On Monday, I reported on the motion filed by the prosecution to have the judge issue sanction in the Bundy Ranch trials round two against several defendants. Judge Gloria Navarro did not grant the motion, but what she has done has severely undermined the defense.
Navarro, who had never occupied a judge's bench in her life until Harry Reid pointed her out to Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah and he appointed her, made the scope of the defense so small, that they are unable to give a proper reason for their actions at Bundy Ranch.
This led to defendant Eric Parker's testimony being stopped mid-sentence last week, the jury being told to disregard his testimony and the issuing of the motion by the prosecution.
On Monday, Navarro would not order a mistrial which was sought by Parker's attorneys.
Ken Ritter with the Associated Press wrote, "Such a dramatic step involving a defendant in the presence of a jury is unusual and might draw scrutiny from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said Robert Draskovich, a Las Vegas lawyer who said he had never heard of such a move in more than two decades practicing in federal courts. Draskovich is not involved in the Bundy case."
"Outside the presence of the jury on Monday, Navarro said she hadn’t wanted to order Parker to step down," he added. "She told prosecutors, defense attorneys and a crowded court gallery that she thought Parker was trying to invite jury nullification of charges and deliberately “continuing to make a mockery” of court rulings she handed down before the retrial. Those rulings limited the scope of defense presentations to what the men saw and did, not what they felt or why they acted."
Ritter lists things that the defense cannot argue in defense of their stand in support of the Bundys at Bundy Ranch in 2014.
Among those things are they cannot argue that they were acting in self-defense or the defense of other citizens who were protesting.
One must ask why not?
According to Navarro, "Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back."
Really? I'm pretty sure that is a thin argument seeing that there have been those in law enforcement who have violated the law and been shot down and killed for doing it, and the person shooting them was found innocent.
Tell it to U.S. Marine Jose Guerena was shot twenty-two times by a SWAT team in a bogus search of his home as he simply opened the door with a rifle in his hand.
Or what of the numerous people who are murdered by police as they enter the wrong house?
No, I think Judge Navarro is dismissing the Second Amendment and its protections of the rights of the defendants in order to cover for the illegal actions of a tyrannical government that grabs land in opposition to the clear statements in the US Constitution.
However, Ritter lists a few other things the defense is not allowed to speak about.
They can’t say they were motivated to drive to southern Nevada from Idaho and Montana after hearing about scuffles involving unarmed Bundy family members and Bureau of Land Management agents using dogs and stun guns.
They can’t refer to criticism by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval of federal agents for creating what the Republican governor called an “atmosphere of intimidation” in the days before the standoff.
They can’t point to so-called “First Amendment zone” corrals set up for protesters well away from the Bundy ranch; they can’t cite claims of infringement on free-speech and Second Amendment rights; and they can’t refer to the decades in prison they might face if they’re convicted.
In essence, Navarro has barred the defense from citing the violations of the law by the government's goons, plain and simple.
She has attempted to gag them from speaking out on the criminal actions of the state's soldiers.
What's ironic in all of this is that when they were arrested, they were all told that anything they said could be used against them in a court of law. However, it doesn't seem that turn about is fair play when you are dealing with corruption in that same government.
“We need to be able to defend ourselves, to rebut, to impeach against accusations,” said Parker’s attorney Jess Marchese on Monday. “That’s why we’re here.”
It looks like the only way out of this is to defy the judge's orders and exercise rights guaranteed under the Constitution in order to demonstrate to the jury who actually committed crimes at Bundy Ranch.
Remember, they can never unhear what they are told no matter how much they are told to disregard it.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.