Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Constitution category.

Pete Santilli Accepts Felony Plea Deal

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL

Redoubt News.com

Defense teams are scrambling to preserve Santilli’s motions and subpoenas

by Shari Dovale

Pete Santilli’s attorney dropped a bombshell in a Las Vegas courtroom today when he stated that his client has reached a plea agreement with the government.

Chris Rasmussen, Santilli’s attorney, also withdrew every motion their team has filed based on the plea deal.

The agreement includes Santilli agreeing to a Felony count of obstruction of justice, based on his blocking a BLM truck prior to the Bunkerville standoff.

Santilli will receive ‘time served’ and is expected to be released within the next few days. No other details have been released for this deal.

Defense teams are scrambling to preserve Santilli’s motions and subpoenas related to the upcoming trial, as it is scheduled for jury selection to begin next week.

In related events, Ryan Payne has withdrawn his request to represent himself at the upcoming trial. Payne originally filed a late night motion to represent himself due to his disagreement with his court-appointed attorneys attempt to sever his case from that of Ryan Bundy.

Attorneys for Eric Parker and Scott Drexler had joined Payne’s attorneys in that motion.

Ryan Bundy and his brother Ammon were not at the hearing today. They did not participate in the ‘strip search’ before leaving the Pahrump facilities. Additionally, they did not take part in the hearing via telephone. We were told that they had the phones made available to them, yet they chose not to participate in this manner.

A Faretta hearing had been scheduled today for Ryan Bundy, in which it would be determined if he was competent to represent himself in this case. That hearing was rescheduled for Friday, Oct. 6th.

Judge Gloria Navarro made it clear today that if these two defendants were not in attendance, either in person or by telephone, she would take that as a waiving of their rights. Navarro would expect to rule that Ryan would not be allowed to represent himself as he will be showing that he cannot follow the rules of the court.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

Pete Santilli Accepts Felony Plea Deal

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Fighting for the 1st Amendment in the Bunkerville Trial

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

This motion should be shared with every Legislator and elected official in the US.

Fighting for the 1st Amendment in the Bunkerville Trial

by Shari Dovale

Freedom of the Press has been a driving issue in the Bunkerville Standoff trials happening in Las Vegas.

Journalist Arrested For Defense of First AmendmentFrom the ‘First Amendment Zone’ to the incarceration of a media reporter, the government has made every attempt to keep the truth from the public.

Pete Santilli has been an independent internet journalist for a number of years, reporting on government over reach and wasteful spending.

Santilli was the only full-time news media that attended the Bunkerville Standoff. There were other news reporters, but not before most of them watched Pete’s reports on his YouTube channel.

The government has repeatedly shown contempt for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They continue on this lawless path by incarcerating a journalist for over 18 months on charges related to the First Amendment.

Santilli has been incarcerated since January 26, 2016, without bail, and without a speedy trial.

The prosecution filed a motion to keep the jury from hearing the majority of the facts in this case. They have asked Judge Gloria Navarro to keep the defendants from any chance of a defense argument, not allow them to discuss any events leading up to the protest in April 2014, or allow anyone to show the heavily-armed SWAT teams in a ‘negative’ light, and more.

This is not the first time the prosecution made this request. Indeed, this is the third trial for some of the defendants. We have seen, in the prior trials, that Judge Navarro was quite willing to grant every request of the prosecution, and deny all motions from the defense.

However, each defendant is entitled to file, on the record, their response to the government’s request. Sometimes the responses are solely to put points for appeal on the record, for possible use in event of conviction.

The argument shown to you below is a very well presented argument for the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press. It is important, not just to defendant Pete Santilli, but to every citizen in this country. This motion should be shared with every Legislator and elected official in the US. And it certainly needs to be brought to the attention of AG Sessions and President Trump.

See it at:

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/09/1st-amendment-bunkerville-trial/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bundy Trials: Bunkerville Standoff: Make This Case Go Away!

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com

September 28, 2017

By Shari Dovale

The pressure from the elected officials and the public have made a dramatic difference in the Bunkerville Standoff case. Plea deals are being offered for multiple defendants this week.

Rumors abound that the prosecution is acting as if they have been told to “make this case go away”. There have been offers of plea agreements given to several defendants, including Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli, Eric Parker and Scott Drexler. There have been NO reports of any acceptance of offers, but negotiations continue.

Speculation is also running on possible plea agreements for other defendants scheduled for trial later, including Mel and Dave Bundy.

Now is the time to double-down on the letters and phone calls! Keep up the pressure! Let AG Sessions know what a miscarriage of justice this case has become. It is working!

Cliven Bundy

Cliven Bundy, patriarch of the Bundy Family, had recently fired his attorney, Bret Whipple. Whipple did not complain as he had not received any payment for sometime, therefore had not done any recent work towards preparing for the upcoming trial. He filed a motion for an expedited hearing to be released from the case.

A hearing on Whipple’s motion was held on Wednesday. Cliven argued quite well that he was prepared to defend himself. He admitted that he may not be completely up on every point, but he felt ready to proceed and was not asking for any delay in the trial.

Magistrate Leen heard the motion and proceeded to argue with Bundy for nearly 45 minutes, pointing out all the obvious problems with defending himself. Bundy stood firm in his decision, however, Leen decided to deny Bundy his right to self-representation.

Leen has ordered Whipple to continue as Bundy’s attorney. Whipple asked for a sealed hearing to discuss the financial aspect of this order. We are told that Whipple argued that a 3-month trial with no payment could bankrupt him. Leen decided then to make Whipple a court-appointed attorney to Bundy so he will be paid from the same funds as the other attorneys.

Basically, the Magistrate has enslaved Whipple to this trial, not giving him any options for release, and she has also enslaved Bundy to Whipple, though they both admit to a breakdown in their attorney-client relationship.

Other highlights from the hearing include Bundy objecting repeatedly to the prosecutors even being present for this hearing, as he felt that they should have no say in his choice of counsel. Leen made note of his (multiple) objections on this point, but did not address it further.

Prosecutors originally attempted to indict Bundy, and his sons Ammon and Ryan, under the RICO Act, calling them an organized crime family. This strategy did not work out quite so well for them. AUSA Myhre has turned this case into a personal vendetta. You would think that Cliven ran off with his Christmas stocking.

Hearings in preparation for the upcoming trial will continue next week. Jury selection is scheduled for October 10th.

patriots defending the ConstitutionBunkerville, Nevada 2014

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

Bunkerville Standoff: Make This Case Go Away!

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

No Comments

Bundy 2014: The Bunkerville Prosecution Panic Attack

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com

September 25, 2017

by Shari Dovale

Late night filings by the Bunkerville Prosecution team has shown there will be a repeat performance of an Unconstitutional trial taking place beginning October 10th in Las Vegas.

As in the previous two trials, of which the jury acquitted the defendants of the majority of charges, the prosecution has filed a last minute 26-page motion to exclude any type of defense these men might attempt.

The prosecution has motioned to force the defense, from the beginning of jury selection, into opening/closing arguments, and including all direct and cross examination of witnesses, to NOT bring up anything they deem to not have any foundation in the law, including Self defense.

The Bunkerville Prosecution Panic Attack

Judge Gloria Navarro has previously stated in court that there is no time when the average citizen is allowed to defend themselves against any Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). She has even stated that the legal carrying of a holstered sidearm in an open-carry state, such as Nevada, is considered assault on any LEO that happens to see it.

This is obviously a political ploy for this activist judge. No one has achieved the desired gun control, so Navarro has declared it in open court.

Additionally, they are demanding that no one mention the US Constitution, as they believe no citizen is qualified to understand it. This includes the jury members.

The Bunkerville Prosecution Panic Attack

If this were true, then how is it legal for the NFL to protest during their games, as they cannot possible understand the First Amendment? How is it legal for AntiFa or Black Lives Matter to protest a Donald Trump event, as they are not legally authorized to interpret the Constitution? Why do we have a legal holiday celebrating the work of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. if the citizens cannot possibly understand the legal doctrine?

Because this court is using the US Constitution as a weapon, and they are setting legal precedent to use it against the citizens in the future. Is the ultimate goal to destroy and rid this country of the documents that gave us Freedom? If allowed to continue, this court will succeed where no one has before.

If the prosecution thought that the BLM was correct in everything they did on April 12, 2014, then why are they so afraid to tell the jury the facts? If they can claim the BLM acted properly, why not explain that to the jury? Why do they believe the jury is not intelligent enough to sort through the hyperbole and come to their conclusions?

They know that the average citizen, of which the jury is comprised, is not going to believe that the BLM was correct in preparing for a war with these ranchers. They are not going to see several hundred fully militarized armed agents as anything but overkill.

They will not see the ‘First Amendment Zone’ as legal under the Constitution. They will not see the manhandling of citizens, such as Margaret Houston, as being appropriate. They will not see the placement of ‘snipers’, and their willingness to shoot civilians holding a protest, as anything but an over reach of their authority.

This entire misleading motion seems to be just another panic-attack by AUSA Myhre and Judge Navarro. They are so concerned about jury nullification, which they know is perfectly legal, that they continue to work themselves into a frenzy.

Maybe they should just take a Xanax and call it a day.

Protesters On Trial

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/09/bunkerville-prosecution-panic-attack/

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bundy: Idaho’s Raul Labrador Weighs in on Bunkerville Standoff

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, State gov

Redoubt News.com

September 15, 2017

by Shari Dovale

Earlier this month, nearly a third of the current Idaho Legislature had signed on to a letter in support of the Idaho residents currently being persecuted in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Federal government is prosecuting these men for their part in a protest held Bunkerville, NV in 2014.

Spearheaded by Rep. Dorothy Moon, the letter was signed by 33 current state legislators and 5 former legislators. Since then, the number of sponsors to the letter has increased to a reported 53.

The letter was addressed to US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, with copies going to President Donald Trump, multiple US elected/appointed officials as well as all the principals in the court.

Though the letter reached the Court prior to the pre-trial hearing, it had already been decided to put Eric Parker and Scott Drexler in with the Tier One defendants. That trial is scheduled to begin on October 10th.

Just this week, Congressman Raul Labrador added his sponsorship with an additional letter to AG Sessions. He includes:

The failure to secure guilty verdicts in two different trials with two different juries should serve as evidence of the weakness of the government’s case and should be taken into account as a third trial is contemplated. There is a strong possibility that a miscarriage of justice is being committed.

This is the latest request of the current administration to look into this personal vendetta of the Federal Court system. Multiple online petitions have been signed with the most prominent being from political strategist Roger Stone, who says:

No more well-defined example of the injustices wrought by the hands of an out-of-control Federal Government can be found than the case of the Bundy Family from the State of Nevada, whose multiple family members rot in a Federal Prison on this very day.

Representative Labrador did ask for a timely response from the Attorney General, so we will wait patiently, albeit a bit anxiously.

Raul Labrador Weighs in on Bunkerville Standoff

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bundy: Are feds lying about Bunkerville LEO’s being ‘outgunned?’

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com

Federal prosecutors are pulling out all stops in order to get the convictions they seek.

…there were no incidents of actual aggression on the parts of any of the protesters. There were over a hundred protesters who went to Bunkerville to defend Bundy’s cattle, but many on the scene were women, children, and curious onlookers. It’s true the feds were ‘outnumbered,’ but the implication that they were met with an armed force of aggressive protesters verges on the absurd.”

by Marjorie Haun

(Free Range Report) – As federal prosecutors gear up to try the ‘tier-1’ defendants in the Bundy Ranch trial, beginning in October, it might be helpful to revisit the points on which the feds, thus far, have failed to convict all but 2 of the defendants. One possible factor is the abundance on the Internet of personal footage, professional news video, and thousands of still photos of federal law enforcement officers (LEOs) from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and FBI, who swarmed Cliven Bundy’s ranch in a military-style raid in April of 2014. The prosecution’s narrative that ‘federal personnel were in fear for their lives’ rings hollow when the visual evidence is presented. But that visual evidence, to a large degree, has not been allowed into Judge Gloria Navarro’s Las Vegas courtroom. Nevertheless, most of it remains in the public domain.

Check out the photos on this link to the article:

Are feds lying about Bunkerville LEO’s being ‘outgunned?’

 

During the first phase of the trial last March, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, testified for the prosecution. The initial trial ended in a mistrial, and the retrial of the same defendants on the same counts, concluded in August of 2017 and ended with a number of acquittals, as well as a deadlocked jury on counts against 2 defendants. On March 9, Las Vegas Now reported about Sheriff Lombardo’s testimony:

The Bureau of Land Management put together a complex operation to round up the cattle, but on April 12th, Bundy supporters showed up and some of them were armed.

BLM agents and local law enforcement were outnumbered. Sheriff Lombardo helped negotiate the release of cattle so that the standoff would end peacefully.

Cameras aren’t allowed inside federal court, but this is what Lombardo told the I-Team in 2014. It was very similar to what he told reporter George Knapp.

“We were outgunned, outmanned, there would not have been a good result from it,” Lombardo said. “The bottom line is, bloodshed over cattle, unacceptable. Nobody wanted to go in that direction.”

Lombardo said, in court, he didn’t know what kind of training the armed protestors may have had. He was concerned there might be an accidental discharge or that someone would fire their gun because emotions were running so high.

There were a number of protesters present who possessed sidearms, and held them in an ‘open-carry’ fashion, which is constitutionally permissible, and, as ranchers, part of their working gear. One protester, Eric Parker, was photographed on an overpass using a rifle to scope law enforcement officers who had guns trained on protesters, onlookers and even members of the media who were watching events unfold from the overpass and nearby embankments.

Eric Parker, acquitted in the second trial of most counts, is awaiting a third-trial on charges of assault and threats against Bureau of Land Management agents. Although media have used photos of Parker peering through the scope of his rifle from between cement barriers atop the I-15 overpass, to symbolize the ‘aggression’ of the protesters, one can clearly see that curious tourists, many with cameras, are standing just feet away from Parker, apparently with no fear for their safety.

Leaked footage, apparently taken by an unidentified BLM officer, largely neutralizes the prosecution’s case that government LEO’s were, in the words of Sheriff Lombardo, ‘outgunned and outmanned.’ And although Sheriff Lombardo stated that there was ‘fear’ among the LEOs and ’emotions’ were running high, there were no incidents of actual aggression on the parts of any of the protesters.

There were over a hundred protesters who went to Bunkerville to defend Bundy’s cattle, but many on the scene were women, children, and curious onlookers. It’s true the feds were ‘outnumbered,’ but the implication that they were met with an armed force of aggressive protesters verges on the absurd. All the armed protesters stayed within the boundaries of their rights to ‘keep and bear arms’ under the 2nd Amendment, and exhibited civil behavior. The charge that Eric Parker ever posed an actual threat to federal agents has not yet been proven. In fact, as seen in the video below, it was leaders of the protest who approached the lead LEO of the operation, BLM Special Agent Dan Love, and told him that those under his command who had high power rifles aimed at protesters, were ‘escalating’ the tensions and needed to back off.

The final phase of the Bundy Ranch trial is set to begin next month. This will be the feds’ third attempt at convicting several of the defendants, including Eric Parker and Scott Drexler, both from Idaho. According to newly-released court documents, federal prosecutors are pulling out all stops in order to get the convictions they seek, including using social media posts and interactions to prove ‘conspiracy.’ But if convicted, the elderly Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and other defendants may face decades in federal prison.

It is likely Judge Navarro will continue to put impossible restrictions on the defense, and disallow any evidence casting a bad light on the federal government, but we encourage you to share this article, and help ensure that as many Americans as possible can view the leaked footage above, so they may be able to make a more balanced determination about who were the aggressors in Bunkerville, Nevada in April of 2014.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bundy: Charges Dismissed Against Refuge Occupier Pete Santilli

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Liberty

by OPB Staff OPB |

Sept. 6, 2016 4:30 p.m. | Updated: Sept. 14, 2016 10:47 a.m

UPDATE (5:38 p.m.) U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown has approved federal prosecutors’ request to dismiss charges against Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupier Peter Santilli.

Federal prosecutors filed a motion seeking to dismiss the charges against Santilli Tuesday afternoon.

“The government has decided that the interests of justice do not support further pursuit of these charges against Santilli,” prosecutors wrote in the motion.

The trial of Santilli and seven other refuge occupiers was set to begin Wednesday with jury selection in downtown Portland. The case will move forward without Santilli.

Santilli is an internet radio host who broadcast live from the wildlife refuge during the occupation.

Santilli’s attorney, Thomas Coan, argued that his client’s presence as a journalist at the wildlife refuge was protected by the First Amendment. He said he’d been pushing for the government to dismiss the charges against Santilli.

“This is something that we’ve been pushing for, for a long time,” said Tom Coan, Pete Santilli’s defense attorney. “I have always believed that Pete never had any criminal intent in what he did out there … He came out here with the intent to report and to document and to lawfully protest.”

Deb Jordan, Santilli’s partner and fellow journalist, said, “Pete didn’t have to make a deal. He didn’t have to turn against the people he stood for. He didn’t have to do any of those things. He stood on principle. And on the principle of the type of journalism that he does. And he stayed steadfast that he was not guilty.”

Santilli still faces several charges in Nevada for a 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land Management, where he’s accused of conspiring to assault federal officers and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/malheur-pete-santilli-prosecutors-case-dismiss-request/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bundy Trials: Did Navarro Cause the Jury to Nullify?

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com

Judge Navarro made every attempt to shut down the jury as she had the defense.

by Shari Dovale

The recent case of the Bunkerville Retrial ended with 34 of 40 charges to be found ‘Not Guilty’ and the remaining charges to be 11-1 in favor of acquittal by the jury.

This trial had an unusual element involved, specifically allowing the jury to ask questions of the witnesses. This is not unheard of in lower level courts, but almost never used at the Federal level. It was not allowed in the first trial of these defendants.

Judge Navarro rarely censored any jury question for the prosecution witnesses. However it became very apparent that she would not allow the jury to ask their pressing questions when it came to the defense.

Defendant Eric Parker attempted to testify, yet was removed from the witness stand by Judge Navarro after a few minutes. The jury saw this, and was left in confusion when it was not explained.

We learned from the transcripts what was said during the sidebars:

Parker was removed from the stand for mentioning the men on the hill:

The jury was left a bit dazed, as was evidenced by the looks on their faces. Parker was also stunned by Navarro’s decision, as he seemed to be making every attempt to comply with the court’s orders. The jury was not allowed to ask him any questions.

Defendant Scott Drexler was allowed to testify, in a very limited scope. When his testimony was finished, the jury submitted several questions.

The following is a list of the questions, with pertinent sidebar discussion, and Judge Navarro’s decision for each. It is apparent the jury wanted to get the information they knew was being kept from them. It is, also, obvious that at least one juror is concerned for the defendant’s Constitutional rights:

Q: No. 131, “When and how did you learn that the Long Bow agency were FBI agents?”

THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. CREEGAN: I think it’s not relevant.
THE COURT: I guess it’s relevant depending on what the answer is. Did he know at the time or afterwards? You all know this answer better than I did. It seems like he didn’t know until after the arrest; right?

MR. MARCHESE: After.
THE COURT: Okay. So, I agree. It wouldn’t be relevant.

Q: No. 132, “In your testimony you said a person with a gun has more respect. What makes a gun give you respect?”

THE COURT: Is that argumentative?

MS. CREEGAN: It seems argumentative.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. CREEGAN: We object on the basis that it’s argumentative.
MR. LEVENTHAL: No objection. Well, it’s not argumentative, it’s his thoughts. It’s going directly to him. It his thoughts. What he thinks. It’s not argumentative. It’s not asking for an argument. He made the statement and it’s directly on point from that statement, so . . . it just — to me, it’s more clarification for what it is that he’s saying. There’s nothing argumentative about the question or the answer.
THE COURT: I think it is argumentative. I’m not going to ask 132

Q: 133 has several parts. The first one is, “What generated your interest in the Bundy topic in the first place?”

MS. CREEGAN: Government objects that it’s going to call for — he’s going to take that license to go into something he shouldn’t have, something like five times in his
testimony he went into something he shouldn’t have and I think it’s clear he’ll take into opportunity to do that.
THE COURT: The general — the information requested in this question I don’t think is necessarily going to be more than what the defense has already elicited and does appear that it would only encourage him to get into the improper areas. So I won’t ask that question.

Q: The second question in Jury Note 133 is, “Why were you interested in protesting at this spot?”

MS. CREEGAN: That’s almost the same question, just rephrased.
MR. LEVENTHAL: It was his testimony that he went down to go protest.

THE COURT: Yeah. I agree. So it doesn’t – it’s irrelevant what the . . .

Q: Number 3 on Jury Note 133 is, “Did you feel as though the Bundy protest was an attempt to protect constitutional rights?”

MS. CREEGAN: It seems like this will call for the first and second response which has already been prohibited by Court order.
THE COURT: Yeah.

THE COURT: I agree. It doesn’t look like —

Q: last question for Jury Note 133 is, “Did you fear for the safety of other protestors on the day in question? If so, why?”

THE COURT: It gets into the area that the Court order prohibits.

Q: Jury Note 134, “When did Mr. Drexler learn he had been interviewed by undercover FBI for the documentary?”

THE COURT: So this is the same as before.
THE COURT: So it sounds like they’re trying to elicit whether he knew about it when he gave the information? I’m not sure how that . . .
MS. CREEGAN: I think if the Court asks it that way, did you know at the time you were doing it that that would be sufficient to capture what they’re asking.
THE COURT: Yeah. All right. So I’ll change it to, “Did you know at the time you gave statements?” “Did you know at the time you were interviewed for the documentary that they were FBI undercover agents?”

MORE

Did Navarro Cause the Jury to Nullify?

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bundy: Two walk free in new Bundy trial

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

PNP comment: Theo brings us up-to-date with this article. — Editor Liz Bowen

 

https://wlj.net/article-14538-two-walk-free-in-new-bundy-trial.html

Two walk free in new Bundy trial

CATTLE AND BEEF INDUSTRY NEWS

SEP 1, 2017

By THEODORA JOHNSON, WLJ CORRESPONDENT

— Lovelien, Steward found not guilty on 10 charges

Cliven Bundy, the major player in the April 2014 Bunkerville standoff, speaking at a forum hosted by the American Academy for Constitutional Education (AAFCE) at the Burke Basic School in Mesa, AZ, July 2014. Used under CC BY-SA 2.0

Photo by Gage Skidmore.

Two men involved in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff between citizens and the BLM walked free on Aug. 22. In this, the second trial related to the standoff, a federal jury found Richard Lovelien of Oklahoma and Steven Stewart of Idaho not guilty of 10 felony charges brought by the federal government.

Lovelien and Stewart had been part of what the government called a “massive, unprecedented assault on law enforcement officers” near Bunkerville, NV, which saw armed supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy square off against BLM agents who had gathered his cattle for impoundment.

Two other men—Eric Parker and Scott Drexler, both of Idaho— were also part of the standoff and tried in the most recent trial. All four men were cleared of the two most serious counts: 1) conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S.; and 2) conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer.

All four were also found not guilty of: 1) obstruction of the due administration of justice; 2) interfering with interstate commerce or travel through extortion; and 3) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

While Lovelien and Stewart were cleared on all counts, the jury was hung on charges against Drexler and Parker relating to threatening a federal officer and carrying a firearm while threatening or assaulting a federal officer.

Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre, the Nevada prosecutor, has vowed to put Parker and Drexler on trial a third time for the undecided charges.

“Raising a firearm against a federal law enforcement officer, or any law enforcement officer, is a crime,” said Myhre the day after the verdict.

Though no shots were fired throughout the standoff, Parker could still face decades or even life in prison if he is found guilty of assaulting and threatening a federal officer. Drexler likely faces five to 10 years in prison if he is charged with assault of a federal officer while brandishing a firearm.

U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro, who oversaw the case, released the two but ordered them to return to her courtroom Sept. 25 for the next trial. Trial omissions

While both sides at the recent trial were prepared with arguments as to how the other side had escalated the tension at the standoff, Navarro issued an order on July 9 that limited the arguments the defense could present to the jury. For example, the defense was not allowed to talk about certain BLM actions that were perceived as brutal or excessive use of force, nor about the defendants’ constitutional beliefs.

For example, her order banned any discussion of “officer encounters with civilians during the arrest of Dave Bundy…; …officer encounters with civilians during the convoy block…; officer encounters with Ammon Bundy or Margaret Houston (who were tasered); [or] third-party/lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations…” Furthermore, Navarro prevented the jury from hearing the defendants’ constitutional arguments, such as “references to Cliven Bundy’s grazing, water, or legacy rights on the public lands” or “references to infringements on First and Second Amendment rights.”

“Defendants’ state of mind regarding their beliefs or why they were present in Bunkerville, NV, on April 12, 2014, is not relevant to the charged offenses,” said Navarro in her order.

She also prohibited “references to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses.”

In addition, she prohibited discussion that could lead to jury nullification, which occurs when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the government proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The Court will not permit argument, evidence, or testimony regarding Defendants’ beliefs about the constitution [sic] as such beliefs are irrelevant and a possible jury nullification attempt,” she wrote in the order.

The standoff

This most recent trial was the second related to the April 2014 Bunkerville standoff, which saw hundreds of people travel from other states to provide armed support to Bundy, who was resisting a courtordered gather of his cattle by BLM.

Bundy had been running his cattle on BLM land without a permit since 1993. He stopped paying his grazing fees following a dispute over a mandated stocking rate reduction related to the threatened status of the desert tortoise. Instead, he attempted to pay grazing fees to his county, claiming the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to own the land. BLM has cited multiple threats by Bundy to do “whatever it takes” to protect his grazing rights.

During the week leading up to the April 12, 2014 standoff, the BLM attempted to gather Bundy’s cattle.

Bundy gave speeches about what he believed to be his constitutional rights, and called for supporters—even militia—to come to Bunkerville. Adding to the tension were reports from the Bundys that BLM was abusing their cattle and destroying their property during the roundup.

The standoff culminated in a dry riverbed on April 12, where armed federal agents guarded corrals of Bundy’s gathered cattle. The agency had created a “First Amendment zone” where citizens were allowed to stand. BLM agents announced to the protestors over a megaphone that if they proceeded toward the corrals, BLM would open fire.

During the most recent trial, the federal government explained in court its reasoning for being heavily armed, and for bringing the assault charges against the defendants.

“Evidence of concert of action, e.g., over 40 individuals with their firearms in a readily deployable condition, like Parker, converging on the BLM’s location, is highly probative of conspiracy, assault, and extortion,” the government motion stated.

Government witnesses presented evidence why “a reasonable officer would be in fear or apprehension of imminent death or bodily injury.” One law enforcement agent allegedly testified that he’d had to dig a foxhole and sleep in the ground the night before the standoff, because federal intelligence suggested the hotel where he was staying may be targeted by protesters.

Convoluted cases

All told, 19 armed citizens were arrested in connection with the standoff, some nearly two years after the events. Most of them have been in prison for the past 19 months without bail, while two of them pleaded guilty in August of 2016. Though neither was actually present at the standoff, Blaine Cooper and Gerald DeLemus pleaded guilty of several counts, including conspiring, assault on a federal officer, and displaying force and aggression with a firearm.

The first trial related to the standoff was held in April and involved six men: Lovelien; Stewart; Parker; Drexler; Gregory Burleson of Arizona; and Todd Engel of Idaho. The jury came to an agreement on only two of them, finding Burleson guilty of threatening and assaulting a federal officer, and Engel guilty of obstruction and traveling across state lines in aid of extortion.

Since the jury had been unable to come to agreement on the other four, a second trial—the one that ended on Aug. 22—was scheduled.

In light of the third trial planned for later this month, the trials for the remaining 11 defendants arrested in connection to the Bunkerville standoff remaining in prison will be postponed once again. Those 11, which a federal judge considered to be likely more culpable than the first set of defendants, will be split into two groups for trial.

The first group will be comprised of Cliven Bundy; his sons Ammon and Ryan; Pete Santilli; and Ryan Payne. The last group to face trial will be Bundy sons Dave and Mel; Joseph O’Shaughnessy; Brian Cavalier; Jason Woods; and Micah McGuire. — Theodora Johnson, WLJ correspondent

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Ryan Bundy Holds the Key – Burns Chronicles

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, FIRES, FOX news

August 30, 2017

Redoubt News.com

Ryan Bundy Holds the Key

Burns Chronicles No 59

by Gary Hunt
August 30, 2017

On January 26, 2016, several people, in two private vehicles were on their way to a scheduled meeting John Day, Oregon. While in a forested area, with extremely poor, if not non-existent, cell phone coverage, they were set upon by modern day highwaymen (highwaymen were people who stopped travelers and robbed them). The driver and passengers of the second vehicle submitted to the demands of the heavily armed interlopers, at gunpoint, to leave the vehicle and sit on the side of the snow-covered roadway.

The driver second vehicle, a white pick-up truck, following the exit of one of the passengers, sped away, seeking the assistance of a peace officer, Sheriff Glenn Palmer, of Grant County, Oregon. However, within a couple of miles they found that the highwaymen had set up a barricade across the road, barring passage. The highwaymen, hidden behind their vehicles, began firing shots at the white truck. This forced the truck off the road, where some rather adept driving may have saved one of the highwaymen’s life, by swerving, at the last moment.

The truck then came to a stop, and the driver, LaVoy Finicum, exited. In the back seat were three people; Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp, and Ryan Bundy. Bundy sat on the left and Cox on the right.

Having already been shot at, there was concern for the safety of the party. Finicum, in an effort to draw fire away from those still in the truck, began moving towards the rear and away from the truck.

There were lots of loud noises. Some from 40 mm projectiles of rubber bullets and tear gas (OSP recovered 13 40 mm casings), others from flash-bang type grenades. Included, however, were two shots that came from the left-rear of the truck. One hit the top of the truck and one broke the driver side rear window. The round that broke the window may well have hit the side of the truck, pressuring the window to break, and deflecting into the shoulder of Ryan Bundy. This is the more logical explanation, as the velocity of the bullet, absent any other external resistance, should have penetrated much further than the fleshy part of Bundy’s shoulder.

Now, this gets interesting since the Oregon State Police (OSP) had to account for shots fired, though they could not account for two shots. Shell casings were missing, and the rather perplexing task resulted in speculation regarding the bullet impact on the driver’s side of the truck. Their conclusion was that it must have come from the shooter that fired three shots as the white truck approached the highwaymen, as shown in this OSP exhibit:

   
 

The government tried to attribute the shot at the rear door to the three shots fired as the vehicle approached the barricade. However, this does not quite work, as if you look at the yellow line in the third image. You see that if it did hit the truck, it would be a glancing strike. It would have been deflected upon impact, and the initial point of impact would be the most damaged. Any additional damage would have been less, as the bullet was deflected away from the truck body. As you can see, the greater impact was on the right side of the gap between the door and frame.

We must consider the possibility that the shot came from the left rear of the truck, which was the location of the FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) members, including FBI HRT SA W. Joseph Astarita. Its initial impact would be the greatest, then, if it dented the side of the truck sufficiently, it would possibly enter the door, itself, behind the sheet metal surface. Upon impacting the door bracket that holds the window in place, if it exerted pressure on that frame, it could cause sufficient pressure for the window, itself, to buckle, spewing out pieces of glass when it burst, as seen in the video (linked below), rather than a break because of a direct impact by a bullet.

That same bullet could then deflect off the door/window frame and enter Ryan Bundy’s shoulder moving upward into the fleshy part, from the rear of the shoulder, as Ryan had turned to the right, and had bent over in an effort to protect the women.

Now, the question is, is that a bullet in Ryan’s shoulder? Well, the medical records from Harney District Hospital, in Burns, where Ryan was taken after the highwaymen kidnapped him and the others, except LaVoy, who lay dead where he fell after being shot in the back three times. The hospital reports indicate that there was “oozing” bleeding from Ryan’s right shoulder. Some of the language used in various reports from the hospital includes a written notation, “… consistent with bullet fragment versus other metallic foreign bodies.” Then, in two typed reports, we find, ” INDICATIONS: Gunshot wound to right shoulder”, and ” INDICATIONS: penetrating gunshot wound”. So, based on the X ray and the medical reports made within hours of the shooting, there can be little doubt that the highwaymen shot Ryan Bundy.

Now, considering where the shot probably hit, LaVoy had just exited the truck, and Ryan Bundy had just leaned over to protect the women. It is obvious that the shooter did not hit his target; perhaps he flinched, or is just a bad shot. However, every indication is that Astarita was trying to murder either LaVoy Finicum or Ryan Bundy, or both.

Here is what appears to be the scenario that resulted in a bullet in Ryan Bundy’s shoulder:

Now, some will suggest that it was a bullet that shattered the window, as seen in the video of this moment in time.  There are three versions:

Real Time (0:56)

Half Speed Slow Motion (1:51)

Quarter Speed Slow Motion (3:42)

Now, most people believe that the window that shattered was shattered when hit by a bullet.  To put their minds to rest, when a bullet strikes a safety-glass window, it leaves a hole about the size of the projectile.  Then there is a much-disrupted area of extremely shattered glass, though still bound by the plastic, usually just a few inches in diameter.  Finally, there is some cracking outside of that radius.

Why is this so important?  Well, Maxine Bernstein, Oregon Live, made the point in her recent article, “LaVoy Finicum Shooting: Prosecutors seeking missing shell casings, metal fragment from Ryan Bundy’s shoulder“, dated August 3, 2017.  Maxine has covered the entire story, from the courtroom standpoint, from the beginning.  In this article, she seems to have a little insight into what may be the defense’s strongest argument, a lack of evidence, when she wrote:

The case against an FBI agent charged with lying about firing two shots at Oregon standoff spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum most likely will turn on expert testimony about the validity of the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office investigation, a defense lawyer said Thursday.

No one reported that they saw or heard agent W. Joseph Astarita fire and no direct evidence exists linking any bullet or shell casing to Astarita’s rifle, one of his lawyers said.

Prosecutors countered that the investigation continues and revealed for the first time that not only are shell casings from Astarita’s alleged shots missing, but so are shell casings from some of the Oregon State Police shots fired at the Jan. 26, 2016, roadblock.

Eight shots were fired. Six shell casings in roadway are all gone,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Pam Holsinger, chief of the Criminal Division in the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s Office. She didn’t elaborate. State troopers fired six of the eight shots, with the other two eventually linked to Astarita, investigators and prosecutors said.

Astarita is charged with three counts of making a false statement (18 US Code §1001) and two counts of obstruction of justice (18 US Code §1512(b)(3)).  What he is not charged with is, though it has become apparent that he did in fact, attempt to murder LaVoy Finicum and/or Ryan Bundy.  As indicated by Maxine’s article, the prosecution is suggesting that there is no evidence — not of murder, rather, that Astarita lied.

Astarita was first scheduled to stand trial beginning August 29. The trial was been designated :complex” (Yes, that is what they have done in both the Burns and Bunkerville trials) and rescheduled to February 27, 2018.

The roof shot was a shot taken at an occupied vehicle, a criminal offense under state law.  The door shot, described above, was taken while LaVoy was still just outside of his door and Ryan was huddled over Victoria Sharp.  The shot was fired just between the two of them, indicating that in Astarita’s haste, he simply missed his mark.

Back on March 5, 1770, the King’s soldiers fired on and killed five people.  They stood trial before a jury of citizens, though were found not guilty because they had a right to self-defense.  However, both the laws and the people had a right to determine what they government could do, and what it could not do.

On January 26, 2016, a government “soldier” (armed with military grade weapon and accoutrements) attempted to kill, or at least, recklessly endangered the occupants of the white truck.  He is not charged with such a crime, even though one of the occupants sustained a gunshot wound.  Instead, he is charged with being dishonest and impeding an investigation.  That would never have happened if we were still under the King.  Instead, we have the hens (the United States Attorney and the FBI) guarding the foxhouse (the FBI), so, well, we know, now, just how this may end.

LaVoy Finicum

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

Ryan Bundy Holds the Key – Burns Chronicles

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment
« Older Posts