Bundy ranch case: Judge issues list of things defendants can’t say

Mercury News – by Ken Ritter

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Restrictions placed by a federal judge on what defendants can say about being at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in April 2014 are leading to tense moments in the Las Vegas retrial of four men accused of wielding assault-style weapons to stop federal agents from rounding up cattle belonging to the anti-government figure.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro refused Monday to order a mistrial sought by the defense attorney for Eric Parker. Navarro had ordered Parker off the witness stand last week and told the jury to disregard his testimony.  

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.

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.

A jury in April found two co-defendants guilty of some charges, but it failed to reach verdicts for Parker, Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart and Richard Lovelien.

Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and two other defendants are due for trial later this year. Six others, including two other Bundy sons, are slated for trial next year.

Navarro ruled that defendants can’t argue this time that they were acting in self-defense or in the defense of other protesters.

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.

“Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back,” Navarro said Monday.

Parker was famously photographed during the April 2014 standoff flat on his stomach on the pavement of an Interstate 15 overpass, looking down an AK-47-style rifle toward heavily armed federal agents in a dry river bed below.

Drexler is seen in a similar photo, and images show Steven Stewart carrying an assault-style rifle, but not aiming it. Richard Lovelien also had a rifle, but his lawyer, Shawn Perez, said there is no photograph in evidence showing him pointing it at anyone.

Defense attorneys say their clients are being unfairly and unconstitutionally denied a chance to explain for jurors what they saw and heard and why they went to the Bundy ranch.

“We need to be able to defend ourselves, to rebut, to impeach against accusations,” Parker’s attorney, Jess Marchese, protested during morning-long arguments held outside the presence of the jury now in a fourth week of testimony. “That’s why we’re here.”

Drexler was expected to take the stand in his defense, but Stewart and Lovelien said they won’t do so.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/14/judge-considering-sanctions-in-bundy-standoff-case-in-nevada/

20 thoughts on “Bundy ranch case: Judge issues list of things defendants can’t say

  1. “Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back,” Navarro said Monday.

    Tyrant.

  2. So, in a nutshell, the defendants aren’t allowed to defend themselves. This “judge” is running a charade, not a court.

    *** “Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back,” Navarro said Monday. ***

    Actually, it means precisely that.

    A person who has truly conquered his fear of death, accepting its inevitability, has achieved perfect freedom and is beyond all so-called “authority.”

    Of course no one is or ever will be invincible. (Even presidents like Trump and Putin are completely at the mercy of their bodyguards and others who surround them daily.) Nevertheless, as Robert Heinlein said: “You cannot conquer a free man. The most you can do is kill him.” It would be wise not to force such a man to kill you first, e.g., by pointing a gun at him.

    1. “A person who has truly conquered his fear of death, accepting its inevitability, has achieved perfect freedom and is beyond all so-called “authority.””

      aint that the truth…………..HAVING BEEN “DEAD” ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, I CAN DEFINITELY TELL YOU THAT A YOUNG MANS’ HYPE AND FEAR ARE DEFINITELY WORSE THAN THE REALITY…………………..

  3. I don’t think it is correct to characterize Bundy and the BLM protesters as anti-government when in fact they are pro constitutional government and anti corrupt government. They were in fact side-by-side the county sheriff who ordered the BLM out of his jurisdiction.

    1. BLM is anything but pro-government. When a group calls for the killing of innocent people, they are not law abiding, pro-government citizens. Airhead!

  4. This “judge” needs to go

    This is not justice , this is injustice
    There’s no way this case can go full term
    The court has botched what the Feds and law enforcement already botched

    Set these people free , maybe the judge needs to be tried and thrown in jail over some bullshit trumped up crap so she gets to see what it’s like to have a tyrant choose your destiny

    When are the Bundys going to be set free?
    Or better yet forceably removed from this kangaroo court ?

    1. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE EACH MORNING THEY ARISE; WILL TODAY BE ANOTHER DAY OF TYRANNICAL BULLSHIT? OR WILL THIS BE THE DAY THAT FREE MEN BEGIN TO SET THINGS ARIGHT?
      ITS YOUR CHOICE PEOPLE….LIVE FREE OR DIE………..

  5. “Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back,” Navarro said Monday.

    Bullshit lady

    What I’d like to know is, why are we the people not shutting her down?
    Everyone is going to just sit back and watch this unfold to see what other atrocities she can lay from her bench to our civil rights?

    She needs to be publicly shamed and thrown from the bench

    1. THAT’S “NATURAL RIGHTS”. “CIVIL RIGHTS” ARE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE GOVERNMENT………………….

  6. Because Bundy’s group left the Bundy ranch and went miles into public lands armed to force the BLM from working to complete a constitutional 20 year due process that resulted in the court order to remove the cattle from the public lands. You can’t claim to be a victim when you are the aggressor assulting and obstructing federal LEOs following thru on a legal court order. This trial is about what it was filed for, obstruction of Justice at the point of a gun Barrell. The skirmishes that resulted because of the assult would have to be it’s own case, although you went after them , they did not go after you they were just following legal court orders to remove the cattle

    1. Legal constitutional action by the BLM? Are you this ignorant or are you a troll?
      We the people, the Bundys included, by our Bill of Rights, are guaranteed our common law protections. We can only be brought to answer in a court of the common law under a common law jurisdiction. No notion of government can operate within the common law. The jurisdiction of the government within itself, is admiralty. Their authority is on the military bases and in dealing with foreign entities. Only Americans in the military are subject to government jurisdiction.
      The BLM, Forest Service, FBI, CIA, ATF, Homeland Security are all illegal foreign agencies, not authorized by the people pretending authority over the people through administrative jurisdiction, which is the admiralty. Our people were guaranteed by the Constitution that no government agent would ever have any authority over us and that the power of the federal government and that the jurisdiction of the federal government would forever remain within the ten mile square citadel called Washington District of Columbia. It is not a state, it is a military installation.
      What was implemented in Bunkerville was military law in direct violation of the 9th Article to our people’s Bill of Rights. We are under a rogue occupation and it is the ignorance of people like you that has allowed it to occur. Under the War Powers Act, our common law courts and our common law jurisdiction to prosecute our lives has been removed through pure treachery.
      You are pathetic beyond words and you are a traitor to your people and your country. We were guaranteed self-rule under our Bill of Rights and within our common law. The federal government we formed was to be nothing more than a handful of lackeys with zero authority over any American national or our public lands. You would submit to military jurisdiction, which is a direct act of treason.
      We are the people. We are the sovereigns of this land on a par with the crowned heads of Europe. No government controls us and we will not be enslaved via the acquiescence of ignorant spineless cowards like yourself.

      1. Well said, Henry. I concur.
        I also think “Harold” may be of those agents provocateur known as the Troll poole. If not, he is woefully ignorant, and a threat to our Republic.

  7. “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.”

    This would be akin to demanding that someone who rightfully defended themselves against an armed intruder only speak to the narrow line of questioning that reflects the persecution’s case; i.e.;

    Prosecution: “Did you have a weapon?”
    Defendant: “YES”
    Prosecution: “Did you point the weapon at the deceased?”
    Defendant: “YES”
    Prosecution: “Did you pull the trigger, causing the weapon to fire?”
    Defendant: “YES”
    Prosecution: “Did the deceased die as a result of you firing the weapon?”
    Defendant: “YES”
    Prosecution: “The Prosecution rests, your Honor.”
    Judge: “The jury will now deliberate based upon ONLY the evidence presented in this court.”
    Jury returns a verdict of GUILTY.

    How it should play out-(assuming you play along with the Admiralty and actually present yourself before them as the beneficiary of their STRAWMAN trust):

    Prosecution: “did you have a weapon?”
    Defendant: “YES, I always keep a weapon to defend myself and my family against violent criminals, don’t you?”
    Prosecution: “Did you point the weapon at the deceased?”
    Defendant: “YES, when I saw the armed assailant break into my private home, point his weapon in the direction of my family and threaten to kill both them and me me unless I allowed him to steal my property, I pointed my weapon at him and demanded he leave my home.”
    Prosecution: “Did you pull the trigger, causing the weapon to fire?”
    Defendant: “YES, when I saw him aim his weapon at my child and state “I’ll kill him first, then”; I discharged my weapon, stopping the threat of deadly force against my family.”
    Prosecution: “Did the deceased die as a result of you firing the weapon?”
    Defendant: “YES, and I would do exactly the same again, if the circumstances indicated. That man was in the act of armed criminality, and anyone who had their family’s lives threatened as mine was would do the same.”
    Prosecution: “The Prosecution rests, your Honor.”

    Judge: “The jury will now deliberate based upon ONLY the evidence presented in this court, and will consider any and all extenuating circumstances involved as per the defendant’s testimony.”
    Jury returns a verdict of NOT GUILTY, and the jury foreman stands to read a letter of gratitude to the defendant for ridding society of this evil miscreant.

    Grow a LOT of hemp…..
    Make a LOT of rope…..
    We’re going to need it.

  8. The cattle had already been rounded up. The BLM was told to stand down on the 11th. Dan Love decided to ignore that order.
    The people in the wash were told earlier in the day, by the sheriff, the cattle would be released.
    The government spent almost a million dollars to pay for the roundup, using copters, guns and mass burial trenches of the cattle they killed.
    Back stories are important, and always left out because reporters don’t investigate past their noses anymore.
    What a shame the government were the conspirators, the law breakers, and that doesnt get told.
    #googledanlove

  9. I know petitions dont work

    but we should put one up to remove this Judge from the case( and make sure shes dam well aware of it)

    if for nothing less .. just to F shit up for the courts and slow this shit down even more

    anarchy anyone?

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*