It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First Bundy Bunkerville Trial is in the Hands of the Jury Now...

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I haven't been able to keep up with this trial as much as I would have liked, but finally got a chance to catch up, for better AND worse...

This trial is an unconscionable and unacceptable travesty of our justice system. We'll find out if it's a travesty of justice when we hear the jury's verdict. I am hopeful that they will either be completely acquitted or there will be a hung jury -- and I say this as one who never supported the Bundys' tactics, but fully understand their greater cause against a Federal agency that's gotten way too big for their britches that our congress critters refuse to rein in. I hope and pray that the jurors know their Bill of Rights -- the defendants' Bill of Rights! -- and can see through this Star Chamber* that our founding fathers fought so hard to protect us from. Based on what I know, I don't think the Feds proved their case, so I could vote "not guilty" with a clear conscience. I might also exercise my right to "jury nullification" and still vote "not guilty" with a clear conscience if I judge the law to be illegitimate or inapplicable. I hope the jurors know about their right to jury nullification as well, because the judge and prosecutors have done everything they can to keep that thought from these jurors. And that's just one of the many lowlights of this case:

-- Judge Navarro seals all evidence from public view
-- Judge orders that copies of the U.S. Constitution -- thee law of the land -- cannot be visible in the courtroom
-- Judge rules that previous threats and actions by law enforcement/BLM leading up to confrontation cannot be introduced at trial, while allowing prosecution to present evidence of words and deeds by defendants prior to confrontation.
-- Judge forbids anyone mentioning "jury nullification" to or in front of the jury
-- Judge rules that the federal investigation and report into serious misconduct by Dan Love, the BLM supervisor of this operation, cannot be mentioned before the jury, including the fact that several prosecution witnesses are on record as telling investigators that they were intimidated and threatened by Dan Love to protect him
-- Judge denies witnesses their right to call Dan Love as a witness, and thus denies their Constitutional right to confront their accuser AND their Constitutional right to call compulsory witnesses
-- Judge denies a defendant his Constitutional right to defend himself (or even speak!) after he asks a witness about the investigation
-- Judge asserts that defendants only have three rights: 1-Plead Guilty; 2-Testify on his own behalf; and, 3-Appeal his conviction
-- Judge denies defendants their Constitutional right to question FBI agent who testified under oath that he "handled" one of the defendants (Greg Burleson) who is/was an FBI informant, and despite the defendants' right to cross-examine all prosecution witnesses regarding anything and everything brought out in testimony. (Because this "defendant" and FBI informant was charged together with the other defendants, he has been involved in and informed of all the defense's activities, plans, etc..... is he still an informant and informing the prosecution about the other defendants' confidential dealings with their attorneys? Gotta wonder...)
-- Judge and prosecutor both deny Constitutional right to bear arms and defend one's person by asserting before jury that no one has the right to defend themselves against law enforcement
-- Judge denied defendants' Constitutional right to call witnesses in their defense by refusing most listed witnesses as non-experts or political witnesses -- even eyewitnesses! -- and threatening others with arrest as "unindicted co-conspirators." Consequently, prosecution called witnesses and presented their case over 7 weeks time; defendants were told they had two days to present their defense while denying the defense witnesses.
-- Judge denied defense attorneys right to object, or even explain their objections because it was "disruptive," while allowing the prosecution to continue before jury.
-- Jury was given specific instructions on how to fill out jury forms for a guilty verdict during jury instructions -- but NOT a "not guilty" verdict.

Despite all of this, I am hopeful that the jury will not convict. In part because of the testimony they heard that the Bundys et al had been told that the BLM operation had been called off, so the Bundys et all had every reason to think it was okay to round up their cattle. But the BLM did not close down the operation, and were told to expect an imminent attack from the protestors, provoking a volatile and potentially bloody confrontation. This never should have happened.

Bundy Ranch surprise: Agents told to stop day before major confrontation with anti-government protesters

This was one of the first times law-enforcement officials have publicly acknowledged the government orders to back down, drawing attention to a little-known detail about the high-profile confrontation.

But someone wanted trouble:

U.S. Park Police Officer Brandon Novotny, who was armed with the gas-canister launcher in the stack, testified that officers were warned armed militia members were going to attempt to overrun the command post on the night of April 11.

"We had intelligence from the FBI that individuals on a domestic terrorist watch list had arrived and were camped out at the Bundy compound," he said. "We received intelligence there was going to be an attack."

I am also hopeful because the jury has asked the court about hung juries and possible results if the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision on all counts/defendants.

Jury notes snag on conspiracy counts in Nevada standoff case

Navarro didn't read Thursday's jury question aloud with prosecutors, defendants and their lawyers before convening the jury to say a conspiracy can involve any person.

"You don't need to be a defendant to be a person," she said.

I expect the jury to find the judge's responses to be a little confusing -- if not outright confounding and obstructive to their purpose!

The jury was given the case Thursday, April 13, so they have had it a little more than a week now and it's obviously not an open and shut case for them... we'll see what happens.

-----------------------------------------------------
* Star Chamber:

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers.... the justice meted out by the Star Chamber could be very arbitrary and subjective, and it enabled the court to be used later on in its history as an instrument of oppression rather than for the purpose of justice for which it was intended.

edit on 23-4-2017 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The Government is terrified of what the outcome of this case might be ... and rightfully so.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
How the F does the constitution get banned from a courtroom? That should say it all right there.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
The Government is terrified of what the outcome of this case might be ... and rightfully so.


Exactly. This is one desperate last ditch Hail Mary before the dam bursts wide open. It absolutely reeks.

I'm really hoping the jury sees through the smoke and mirrors and refuses to convict.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
How the F does the constitution get banned from a courtroom? That should say it all right there.


It really does. I'm not sure if the jury knows the Constitution has been banned, but if they do know, that should be their first clue that this trial isn't about the law, truth or justice.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
How the F does the constitution get banned from a courtroom? That should say it all right there.

I hope someone takes a careful look at 0bama's appointee ... and removes her from the bench. There's no way she's qualified well enough to run a federal court.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
well if they have had it 10 days... there is a good chance either hung or not guilty. (assuming nobody gets threatened)

There should be an investigation of the judge... if even just half that list is correct... wow... I am not a lawyer but I am pretty certain some of those decisions by the judge are pretty bloody sketchy.

that said... I fully expect that even if found guilty here they have a strong case to have it thrown out in appeal.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Bundy was a proven deadbeat that lost everytime he went to court. It's funny how the "personal responsibility" crowd is rallying around a guy that didn't pay his bills and enriched himself at the expense of the people.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Bundy was a proven deadbeat that lost everytime he went to court. It's funny how the "personal responsibility" crowd is rallying around a guy that didn't pay his bills and enriched himself at the expense of the people.


Got no argument from me on that description...

But (assuming the article is correct) that judge does not seem to be allowing a fair trial to take place, so I hope they skate, based off that articles presentation.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Bundy was a proven deadbeat that lost everytime he went to court. It's funny how the "personal responsibility" crowd is rallying around a guy that didn't pay his bills and enriched himself at the expense of the people.



This has nothing to do with Bundy and everything to do with the judge.
edit on 23-4-2017 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
well if they have had it 10 days... there is a good chance either hung or not guilty.


That's always been my understanding that the faster the verdict the more likely a conviction.


(assuming nobody gets threatened)


And that may be a big assumption considering the many charges of bullying, intimidation and excessive force against these critters.


There should be an investigation of the judge...


There should be. But I suspect the same people in charge of any investigation are the ones who want her there doing what she's doing. It seems Las Vegas is competing with Chicago for most corrupt city ever:

The House Does Not Lose In Las Vegas

There are more archived articles about the trial here.


...if even just half that list is correct... wow... I am not a lawyer but I am pretty certain some of those decisions by the judge are pretty bloody sketchy.


Definitely. She has denied Constitutionally enumerated protected inalienable rights, establish for the specific purpose of preventing exactly this travesty. And she must know it.


... that said... I fully expect that even if found guilty here they have a strong case to have it thrown out in appeal.


You'd think so, but, unfortunately, they would have to get past the 9th Circus Court of Appeals...



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

thanks by the way for the extra links, ill dig more deeply into it over the coming days... had a good week so I need to drive my blood pressure back up.




posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Bundy was a proven deadbeat that lost everytime he went to court.


And if those trials were conducted like these trials, then they were Star Chambers too. Although it should be noted that none of the Bundys are defendants in this trial. Their trial has been postponed once again, in direct violation of his right to a speedy trial, while he continues sits in jail because his right to bail has been denied as well. All of which says far more -- and worse -- about the judicial system than it does about Bundy.

Regardless, absolutely nothing excuses the bad behavior of the federal agents/agencies before, during and after the confrontation with the Bundys, including any/all bad behavior by the Bundys. The Bundys are responsible for their actions and the feds are responsible for their actions.


It's funny how the "personal responsibility" crowd...


I wouldn't call myself part of a "personal responsibility" crowd, but funny you should say that, since you don't express any concern about the personal responsibility of the federal agents trampling all over the defendants' rights, much less the personal responsibility of the federal agents who created, escalated and perpetuated this situation with lies, bullying, and intimidation tactics.


...is rallying around a guy that didn't pay his bills and enriched himself at the expense of the people.


I haven't seen anyone rallying around the Bundys. All comments -- except yours, of course! -- have been directed to the very unconstitutional -- and therefore unacceptable and unconscionable -- actions of the federal officers conducting this Star Chamber, which is the topic of the OP.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Another great thread!



Just stopping by to mark this for when I have time to read the whole thing.

Here's hoping the jury is well-informed.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Bunkerville Trial: Two Defendants Convicted, Mistrial For Other Four As Jury Deadlocks

The four defendants for whom the jury deadlocked on all counts will be re-tried beginning June 6. This may push back the trials for other defendants, further denying their right to a speedy trial.

Greg Burleson, the FBI informant, was convicted on eight counts, including assaulting a federal officer. It will be interesting to see what his sentence is -- especially in comparison to the only other person convicted on any counts, but not on the charge of assaulting a federal officer.

Both Burleson and Todd Engel were convicted of obstruction and interstate travel in aid of extortion.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Jeanette Finicum Speaks - BLM & FBI Abuses Continue

Among other things, the abuses include following her and her daughters, and denying her grazing and water rights in accordance with her community property rights.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Been wondering about the bundy's thanks for this thread, and keeping
us all updates. ( not on ANY MSM TV OR PAPER) in my feed.
I like the bullet points and how it is broken down..

good luck bundy's they were aquitted the first time, they only need one person
on that jury.. wish i could be there for them.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

If everything you said about the judge is true, then he is a traitor and should be shot.

I hope there's a patriot willing to do it.

"no right to defend yourself against law enforcement" bull#. We have a right to bear arms specifically to counter over-reach by our government. Exactly this, and if they keep up with it they will incite armed rebellion.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: starfoxxx

Thank you -- I'm glad it's appreciated!

I truly wish you or I could make that difference. It used to be that we could -- when even one "not guilty" vote was recognized and understood to be reasonable doubt, and a second trial was considered double-jeopardy. But not this judge. Hence the retrial of the four defendants not convicted. Just one more systemic abuse of our rights.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join