JUDGE NAVARRO NOT ONLY BANES THE CONSTITUTION
FROM HER COURTROOM, BUT STATES DEFENDENTS
ONLY HAVE 3 RIGHTS!
FEDERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO BACK
OFF OF BUNDY CASE
Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said Wednesday she will not remove herself from the criminal case stemming from the 2014 armed standoff with law enforcement near Bunkerville.
Lawyers for Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, one of 19 defendants charged in the alleged conspiracy to assault federal officers, had sought her disqualification on several grounds, including a claim that she is part of a conspiracy with President Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to deny Bundy a fair trial.
In a six-page order detailing her decision to stay on the case, Navarro said the government “aptly explains” in court papers why the defense conspiracy theory “displays a lack of respect and/or complete ignorance of the independent role of the judiciary.”
She said the “spurious allegations raise very serious concerns” about whether Bundy is being represented effectively in the complex criminal case.
Federal prosecutors argued that the Bundy defense team offered no proof of bias by Navarro against Bundy, but rather a “mishmash of inferences drawn from speculation and innuendo.”
Navarro on Wednesday also denied another request by Bundy to be released from federal custody.
She said from the bench that Bundy was a serious risk of flight and a danger to the community and that there were no conditions she could set that would guarantee his presence at future court dates.
Afterward, one of Bundy’s lawyers, Larry Klayman, called Navarro’s actions an “outrageous miscarriage of justice” and said they would be appealed.
“This is one of the most egregious displays of misconduct I’ve seen in my 40 years as a lawyer,” Klayman said. “Her order openly seeks to protect Harry Reid.”
Earlier this month, Bundy’s lead lawyer, Joel Hansen, sued Navarro, Obama, Reid and one of Reid’s sons in a separate bid to remove the judge from the case. Reid’s communications director, Kristen Orthman, was added as a defendant on Tuesday.
Lawyers for Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, one of 19 defendants charged in the alleged conspiracy to assault federal officers, had sought her disqualification on several grounds, including a claim that she is part of a conspiracy with President Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to deny Bundy a fair trial.
In a six-page order detailing her decision to stay on the case, Navarro said the government “aptly explains” in court papers why the defense conspiracy theory “displays a lack of respect and/or complete ignorance of the independent role of the judiciary.”
She said the “spurious allegations raise very serious concerns” about whether Bundy is being represented effectively in the complex criminal case.
Federal prosecutors argued that the Bundy defense team offered no proof of bias by Navarro against Bundy, but rather a “mishmash of inferences drawn from speculation and innuendo.”
Navarro on Wednesday also denied another request by Bundy to be released from federal custody.
She said from the bench that Bundy was a serious risk of flight and a danger to the community and that there were no conditions she could set that would guarantee his presence at future court dates.
Afterward, one of Bundy’s lawyers, Larry Klayman, called Navarro’s actions an “outrageous miscarriage of justice” and said they would be appealed.
“This is one of the most egregious displays of misconduct I’ve seen in my 40 years as a lawyer,” Klayman said. “Her order openly seeks to protect Harry Reid.”
Earlier this month, Bundy’s lead lawyer, Joel Hansen, sued Navarro, Obama, Reid and one of Reid’s sons in a separate bid to remove the judge from the case. Reid’s communications director, Kristen Orthman, was added as a defendant on Tuesday.
THE BUNDY STANDOFF—A CENTURY OF ABUSE Part 1
By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D May 17, 2014 NewsWithViews.com
Original Intent
For days following April 8, hundreds of well-armed Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and even hundreds more partially-armed Bundy supporters stood toe-to-toe. Any spark could have caused another Waco. Finally, the BLM backed off, allegedly for safety reasons. Don’t believe it. There is a much bigger story here and the media is wrong on most counts.
Most Americans have no idea that over 50 percent of the Western U.S. is owned or controlled by the federal or state governments. This creates a feudal relationship between an all-powerful government and the local landowners who must use the adjacent federal land to make a living. As with the feudal governments in Europe during the middle-ages, the land is managed for the benefit of the government, not the landowner, using a dangerous ideology called Sustainable Development. Produced by Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, ME 04401
MOST AMERICAN’S WHO LIVE EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, or those who live in large urban/suburban areas in the West, are surprised to learn that the federal government owns or controls over 30 percent of the land area in the United States. Most of that land is in the Western States where over 50 percent of the state is federal “public land.” Rural residents that make their living from federal lands are finding that Washington is enacting regulations that seem more intent on bankrupting them than helping them. An uninformedpopula¬tion in the East is complicit by default.
The closest form of government where the federal government dominates the lives of those people using federal land is feudalism/manorialism.[1] This is a form of government whereby an all-powerful land owner, usually royalty, rents his land with restrictions and with the condition of receiving a portion of the crops or other services from the renter. Today the federal government replaces the king as the landlord. This new king serves Washington special interests, unusually environmentalist and international dictates, which are contrary to the interests of the local rancher or land user. Too often they are also contrary to actual environmental health. More
Original Intent
For days following April 8, hundreds of well-armed Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and even hundreds more partially-armed Bundy supporters stood toe-to-toe. Any spark could have caused another Waco. Finally, the BLM backed off, allegedly for safety reasons. Don’t believe it. There is a much bigger story here and the media is wrong on most counts.
Most Americans have no idea that over 50 percent of the Western U.S. is owned or controlled by the federal or state governments. This creates a feudal relationship between an all-powerful government and the local landowners who must use the adjacent federal land to make a living. As with the feudal governments in Europe during the middle-ages, the land is managed for the benefit of the government, not the landowner, using a dangerous ideology called Sustainable Development. Produced by Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, ME 04401
MOST AMERICAN’S WHO LIVE EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, or those who live in large urban/suburban areas in the West, are surprised to learn that the federal government owns or controls over 30 percent of the land area in the United States. Most of that land is in the Western States where over 50 percent of the state is federal “public land.” Rural residents that make their living from federal lands are finding that Washington is enacting regulations that seem more intent on bankrupting them than helping them. An uninformedpopula¬tion in the East is complicit by default.
The closest form of government where the federal government dominates the lives of those people using federal land is feudalism/manorialism.[1] This is a form of government whereby an all-powerful land owner, usually royalty, rents his land with restrictions and with the condition of receiving a portion of the crops or other services from the renter. Today the federal government replaces the king as the landlord. This new king serves Washington special interests, unusually environmentalist and international dictates, which are contrary to the interests of the local rancher or land user. Too often they are also contrary to actual environmental health. More
Feds stumble again with split verdict in Bundy standoff case
|
Supporters raise a flag outside of the federal courthouse Monday, April 24, 2017, in Las Vegas. A jury found two men guilty of federal charges Monday in an armed standoff that stopped federal agents from rounding up cattle near Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch in 2014. Jurors said they were deadlocked on charges against four other men, and the judge told them to keep deliberating.
|
By Ken Ritter, Associated Press Published Monday, April 24, 2017 | 9:03 a.m.Updated Monday, April 24, 2017 | 6:13 p.m
Government prosecutors stumbled again Monday in a bid to gain convictions of armed protesters in a case arising from skirmishes in a decades-old battle over control of public lands in the western United States.
A federal jury in Las Vegas found two gunmen guilty of some charges in a 2014 armed standoff that stopped federal agents from enforcing court orders and confiscating cows belonging to Cliven Bundy from public rangeland near his Nevada ranch and melon farm.
But the same jury deadlocked on charges against four other defendants, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial and schedule a new trial June 26 — the same day 70-year-old Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and two other alleged conspiracy leaders are set to be tried.
"They split our way, anywhere from 10-2 to 7-5, not guilty," Jess Marchese, attorney for defendant Eric Parker, said after prosecutors and defense lawyers met behind closed doors with the judge and several jurors to talk about the case.
Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre and three other prosecutors in the case didn't immediately respond to messages.
"Intent. They said the government did not prove intent," Todd Leventhal, attorney for Scott Drexler, said of the jurors. "They felt there was a lot of evidence that didn't go anywhere." MORE
Government prosecutors stumbled again Monday in a bid to gain convictions of armed protesters in a case arising from skirmishes in a decades-old battle over control of public lands in the western United States.
A federal jury in Las Vegas found two gunmen guilty of some charges in a 2014 armed standoff that stopped federal agents from enforcing court orders and confiscating cows belonging to Cliven Bundy from public rangeland near his Nevada ranch and melon farm.
But the same jury deadlocked on charges against four other defendants, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial and schedule a new trial June 26 — the same day 70-year-old Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and two other alleged conspiracy leaders are set to be tried.
"They split our way, anywhere from 10-2 to 7-5, not guilty," Jess Marchese, attorney for defendant Eric Parker, said after prosecutors and defense lawyers met behind closed doors with the judge and several jurors to talk about the case.
Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre and three other prosecutors in the case didn't immediately respond to messages.
"Intent. They said the government did not prove intent," Todd Leventhal, attorney for Scott Drexler, said of the jurors. "They felt there was a lot of evidence that didn't go anywhere." MORE
