Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Judge Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights

The heavy-handed judge has ruled these men do not deserve the right to defend themselves.

Judge Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights

Judge Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights

By Shari Dovale

Judge Gloria Navarro made a mockery of the judicial system today.

The first Bunkerville trial is underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The prosecution has had over five weeks to present their case. Now that the defense is ready to put on their case, Judge Gloria Navarro has shut them down.

Out of the entire witness list, there is one witness, other than the defendants, that she will allow to testify. Garrett Frenner was a witness to the slaughter of the Bundy cattle. However, Judge Navarro will not allow him to testify to those events. The prosecutors and the FBI spent a couple of hours harassing this man, threatening him with prosecution if he dared to testify. She has made it clear that he can ONLY testify to which of the defendants he saw with guns.

Every witness that the defense tried to proffer today was questioned by the Judge. She stressed to each one of them that she was ready to have them removed from the courtroom in handcuffs, if she thinks they are committing perjury.

Judge Navarro then backed up the prosecution when they threatened witnesses by naming them as “UNindicted Co-conspirators”. Navarro allowed this bullying, and took part in it herself.

After the intimidation of their witness, the defense believes he has been compromised and stated they are unsure of calling him as a witness. This made Eric Parker so distraught and upset that they have no witnesses for their defense that he broke down and cried in the courtroom. This, of course, made his wife and supporters cry as well.

Judge Navarro showed no sympathy. Reports are that she actually laughed out loud at their distress. The prosecutors also laughed and joked at the defense. She continued to reiterate that they have no rights as defendants.

Navarro also stated in the courtroom that no one is guaranteed their first amendment rights or their second amendment rights. Additionally, she told everyone that there is Never a time when anyone is allowed to defend themselves against a Law Enforcement Officer, even if they caught him breaking into their home. If he even sees a gun near them, they are guilty of assaulting him.

The defense had plans to call numerous witnesses, including Carole Bundy, Shawna Cox, Michele Fiore and more. Judge Navarro refused to allow them to testify because she feels their testimony might risk her jury to nullify.

Jury Nullification is her worst fear. She continues to tell the defense that she will not allow them to put on any defense that might sway her jury to nullify. This includes any information of why these men came to Bunkerville, the abuses of the BLM agents, and more.

Judge Navarro is quoted as saying, “The risk of jury nullification… for the jurors to hear about different defense witnesses, that can’t happen!” Navarro mentioned this at least three times during the day.

When the defense team attempted to object, she shut them down again, saying “Don’t bother to object.” as she intendeds to side with the prosecution each time.

And she carried through with this threat, not allowing the defense any leeway at all.

Dan Love was the Special Agent in Charge of the operation in Bunkerville, and his testimony was the main evidence in front of the Grand Jury. However, because he is under investigation for abuses, Judge Navarro has ruled his testimony is irrelevant and will not allow him to be called to testify.

Eric Parker has now decided that he has no choice but to testify. He may very well be the only witness in the defense case. This case could end up in the jury’s hands as early as tomorrow.

The heavy-handed judge has ruled these men do not deserve the right to defend themselves.

 

Bundy Ladies:

 

John Lamb and Andrea Parker:

29 Comments on Judge Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights

  1. When people trust a system built by deception, what can be expected? If people were knowledgeable about the accurate accountability process, known as trial by jury (according to the common law), also known as trial by the country, also known as trial by jury in a court of conscience, also known as the law of the land (even in America), instead of people being ignorant about this process where volunteers volunteer to hold each other to an accurate accounting through rule of law, then, having that power of knowledge, instead of powerless ignorance, the words written, and spoken, by people in this case would be words such as mixed war, in documents such a solemn recognition of mixed war. Why sugar coat the facts? Who is served by such deceptions?

    • The original (not the counterfeit) meaning of democracy was the meaning exemplified by the following quote: “That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority.” The modern (counterfeit) definition of democracy is a spin on the might makes right claim made by all would be tyrants. The original meaning of republic is also opposite many modern attempts to counterfeit, or re-define, the original meaning: res (thing) public (people as a whole), or republic, is the whole people as one forming a government. So…democracy and republic were once shared meanings, which is exemplified by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, when they formed a political party in opposition to the falsely named Federalist Party. The party formed to oppose Nationalism hidden behind a false front of Federalism was the Democratic Republican Party, specifically formed in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Read the Kentucky and Virginal Resolutions offered by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. How can people join in their mutual defense when communication is rendered powerless by duplicitous words?

      • As to the origin of rights, or governments, the order follows the creator creation order. The creator of rights is not the constitution, certainly not the fraudulent one of 1789. The Bill of Rights was an effort to dispel the notion that the creation of man (a constitution) is somehow able to “give” people rights.

    • This court is a serious bad joke and sham on the people of this nation. The criminality that is being displayed is off the charts by this judge. She has undermined all civil liberties and disallowed any and all legal rights to a fair trial and due process ? I pray higher powers in DOJ are watching this insanity unfold ! We need a petition to DOJ and WH to stop this unlawful charade

      • I appreciate the reply, but I think there is a fundamental problem in the message I read (I could be misunderstanding the message offered by you) having to do with both the problem and the solution to the problem. The false and fraudulent claim of legality of this judge, the powers, jurisdiction, lawful, legal, moral, capacity to act as “the decider,” without recourse, without check, without balance, is a claim originally made in 1789, a claim documented as the Constitution of 1789, which then led to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which are actions (act) based upon a fraud. The law of the land was, is, and can continue to be the common law, which in includes something called notice of mixed war, and military lien right. So boiling that down for you, or anyone else, the power struggle involves people who perpetuate a fraud that began in 1789, such as any judge claiming to have greater authority than every other individual, is someone guilty of a crime against all the people who are otherwise their own authorities, having equal protection, on that scale known as justice. The check on any government abuse of power has been, is, and can continue to be the people themselves in command of our common law due process that includes the formation of grand juries, so as to move accusations from accusations (a presumed to be innocent accused) to indictment/presentment, which offers the accused the opportunity to set the record straight and the same process applies to everyone, including congressmen, presidents, bishops, lawyers, mechanics, slave traders, and central banking frauds. It just so happens that it was originally the slave traders and the central banking frauds that fraudulently placed their claims of authority, with their summary justice court system, above the people and the common law. I hope that clears things up some.

  2. Communist Manifesto of 1848. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alive and well. Democracy is in action. We are supposed to have a republican form of government.

  3. It’s always a damn crying shame when traitors are afforded any rights at all.
    How dare you claim rights when you do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Constitution that sets forth the rights that you claim?

    • Well, The Constitution is what this whole thing is about. Art 1 § 8 cl 17. The State owns the land, Not the Feds. The ranchers own the water rights, not permits, the actual rights since the the 1870s. 52 ranchers have been intimidated by the BLM completely out of business by the BLMs overreaching atrocities. Read Executive Order 13132. The BLM has violated that tremendously. The public doesn’t understand anything but what Main stream media puts out. It’s very fake news.

      • Hey John

        The territory OWNED by the united states government was not “by Cession of Particular States,” for the nations capital. Was NOT purchased with the consent of a state legislature. And was NOT purchased for a port or fort or other federal building. Guess it was an unconstitutional acquisition of the land and it all should be turned back to Mexico.

        Oh wait

        Article 4 section 3 clause 2 says the federal government may own other property and territory and MAY dispose of it.

        Upon granting Nevada state hood instead of just being a territory — some territory land was turned over to the state, the rest became “other property” owned by the federal government. And 4:3:2 does what?

        “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;”

        Expressly gives congress the right to make needful rules and regulation covering that “other property”.

        At first congress let the states manage federal property, but over time congress changed the rules and regulation to management by the BLM and forest service.

        100% in line with the constitution.

  4. Exercise the judges right and nominate her as the bond holder, that will wipe the smile off her face quicker than a hard slap.

  5. The Constitution doesn’t grant you your rights, the Bill of Rights merely spell out your God given rights that the Government is supposed to honor and not violate.

  6. Pseudo-Judge Navarro has already expunged the word “jurisdiction” from the English language. Anyone uttering this “non-word” in her courtroom places his life in jeopardy. That was the very reason 53 ranchers were put out of business in Clark County, because the federal government claimed jurisdiction, and the reason Cliven and Carol Bundy and their family were attacked by the BLM. That was also the reason for the Harney County trial in Oregon and the double jeopardy foisted on Dwight and Stephen Hammond. Our federal government is subject to the sovereignty of the states per the supreme law of the land, and it has been ignored for 200 years, allowing the feds to usurp that authority and become a tyranical dictatorship.

  7. Hey Justin,
    4:3:2, still pertains to territories. Not States, NV became a State. Everyone keeps thinking about that irrelevant treaty Hidalgo. That’s a Red Herring that needs to be put to rest during opening remarks. Hidalgo is a done deal. Finished. The owners have been grandfathered. The Feds gave their rights up during Statehood just like the Northwest ordinance of 1803. Equal footing has been Adjuciated involving R., AL, TN and a few others . Enabling acts of 1864 include Equal Footing Clause “…in all respects Whatsoever.” (yes, that Whatsoever is one word. period) Study Joseph Story’s Commentaries, See how Texas got it’s land after Pollard Leese of 1845 decision.

    Study the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Look up the Republican Platform for the election cycle of 1860. Rread those planks. It’s kinda scary Huh. Talking about government ownership of property. 4 years later Nevadsa enabling acts from congress, then read our Constutution with the equal footing line in it. The State only has to take it to SCOTUS and tell the Feds to pack up and pound sand. On their way out,require the Feds to put the post roads in and build the Post Offices Art 1 § 8 cl 7. That way we can start building our economy instead the Feds charging a 95% commission for property management fees. They are Communists, Not the Republican form of Government our Constitution requires.

    • The original Constitution was The Articles of Confederation. In that original document are words that can be interpreted as a claim that the common law, with trial by jury, where the people themselves employ their power to check the government with a veto power on any criminality perpetrated by anyone in government. Those words are: “Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.” People against the criminal alteration of the federal government, criminally usurping the original federal government where common law trial by jury was acknowledged as the law of the land, and turning governmental power absolutely over to a criminal organization (fraudulently calling themselves the “Federalist Party” included George Mason who reported: June 6, 1788 “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?” Well, yes, they did, George Mason, they certainly did as you warned.

  8. I read an article today about how the Policemen are sworn in to protect and serve but yet they are taught to lie like dogs to obtain evidence. How do we know that they are telling the truth in trials if they lie to us to obtain statements etc..? It is a mystery … right??!!??

  9. First of all, Are police elected or appointed. Who hired them is where their loyakities are. Elected Law enforcement are usually the best. Connecticut has exactly Zero law enforcement. State police are appointed. Should be real scary for the people. but they just sleeping at the wheel.

  10. The only hope left is jury nullification. This *********** “judge” needs to be removed from that office. And punished rather severely.

  11. When the US Constitution was created, with its Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial, the most popular law dictionary of the time said that juries “may not only find things of their own knowledge, but they go according to their consciences.” The first edition of Noah Webster’s celebrated dictionary (1828) said that juries “decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions.”

    Jury nullification is specifically enshrined in the constitutions of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Maryland. The state codes of Connecticut and Illinois contain similar provisions.

    The second U.S. President, John Adams, wrote: “It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” Similarly, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton declared: “It is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent.”

    Legendary Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay once instructed a jury:

    It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the providence of the jury, on questions of law, it is the providence of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

    The following year, 1795, Justice James Irdell declared: “[T]hough the jury will generally respect the sentiment of the court on points of law, they are not bound to deliver a verdict conformably to them.” In 1817, Chief Justice John Marshall said that “the jury in a capital case were judges, as well of the law as the fact, and were bound to acquit where either was doubtful.”

    Source: disinfo, “Juries Are Allowed To Judge The Law, Not Just The Facts.” Russ Kick MAR 8, 2010

    http://disinfo.com/2010/03/juries-are-allowed-to-judge-the-law-not-just-the-facts/

    Our governments and courts have been largely taken over by people whose allegiance is not to the Constitution, or the American people, or even basic principles of justice. Let us hope that Judge Gloria Navarro is removed because of this incident. I’m hoping either for jury nullification or a mistrial.

    • Omission, as in material omission, which is failure to act when an act is warranted, concerns this subject matter concerning what happened to the consent process commanded by the people as a check on any government abuse whatsoever: trial by jury according to the (true not counterfeit) common law. George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and many others warned (did not fail to act) where others perpetrated the crime of omission. The crime of omission is not a crime when an individual is merely ignorant of the facts. The Constitution of 1789 was a crime, and among the crimes perpetrated under that crime was the crime of subsidizing the recently outlawed African Slave trade. The other crime was to enslave all of America through the kangaroo court system that was placed above trial by jury according to the (true not counterfeit) common law. John Adams, one of the 1789 criminal usurpers, “enacted” (enforced) The Alien and Sedition Acts (2nd criminal false federal government “presidency” since the usurpation in 1789), in clear violation of the right (natural right) to speak the truth, including official documentation of the truth (example: Declaration of Independence, and Solemn Recognition of Mixed War), in cases where criminals in government would thereby claim sedition: so called First Amendment Right. Those who were accused of sedition, through the Alien and Sedition Acts, were tried in kangaroo courts that were created for that specific purpose of crushing any notions of a natural right to speak the truth concerning criminals operating false governments, such as a government that claims that slavery is worthy of “our” investments. Either people today are ignorant about these facts, or they are fellows joined in the common cause of enslaving all of us under fraud, threat of violence (extortion), and aggressive violence (mixed war) under the color of law. Good luck with either ignorance or the common cause of institutionalized slavery.

  12. My opinion, and although I’m not familiar with this instant case and or the origin of the charges, I believe by the judge’s statements, not only is this a denial of due process, this is not an Article III court, but appears to be an Article I administrative hearing, whereby, jurisdiction may be non-existent and should be challenged immediately, because the parties bringing the action may not have any standing to do so. No standing, no case. This may only be a common law action if there was an actual victim of a real crime.

    Based on Federal Legislative Jurisdiction, and if this is a “district court“, it is a territorial court and neither the court nor the federal agent’s authority extends beyond boundaries of the US District of Columbia, the territories, and or insular possessions of the same. If any crime was committed in one of the 50 several states and not Federally ceded land, there is zero nexus.

    I find no section of the Constitution for (not of) the United States, that authorizes any control of ownership of private state lands, It would appear that there is absolutely zero jurisdiction and this is a farce and a sham and this man must have given his permission to be subject to this make believe action.

    Jury Nullification : Juries have the right to nullify! Our Republican form of government (We are not a democracy) depends on jury nullification to void tyrannical abuses like these miscreants and especially this judge are perpetrating.

    If anyone has a difference of opinion, please only respond with coherent, on point facts and nothing personal. I am always interested in learning why I may not be correct.

    • “This may only be a common law actin if there was an actual victim of a real crime.” Please consider the real possibility that the above opinion is self defeating: inclusive within the sentence is the evidence proving the statement to be false. In the (true not counterfeit) common law process the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty: meaning that a “real crime” has not been established at the point at which the accused is offered their trial by the country (trial by jury) so as to then establish any wrongdoing according to the people themselves: NOT according to any so called government agency, corporation, or gang of criminals under the color of law. The move from common law (true, not counterfeit) in America is documented by the official record itself in the form known as The Judiciary Act of 1789, and the earlier crime known as The Constitution of 1789, a process that had no standing, no jurisdiction, no authority, according to the existing record of the existing voluntary mutual defense association known as The United States of America, which was framed, formed, and employed to defend against British (criminal) war of aggression, and enforced slavery. The record showed, and still shows, that the existing voluntary mutual defense form of government was unalterable by any means other than unanimous decision by all representatives from all states that formed the voluntary mutual defense union known as The United States of America, which was – also on the official record – under the (true, organic, grass-roots, mother of invention, not false, opposite, counterfeit, criminal) common law due process also known as equal protection under (not over) the law (justice, truth and fact finding, accurate accountability). So…and as warned by so many of the original founders such as George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States of America before the criminal usurpation by the Slave Trader, War Monger, Drug Pushing, Central Banking Fraud Criminals under the color of law, took over), Robert Yates, Luther Martin, and many others WARNED, as trial by jury (true not counterfeit) was usurped by the 1789 criminal enterprise known collectively as The Constitution of 1789, where a legal fiction, not a court of record, and not a court of conscience, was formed and extorted ABOVE the (true) common law. As to “We are not a democracy” the ignorance of meanings of words in facilitated by a process of deception known as bait and switch. The original meaning of democracy (Athens Greece in antiquity for example) was rule by consent of the people themselves, not rule by any majority or minority of people claiming to be the government (special interest). So…it might be a good idea to actually know history so as not to repeat it, over, and over, and over, again, and again, as if there is no moral option, and the only option is to be subjected to very evil people working a very simple fraud: legal fiction.

8 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Judge Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights – Bunkerville Trial | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  2. Judge Gloria Navarro Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights | Mojave Desert Patriot
  3. Impeach Bundy Judge | gbapblog
  4. The House Does Not Lose In Las Vegas – Bunkerville Trial | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  5. Jury Begins Deliberations in Nevada Protest Trial – Bunkerville | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  6. Judge Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights – Redoubt News | Drain the Swamp Michigan
  7. Bunkerville Jury Confused by Conspiracy | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  8. Fatal Funnel in Bunkerville Standoff? – It Matters How You Stand

Comments are closed.