Yes, I'm using a word that some Oregonians consider to be "offensive." So, if you are offended at the word "lynching," grow up! The case currently being heard in Nevada against Bundy Ranch defendants is not a real trial. All the evidence and testimony is being suppressed, not only by the
The case currently being heard in Nevada against Bundy Ranch defendants is not a real trial. All the evidence and testimony is being suppressed, not only by the prosecution, but by a treasonous Barack Hussein Obama Soeotor Sobarkah appointee, Judge Gloria Navarro.
In the latest motion by the prosecution, they are seeking to have the entire testimony of Eric Parker stricken from the record and have asked the judge to tell the jury to disregard his testimony.
In a motion by the prosecution, they sought sanctions against defendants Parker, Drexler, and Stewart and their counsel for "repeated and blatant violations of the Court's Order to preclude jury nullification evidence, argument, and information.
The problem with the prosecution's argument is that jury nullification is a rightful remedy to this situation where the government is trying to present that it has clean hands in this matter and that the defendants are nothing more than domestic terrorists when the opposite is true.
The prosecution in their motion admitted as much to the fact that they were unable to get a conviction on these men in the first round by stating clearly that "the jury remained deadlocked on all counts as to defendants Parker, Drexler, Stewart, and Lovelien," and are attempting every way under the sun to get convictions in round two.
However, the Court sought to give an order that is unConstitutional, which precluded the following jury nullification testimony or evidence:
- April 6, 2014, officer encounters with civilians during the arrest of Dave Bundy, including any testimony concerning, or video/audio depicting, that event;
- April 9, 2014, officer encounters with civilians during the convoy block, including any testimony concerning, or video/audio recordings depicting officer encounters with Ammon Bundy or Margaret Houston;
- Third-party/lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operation, including operations on April 12, 2014 (These were not impoundment operations, they were a slaughter of Cliven Bundy's cattle, plain and simple).
- References to the opinion/public statement of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM [Bureau of Land Management] impoundment operations;
- References to First Amendment zones;
- References to Cliven Bundy's grazing, water, or legacy rights on the public lands;
- References to infringements on First and Second Amendment rights; and
- References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses.
Every single one of these items are relevant to the case. Yet, Judge Navarro claims that the defense may not defend their defendants with these items!
Jury nullification something that is in the power of the jury despite all the judge and the prosecution are attempting to do in this lynching.
They violating the First Amendment since there is no law that can be written regarding free speech and therefore, the judge has no authority to be stating that this information cannot be admitted as evidence and that jury nullification cannot be promoted.
After all, what are they scared of? That the jury might actually see the emperor has no clothes? Probably.
"From the beginning of the trial and throughout, counsel for Parker (Mr. Marchese), Stewart (Mr. Tanasi), and Drexler (Mr. Leventhal) have repeatedly violated the Court's Order and attempted to place precluded evidence before the jury," the prosecution wrote.
"These efforts culminated on August 10 when counsel for Parker attempted to adduce as much jury nullification as could be jammed into Eric Parker's trial testimony, ultimately putting the Court in the difficult, but absolutely legally correct [but unconstitutional], position of ordering a testifying defendant from the stand and striking his testimony from the jury," continued the prosecution.
Though the Court ruled a day before the event that the testimony was inadmissible, one has to ask, on what grounds?
Jury nullification is perfectly legal and lawful. To state that it is not relevant in the case is to engage in tyranny, something this court knows very well.
So, what happened on August 10?
Deb Jordan with Guerilla Media Network, who has been on location in Nevada, wrote of what took place:
BUNDY TRIAL COURTROOM ERUPTS INTO CHAOS LEAVING THE JURY COMPLETELY CONFUSED & ERIC PARKER IN TEARS.
Eric Parker, the man accused of joining in a conspiracy with Rancher Cliven Bundy to impede Federal Officers from executing a court order to impound cattle, could do little else but walk back to his seat and weep as the judge dismissed the jury midway through his testimony.
Mr. Parker, who earlier in the trial had learned the defense team would not be permitted to ask questions or show any evidence that shone a bad light on Federal Law Enforcement's conduct on April 12th 2014 was stopped short of explaining to the Jury that he saw BLM officers pointing weapons at civilians and snipers positioned on a mesa above them who were also pointing weapons at the crowd.
Judge Gloria Navarro had already denied the defense any witness testimony that pointed to Federal Law Enforcement behavior on the day of the protest as being the cause for Parker, Drexler, Stewart, and Lovelien taking a defensive posture on a bridge that overlooked a wash where the dramatic event between protestors and Federal Law Enforcement took place. Parker and the other defendants have always held that they believed the Bureau Of Land Management and Fish & Wildlife officers were absolutely prepared to open fire on innocent citizens and that they had no other choice but defend themselves and others in the wash.
Parker's attorney Jess Marchese, consoled his client in front of the Jury while Judge Gloria Navarro who had completely lost her ability to be unbiased from the start of the trial, dismissed the Jury and ordered them back on Monday.
Rich Tanasi, attorney for Steven Stewart says, he has no doubt that at least 4 and maybe even 6 Jurors were most likely now on the side of the defense.
Attorney's who were present in the courtroom and represent the men set to go on trial in the next round [Cliven Bundy, his two son's Ryan and Ammon, Ryan Payne, founder of a Montana Militia - Operation Mutual Aide - and journalist Pete Santilli ] said they believe the Prosecution's strategy to keep the Jury blind to the facts had effectively backfired on them .. leaving the Jury visibly shaken and shocked - that Mr. Parker was not allowed to give his side of the story. "This gives the Government little choice but to ask for a mistrial and start over" they all agreed.
Eric Parker's wife, Andrea said afterwards, she believes the Jury finally got to see the corruption for themselves and that what happened in the courtroom today can only be good for a defense the Government was sure they had beaten.
Jordan also went on to comment on the prosecution's motion. She wrote on Facebook:
"If ever there was a travesty of justice this is it! This COURT is completely out of order!! This is not a fair trial by JURY it is a LYNCHING. This is not AMERICA!! How can this Prosecution ask this Judge to tell the Jury they must strike Eric Parker's testimony and pretend like Eric never testified at all without it affecting them ?????? How can this Prosecutor legally demand to APPROVE THE DEFENSES CLOSING ARGUMENTS ??? How could any Jury convict or make any good decision after this? How can this happen? They will get away with whatever we let them get away with. Pray these attorneys have the strength to fight this!!
The prosecution went on in their motion to speak of maintaining the "integrity of the judicial system" and requesting that the Court impose sanctions for the violation of the Court's order.
Notice what they will do. They want to approve what the defense will actually say in closing arguments!
You can't get any more manipulative and Communist than this.
There are five sanctions the prosecution are seeking to be imposed.
1. Following the government's closing, counsel for defendants Parker, Drexler, and Stewart preview their closing arguments, verbatim, along with all exhibits they intend to use, including the specific times or still frames of videos to be shown to the jury.
Of course, this is to benefit the prosecution as they state, "This will allow the government to impose objections outside the presence of the jury and, if necessary, allow for any issues regarding violations of the Court Order to be litigated before defendants' make closing arguments before the jury."
Then hold the government to the same standard and require the same thing of them and don't let them deviate one word. Otherwise, this is like the British telling the Colonists that they must wear red and march in a straight line.
2. That an testimony from any remaining defense witnesses, including defendants Stewart and Drexler, be proffered outside the presence of the jury before they testify to ensure compliance with the Court's Order, affording the government an opportunity to litigate the relevance of any testimony that will stray into the areas covered by the Court's order [aka, that will expose the corruption and unlawful behavior of federal agents, the system as a whole, and Judge Navarro's court].
3. That the Court instruct the jury as follows:
a. "Members of the jury, on Thursday you heard Mr. Parker testify. I ordered that his testimony be stricken from the record because Mr. Parker could not confine or discuss his testimony to relevant areas. In your deliberations, you are not to consider or discuss his testimony, or speculate about what his testimony may have been. You should proceed as though Mr. Parker never testified."
b. "The conduct of the alleged victims in this case is not at issue. Under the law, a victim's conduct cannot justify or excute an assault, a threat or an extortion by force by another [Wait, is the prosecution referencing the BLM or the Bundy supporters here?] in your deliberations, you are not to discuss or consider whether you agree or disagree with any court orders authorizing impoundment operations, any impoundment operations conducted by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, or any actions or inactions taken by BLM or NPS officers on April 12, 2014."
Again, all of that is relevant the case. If the orders are unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, then this whole fiasco goes down the toilet and they know it. The only threats issued that day came from the BLM and they were recorded. The only deaths that occurred that day were at the hands of the BLM, and that was the deaths of the cattle they killed. The only real threats came in the form of more than 300 armed federal agents, including snipers.
This information is what the prosecution wants to shut down.
4. Any other sanction the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
While the prosecution cites the local rules of the District of Nevada, the problem with the citation is that it assumes an order from the Court is lawful.
Every bit of information that the defense has tried to offer, whether it was with regards to the government's out of control handling of the Bundy Ranch siege or educating the jury on jury nullification.
Here's the good news, the jury has seen the heavy-handed and desperate attempts of the Court and the prosecution up close.
They heard the testimony of Parker and despite any order, it is in their minds.
I recall Dr. Ron Paul once saying that people can never unhear what you tell them. Good for the defense!
Good for the defense! Plant the seeds of doubt. Point to the real criminals and violation of law in this case and let the chips fall where they may.
As for the prosecution, they seem to be in their death throes at this point. They are dangerous and should be watched carefully.
Then the people in Nevada should see the impeachment of Judge Navarro and subsequent prosecution of the prosecution in this case for obstruction of justice.
If you are able and would like to help the Bundy Ranch political prisoners win their case against the tyranny of the central government or would like to write them, please click here. If you would like to support a house in Nevada that is caring for wives and children of these men as they attend the trials, please click here.
UPDATE: Judge Turns Down Sanctions
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
A judge decided not to sanction defendants in the Las Vegas retrial of four men accused of wielding assault-style weapons against federal land management agents to stop a round-up of anti-government figure Cliven Bundy's cattle in April 2014.
Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said Monday she won't require closing arguments to be submitted in advance, and won't order a preview of defendant Scott Drexler's testimony.
Outside the presence of the jury, Navarro said she expects Drexler's testimony will stay within rulings she previously made to keep testimony focusing on the armed standoff — not on constitutional issues and federal land policy.
The judge on Thursday took the unusual step of ordering defendant Eric Parker off the witness stand and instructing jurors to disregard his testimony.
The judge says she determined that Parker was trying to invite jury "nullification" of charges in the case.