Now, Vladimir Putin controls 20 percent of all uranium production capacity in the U.S.

    Undisclosed contributions made to the Clinton Foundation

    These contribution were not made known to the public by the Clintons, even though Hillary Clinton made a deal with President Obama to disclose all the donors. Other individuals associated with the company made donations too.

    Furthermore, after Russia declared that it was taking over Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank, which promoted Uranium One stock.

    A gold mine for uranium

    It is not known whether the donations were responsible for the uranium deal, but the timing is suspicious. Since Hammond Ranch is a gold mine for uranium, it’s unsurprising that the Clinton Foundation would want to lease the land to Russia through donors.

    This would also explain why U.S. authorities have been coming down so hard on protesters. Officials aren’t prosecuting individuals because of the Hammond controversy. Officials are coming down on protesters because they are occupying a valuable piece of land; a piece of land that was promised to the Russians.

    According to The New York Times: “Whether the donations [to the Clinton Foundation] played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”

    To read more about Hillary Clinton News, please go to Clinton.news for all the latest updates

    Sources include:

    CanadaFreePress.com

    Evil.news

    LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

    NewsTarget.com

    Jackie did it and you know it!

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cebu_4_2 For This Useful Post:

    Ares (25th October 2019),monty (20th December 2019),Tumbleweed (25th October 2019)

  19. #1830
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

    Vincent Easley II, who was on the ground at Bundy Ranch in 2014 and back in Las Vegas during much of the trial(s?), VinE on Real Liberty Media Radio ~ Government appeal to overturn Navarro’s dismissal with prejudice.

    VinE’s podcast, followed up with an article and the government’s reply brief.

    https://www.reallibertymedia.com/201...og-2019-12-20/

    Podcast:
    https://www.reallibertymedia.com/?po...-ponder-gander


    The State: MISTRIAL, DISMISSAL & APPEAL

    Bundy et al. Dismissal with Prejudice – Government’s Reply Brief.The Tortoise and the Hair, Hoof, and Hide the Truth.




    You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do.https://vinceucytv.files.wordpress.c...29778951_n.jpgJournalism (TRUTH) Needs Defense • Be The Media


    What Matters: A Ponder Gander Radio Writing Series.
    Vincent Easley II RealLibertyMedia.com/author/vine RLM Radio #Rlog RealLibertyMedia.com
    VinE-Online Real Liberty Media Support

    Angie Huntington Bundy:
    Ryan and I have been getting many messages about the fact that the Government is working on trying to re-open our case. This is to hopefully dispel some rumors, and at least, let you know, what we know.


    The Government filed an appeal to the 9th circuit that challenges Judge Navarro’s decision to dismiss our case with prejudice. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be retried again. The Government is hoping to overturn the finality of that decision, so they can take evidence back to a grand jury…then, they’d like to re-indict Cliven, Ryan, Ammon, and Ryan Payne. So…this hearing that is coming up in March, is to argue Judge Navarro’s ruling before the ninth circuit back in January of 2018. If they successfully get it overturned, the men could be re-indicted.

    I’m not sure how many of you were there in the courtroom when the case was dismissed. The room was packed. Her words and language were strong as to the irresponsibility of the prosecutor’s and how they mishandled our case. The fact is, the grand jury was lied to, as to many of the facts that got the men indicted to begin with. The lies were exposed in those first few weeks of evidentiary hearings, jury selection, and trial. Facts about our men, and their non-violent nature were withheld from the evidence they turned over. Facts about cameras being trained on the ranch home, along with facts about there being snipers and surveillance, on the family and home were not only withheld, but openly mocked when they were inquired about by my husband. When Ryan Payne called for protection from militia…it was because snipers were trained on the protesters and family…they denied it, but it was factually true. All of that came out with court proceedings, along with a ton of secrets, that we would all get kicked out of the courtroom for. To re-open our case is a long shot, but our judicial system is corrupt. However, Judge Navarro is a Harry Reid appointee….she’s in no way our friend, but her tongue lashing to the prosecutors was strong. I have serious doubts her decision could be overturned.

    So, am I worried? No…however…we still have Greg, Todd, and Jerry still incarcerated over the lies that were told to the jury and the grand jury. Could another trial help them?? If it could, then it’d be worth it. The truths that already came out in our hearings should logically set them free already. But it hasn’t, so we watch and wait. God is still bigger, and He has helped us through all of this. My faith and trust is in Him. Angie Huntington Bundy · 15 December ·
    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to monty For This Useful Post:

    midnight rambler (20th December 2019),Tumbleweed (20th December 2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •