Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights

This same judge has banned the US Constitution in her courtroom.

Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights

Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights

By Shari Dovale and John Lamb

Todd Engel, of Boundary County, Idaho, is among those fighting for his life in a Federal Courtroom in Nevada.

Todd Engel (photo: Facebook)

Engel has been representing himself, and do very well by all accounts, in the Bunkerville Standoff Trial being held in Las Vegas. He is well spoken, articulate, and personable. His arguments are well thought out and relevant.

In describing the events on April 12, 2014, he told of how everyone thought it was over, and the cows were to be released. “It was festive. It was flags and cowboys,” said Engel in his opening statement. “It doesn’t get more down home than that.” But, they soon learned that it was not true. The FBI and The BLM were still there, threatening all the protesters.

Engel had decided to represent himself after his attorney, John George, showed less-than-professional representation. There are reports of this attorney actually falling asleep during court and walking out in the middle of proceedings.

During this week’s court proceedings, Engel cross examined an FBI agent. The prosecution objected to Engel’s questions over 50 times, yet, Todd did not allow himself to get flustered. Towards the end of his questioning, Engel asked, “Is it true that [Special Agent In Charge] Dan Love is under criminal investigation?”

The prosecution blew a gasket. All four prosecutors stood up yelling objections. They claim that Engel violated rules that prohibit the defense from discussing the criminal investigation of Love. All of this was stated in front of the jury.

Judge Gloria Navarro not only sustained their objections, but she took it a step further. Navarro told Engel that he had lost his privilege to self-representation and must now allow his standby attorney to handle all court business. Engel was no longer allowed to talk in her courtroom.

If this wasn’t bad enough, Navarro went even further on Thursday.

At the end of the day, Engel stood to make a plea to Judge Navarro. Contrite and soft spoken, he begged to be allowed to defend himself in this trial.

Attorney George was less than impressive throughout the day, spending only a few minutes on cross examination of witnesses. Engel states that George did not comply with any of his requests, and is not representing him well.

Judge Navarro berated Engel and said that he cannot tell his attorney how to defend him. “It is up to him. It is his discretion.”

Not only did Navarro deny his request, she laid out the only rights that she would allow him to have.

Navarro told Engel that she would decide if he would be given the privilege of delivering his own closing arguments, and that would be based on her interpretation of his behavior and attitude through the rest of the trial.

Then, she went on to tell him that, “You, as a defendant, have only THREE rights.”

:She said that he had the right to:

      1. Plead Guilty
      2. Testify on his own behalf
      3. Appeal his conviction

That’s it. Three rights is all he is allowed, by Navarro’s royal decree.

This same judge has banned the US Constitution in her courtroom.

Navarro refused to let him speak after this. She said that she would not listen to anything from him again, and he was not to address her again.

As soon as she finished chastising him, and stripping him of all of his God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, she adjourned the court. I am told that this was all said on the record.

These men have been incarcerated for a year or more. They have been denied bail. They have been denied a speedy trial. They have been denied the right to face their accuser (Dan Love). And so much more.

They are being denied all protections under the US Constitution by this Federal Judge.

Where is the law of the land? It is not in Las Vegas, Nevada.


The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our content to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

21 Comments on Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights

  1. Obama hired like over 300 judges and put people in government jobs that are Muslims liberals we forget that we declared war on islam in 1801 and banned them in 1952 and 9/11 now we have common core that was designed by muslims to brainwash our kids now those kids are growing up. Russia is not the enemy but was an ally in WW 2 against hitler and Muslim brotherhood also Muslim brotherhood was declared a terrorist group until Obama now they are changing laws

  2. As things go the way they are, sooner or later the people will have no choice but to rise up and take back our country and Constitution. May God have mercy on these communist souls, because I won’t.

  3. There seems to be so many things conflicting with the Bill of Rights in this case.
    1. freedom of speech
    2. Address of grievances
    3. Probable cause
    4. Not be compelled to be a witness against himself
    5. The right to a speedy and public trial
    6. To have compulsory process of obtaining witnesses in his favor
    7. To have assistance of counsel for his defense.
    8. Cruel and unusual punishment inflicted
    9. Certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
    And probably more.
    It seems that this has been the case for all of these defendants in this case. There seems to not be any justice for these guys. What exactly did they do? All there is, so far, is empty accusations. It would appear that this judge is afraid of something. Loosing this case perhaps? Otherwise, why would she not let the defense have their witnesses? She seems to be the one on the defensive.

  4. That Bill of rights is the public servants rights. the public servent is the peoples fictitious person. We have full rights that are not from any paper that a man giveth. if man gives man takes away. These are the peoples court houses being quartered by soldiers without we the owners consent.

  5. The so called Justice system in this country is a joke and a travesty. These courts are not common law courts they are admiralty courts and should only have jurisdiction on matters that take place at sea. This is why they don’t care about the Constitution because they are operating outside of it. Disgusting and appalling situation that we the people need to deal with head on in mass. In my opinion any judge that does not strictly adhere to the law of the LAND, the Constitution, should be immediately removed and tried in a common law court for violation of the Constitutional rights of all the defendants that have gone through their courtroom. We have to get serious people and stop this evil from continuing and quit behaving as though we have no power. We have virtually all the power in this nation so lets start exercising it. We can set up grand juries and start bringing cases against these corrupt admiralty law (law of commerce) judges followed by arrests, trials at common law, conviction, and finally imprisonment. These scumbags are a threat to our Constitution and our republic.

  6. This is actually pretty normal operating procedures for most courts. Don’t believe me? Go sit in a courtroom for a day or two and watch the proceedings. Not in the arraignment hearings but actual trials. “Anything for a conviction” was how a sheriff’s deputy I know described it. The attitude is that if you are charged and have the gall to waste the court’s time actually fighting for your freedom, you need to be found guilty as punishment. Actually committing the crime you are charged with seems to be only a small part of the equation.

  7. I would like to ask anyone attending these court hearings to file a complaint with the Nevada State Judicial Disciplinary Commission. I called and they do deal with Federal Judges as well as State. Google them and complaint form. It has to be hand signed and mailed. This is so unjust.

  8. She said that he had the right to:

    Plead Guilty
    Testify on his own behalf
    Appeal his conviction
    Number three is the scariest of all three. The Judges mindset is focus totally on this person is guilty so lets hang him and then give him a fair trial! It seems like she has him convicted therefore, as soon as you plead guilty you can appeal to the ninth jerkit court of schlameals….who we all know what they did to the travel ban of President Trump. Navarro should recuse herself be she is NOT impartial and obviously bias in this case.

  9. We the people have to get the constitution amended to say that all Federal Judge’s have to follow the constitution,because under the current law the Federal Judge’s are not required to obey the constitution and that has to be changed,because that gives the Federal Judge’s to much authority by then not having to follow the constitution,this gives them power that judges should never have.

  10. The biggest problem facing the defendants is not Navarro, it is the “Nutty Ninth”, the 9th circuit court of appeals. Based in San Francisco, all appeals go through them and they are notorious for being extremely liberal, extremely anti constitution originalist. I have heard that 80% of their decisions get overturned by the Supreme Court, but getting the SCOTUS to hear a case is extremely difficult. So, we are facing very bleak prospects in the immediate future although there is talk of breaking up the Nutty 9th, that will be long after it will do any good for the defendants.

  11. And…..”The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of it’s power, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure it’s beneficent institution.” This, the preamble to our Bill of Rights, should be at the top of any listing of the first ten amendments. When the founding charter of this new, Federal form of Govt. was sent out to the states for their approval and ratification,it was met with a considerable apprehension and reluctance at the state conventions. After all, the former colonies, now sovereign and independent States, had just thrown off a corrupt and predatory central Govt. – Britain. As a condition for ratifying the Constitution, it was agreed that, at the first meeting of US Congress, “Further declaratory and restrictive clauses” should be added, spelling out what the new central Govt. HAD to do, and what it absolutely SHALL NOT do. No expiration date was attached. In this time of rife federal abuse and misconstruction, it would behoove us activists to memorize our canon – the Bill of rights and it’s Preamble.

  12. Federal judges don’t have to obey the constitution because they don’t take the constitutional oath.They take a statutorial oath to “understanding agreeably to the constitution”, which was used Marbury v Madison. This is the power to interpret the constitution. The Constitution means whatever the judge says,not what the common language of the constitution says.

    • Federal judge that the same other as any other person including in it is “to support and defend the constitution against all enemies Foreign or domestic” or something allow theses words

11 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Longbow Productions: FBI Reloaded – Bunkerville Trial in Nevada | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  2. Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights | what is 5d
  3. Judge Navarro Pushes Defense To Rest Case in Bunkerville Trial | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  5. The trial of Cliven Bundy: A travesty of justice - Easton Spectator
  6. BUNDY’s and Company being Abused by Jail Officers May 11 and May 3, 2017 – The Concord Show
  7. Pie N Politics » *UPDATE* Will The Feds Turn Bundy Into A Martyr?
  8. Pie N Politics » Rip the Veil of Secrecy from the Bundy Case
  9. Pie N Politics » Trials and Protests – Update from Pahrump!
  10. Trials and Protests – Update from Pahrump! | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  11. Navarro Cuts Defendants Rights to TWO – Bunkerville Retrial | Oath Keepers Nebraska

Comments are closed.