Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Scott Drexler Testifies in Bunkerville Retrial

Navarro accused the defense attorneys of taking part in a 'charade' of inciting the community against the government.

Scott Drexler Testifies in Bunkerville Retrial
Photo: David Fleeman, Facebook

Scott Drexler Testifies in Bunkerville Retrial

by Shari Dovale

Last week showed mayhem in the Judge Gloria Navarro’s courtroom in Las Vegas. The defense attempted to call defendant Eric Parker to the witness stand to testify in his own defense.

The prosecution showed their paranoia when they began their objections nearly immediately. Judge Navarro had laid out guidelines for Parker’s testimony that focused on not allowing the Federal agents to be placed in a bad light. She has insisted that there is no self-defense allowed when the ‘victim’ is a federal agent or law enforcement officer. She claims there is no evidence that these agents used excessive force on April 12, 2014.

However, though she has allowed these agents to cry on the witness stand to emphasize their fear of the protesters, she has put her iron fist down about the defendants doing the same. Navarro allowed the prosecution to object to Parker using the words “snipers” and the “First Amendment Zone”.

Jesse Marchese, Parker’s attorney, asked him a question which went directly to refuting the testimony of Ranger Alexandra Burke. She had claimed that she saw Parker point his weapon directly at her, however, she had said that she was to his left, up near the generator near the command post.

Parker was asked which direction he was focusing on while he was on the bridge. He responded that he was looking forward at the people in the wash, and then up and to the right. He did not say that he was looking at the snipers that were up on the mesa, but objections rang through the courtroom at the possibility that he might.

This gave Navarro the excuse she needed to remove Parker from the witness stand and strike his entire testimony from the official record. This all took place last Thursday.

     

Monday morning brought several motions, including a request for sanctions from the prosecution. The defense also filed a motion for mistrial, which Navarro promptly denied.

The government claimed that the attorneys for Parker, Drexler and Stewart have violated the court’s orders to not include evidence for jury nullification repeatedly, including the closing arguments Mr. Leventhal presented in the previous trial.

The prosecution is stretching the limits with this motion for sanctions and have demanded they be allowed to preview, verbatim, each of the three closing arguments before they are presented.

Todd Leventhal, attorney for Scott Drexler, rose to the challenge and argued that before sanctions can take place, there must be a contempt charge, which will absolutely require these proceedings to be halted while the three attorneys hire attorneys for themselves.

This seemed to alarm Judge Navarro and she clearly stated that she would not impose sanctions on anyone at that time. However, during the morning’s arguments, Navarro had to tell the defense that she thought they were ‘showboating’ with their attempts to mislead the jury into nullification, and she was finding it very offensive.

Her ideas of misleading the jury focus on the defense wanting to actually defend themselves. She has denied them every available defense including self-defense, defense of others, and provocation by the government. She has said that the first and second amendments are not valid defenses.

The only defense she is allowing them is “mere presence” which means that someone who just happens to be at a crime scene isn’t guilty of the crime. This, of course, does not apply to the defendants, therefore, she is setting them up for a guaranteed conviction.

AUSA Myhre did ask for defendant Scott Drexler to proffer his testimony without the jury present, and this created a new round of arguments. Navarro eventually ruled that Drexler would not have to preview his testimony. Drexler chose to testify in front of the jury today.

     

Drexler took the witness stand after lunch.

He did very well during his testimony, which means that he did not give Navarro a reason to remove him and strike it from the record.

Drexler is from Challis, Idaho, town of about a thousand people. He did not know any of the protesters from Bunkerville before April 12, 2014, except for Eric Parker. They decided to go down to protest, though Drexler was not allowed to say how he learned of the protest or why he wanted to go.

He was asked about Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon during his testimony, but the prosecution immediately objected questioning the relevance of this information. Remember, the prosecution brought this evidence into the trial, now they are questioning it’s relevance.

When Drexler mentioned the helicopters at Bunkerville, the same relevance objections came from the them. Again, all evidence has been entered by the prosecution. This is the same prosecution team that thought it relevant to link the defendants to Timothy McVeigh.

Drexler was able to say that he was afraid that the government was going to kill him. This was said twice in front of the jury. Of course, it was objected to, but Drexler was not removed from the witness stand. This was more information than Parker was allowed to say before he was removed from the witness box.

This tells me that Navarro was not on her game, seemingly due to the large numbers of people in the gallery and on the courthouse steps, or she is really gunning for Parker.

The jury questions were interesting. There were about a dozen jurors that submitted questions, however, Navarro would not allow most of their questions to be asked, whether because she felt they were not relevant or because she felt it was information that had already been discussed.

This was never the standard for the government’s witnesses. The jury was allowed to ask any question they wanted. It ended up being about 4 questions that she allowed to be presented to Drexler.

Judge Navarro seems afraid to the point of paranoia concerning the possibility of Jury Nullification. She continuously states it in court, on the record, that the defense is going for that possibility. She does not want the jury to know about it, or to consider it.

A rally was held outside the courthouse on Monday that included a couple of hundred people that had traveled from various parts of the country. The ‘mere presence’ of these protesters seem to get under the skin of the Chief Judge.

At one point, Navarro accused the defense attorneys of taking part in a ‘charade’ of inciting the community to believe that the prosecution is conspiring against the defendants.

All this during a trial in which the defendants are on trial for conspiracy.

The defense has no other witnesses they are allowed to present. Closing arguments will begin Tuesday.

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

17 Comments on Scott Drexler Testifies in Bunkerville Retrial

  1. When the judge has ties, shows prejudices,uses unconstitutional tactics, now throwing the words conspiracy to the defense lawyers, shes afraid. When a defendants attorney was beaten and thrown in jail during a previous trial, she is afraid. Overreach to protect overreach! Thanks for sharing this atrocity! Keep it up!

  2. If after years of due process the court decided that the bank can reposess your house for non payment of the morgage. And the sheriff with men come to evict you and reposess the house,. But you call all armed people to come stand against the sheriff stealing you house. At the house your group surrounds the sheriff and skuffles break out but you force the sheriff and men to abandon the reposess. You are charged with obstruction of Justice and assult on the sheriff’s men. You can not claim self defense because they are there because of a court order, and you came from miles away to confront them. You were the one doing the assault you went after them,. They did not go after you and were just completing legal due process court orded

    • I understand your analogy, and if it was that simple I could agree. However…

      These men are being charged with Conspiracy, a catch all charge that the government uses solely to increase incarceration. They are facing life in prison. The jury is not allowed to hear this.

      Setting aside the disputes involved with the impound itself, lets focus only on these 4 men.

      They went to Bunkerville because they saw a sign that said “First Amendment Zone”. They also saw government agents physically abusing citizens, such as a grandmother being thrown to the ground and Cliven’s son being tazed twice until he bled.

      It was not about cows or grazing fees. They knew nothing about cows.

      They are not being allowed to tell the jury about WHY they went there. They cannot tell the jury what they saw on the videos. They cannot mention the Constitution, 1st or 2nd Amendment.

      They are, by court order, NOT allowed to present a defense at all.

      There is evidence that the Federal Agents lied on the stand and the defense has been ordered not to tell the jury.

      How do all of these facts fit within your scenario? Can you tell me that you would accept these rules easily if it were you or a member of your family in a courtroom with these restrictions, regardless of guilt or innocence?

      If the government did nothing wrong, then why can’t the jury hear all the facts? All these men want is a fair trial.

    • Mr Poole : your “Hypothetical” is quite out of context,and assumes a cast of players that bear no resemblance to those at Bundy Ranch. The principles you denote – a deadbeat homeowner,a long suffering bank, and law enforcement sent to execute a lawful repossession order. do not portray a Rancher defending his ancestral home and way of life, A corrupt and predatory federal agency who, by the way, makes it’s own rules and then enforces those rules itself, and a court system…Imagine a private individual going into a federal court, with a federal judge and against the unlimited resources of Federal lawyers and a Federal agency. Do I need to describe his chances ? The BLM and other Federal agencies are prosecuting a ruthless war on rural America. They use an array of weaponized regulations to choke ranchers into submission, and to drive them off their land. they had driven off all the ranchers in the Bunkerville area, save one, Cliven Bundy. As Cliven said, “I’m not going to pay these people to regulate me out of business” and paid his grazing fees to the State of Nevada, not the BLM. Note the previous statement – Cliven did shell out his grazing fees. Not so simple, is it Mr Poole ? Of course, if you are one who simply can’t conceive of our Federal Govt as a wrongdoer, and feel that, if the fed does it, it is right,there is no way of persuading you. You walk in the shoes of the “Loyalists” – the colonial Americans who fought for King George III

  3. It is like the sheriff comes to your house after court due process to evict you and reposess the house for non payment. You can’t call armed people from all over to contront the sheriff and his men and force them to abandon the reposess mentioned and in the process skuffles break out and now you claim you were just defending yourself. You confronted and assulted the sheriff and me who were legally there to complete the legal court order,. You came from miles away to confront stop them from enforcing the legal court order. You went after them, they did not go after you

    • There are 2 things wrong with your analogy, Harold…

      1st, they weren’t called to arms!! They were called to rally and protest. Those who were carrying, did so legally. These men saw the treatment of these folks, and decided to come to help protect if necessary! Because of their presence and other factors, that mass shooting was avoided, thank God!! The Constitution gives them that right!!!

      2nd, those so called LEO’s, do not have legal standing to do what they did! Not the BLM, not the FBI, and certainly not foreign troops!!!

      If these men were so damn dangerous to all these trimbling, scared, woosy, trained fools, then why the hell did it take them almost 2 yrs to arrest them???

    • The federal government does not own the land on which the Bundy’s graze their cattle. BLM and the feds attempted to seize property UNLAWFULLY!

      From Range Magazine and Vin Suprynowicz;

      Over a period of decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from his grazing lands, contending that the ranch is federal land. But the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to own and wield exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia, and within the several states only those “places purchased by the
      consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.” And the federal
      government can show no act of the Nevada Legislature (which came into being in 1864) authorizing a federal purchase of the land on which the Bundy family graze their cattle, nor any bill of sale, nor any record of federal property-tax payments to the state (which they would owe if they were landowners),
      nor any “forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings” which they have erected in the area, or which they plan to erect and could conceivably need all
      that land to erect.

      Western ranchers enter into a “grazing permit” or contract arrangement with the federal government on land where said
      ranchers own the grazing rights (adjudicated by the state, which has recognized Bundy’s grazing rights for decades) only VOLUNTARILY. Bundy’s forebears had worked that ranch since the late 1800s and had Bundy signed such a contract he . . .

      Read the rest of the article and educate yourself about federal government tyranny out of control.

      http://rangemagazine.com/features/fall-17/range-fa17-constitution_not_allowed.pdf

      • Your correct that the Fed/Gov does not own the land.
        Neither do you or most Americans. Our land and it’s people were pledged some years ago in bankruptcy to the bankers.
        The men on trial were offered help with REAL law that would quash immediately the antics of this farce of a judge who’s job is to transfer your assets to the debtor and the state.
        This is why she laughs at the defendant’s bleeting about the Constitution as she knows it doesn’t apply to their current status and they unwittingly are in her jurisdiction. Are you a citizen, person, or a corporation ?
        Are you a whole man? If you do not know what this is, get ready to meet Bubba.
        They chose instead to listen to those offering partial truth which the fruit will be these patriots being led off to prison in the land of fiction as they unwittingly put themselves in this hag’s jurisdiction.For lack of knowledge we perish indeed.

  4. Harold poole – another blind government supporter. They were just following their orders, right?? How many men were hung from ropes after WWII for “just following their orders”??? If, after a court order was signed by a judge, the sheriff was ordered to seize your property and while doing so the sheriff and his men were given permission to teach you and your family a lesson how would you feel about that?? Since the sheriff was just following orders and used the butt of his shotgun to smash to faces of your wife and children how would that tickle you??
    We are not talking about nonpayment of a mortgage dept here. We ARE talking about the heavy and well armed hand of government and the power freaks who work there and enjoy bullying other people.

  5. There is no legal U.S court order regarding Cliven Bundy. The U.S. Govt. has no legal claim in Nevada, except for U.S. Constitution A.1,S.8, C.17, delegation. See also: U.S. Constitution Amendment 10 and The Equal Footing Doctrine.

  6. Navarro seems to be a perfect case for impeachment of a federal judge. Has anyone in that federal district tried to get their federal Rep to start impeachment hearings on her? Tried here but my federal Rep blew me off (Adam Smith D-WA 9th).

  7. Mr. Poole,

    A major problem with this forum is that it has become an echo chamber for folks who frankly are delusional.

    They don’t want to get it that there is no Constitutional right to point guns at law enforcement. Innocent people get guns pointed at them all the time by law enforcement performing their duties to keep the peace…such as in domestic violence cases where the perp has to be distinguished from the victim. If innocent people had the legitimate right to meet force with force by pointing guns back at police, there would be many more police shootings than there already are. These folks just don’t want to get it.

    Taking these folks reasoning to its logical conclusion, Antifa and Black Lives Matter goons should be able to go about their violent tantrums armed, and have the legitimate right to “self defense” to meet “force for force” if the cops try to stop them. Most reasonable people would find this utterly preposterous.

    Last time I checked, many of the dubious legal theories promoted by these folks were “litigated” when Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to a certain U.S. Grant…who I understand was NOT a county sheriff.

    Best wishes to all…

  8. I read this morning that 6 law enforcement officers were shot yesterday across our country, one fatally. For those who don’t live in a cocoon, there has been a sharp uptick in the number of cops murdered in the past 3 years. I particularly remember the executions of Alan Beck & Egor Soldo of Las Vegas Metro in June, 2014 by Gerald and Amanda Miller…who had been participating in the Bundy Ranch standoff that April. Some would cite the start of the uptick in violence towards police with the August, 2014 Ferguson, Missouri caper where “Gentle” Michael Brown tried to wrest Officer Darren Wilson’s service weapon after robbing a convenience store. Certainly, Obama’s racist and reprehensible response to this and the Travon Martin caper added fuel to the fire…but nevertheless…the uptick I believe started with the Millers after the April Bundy caper.

    I would urge your readers to soberly consider the ramifications of their wreckless and wild accusations regarding the Bundy affair. Mr. Poole above makes–in my opinion–some very valid points…and he is accused of being a government stooge. Really??

    In my opinion, the body count resulting from Bundy’s toxic and delusional ideology is now at 6, including the Miller caper and Finnicun. You might not like it nor have the patience for it, but the rule of law is the much better way to go. When the FBI started making arrests in the Bundy Ranch caper in the Spring of 2016, it was obvious some people wanted to “shoot it out” with them, resisting arrest. And again, citizens DO NOT have a constitutional right to resist arrest. Fortunately for all, this did not happen. Cliven himself was arrested while deplaning at the Portland Airport…specifically so that the FBI knew he had no weapon as a result of airport screening.

    Bundy really should pay his bills…instead of contriving dubious constitutional reasons to convince others to be “human shields” for his disobeying legitimate court orders. Of course, Black Lives Matter also have what they consider legitimate “constitutional” grievances (“Gentle” Michael Brown) of self-defense in executing police officers. So is it open season on the police?? And are you adding fuel to this very ugly open season???

    Respectfully submitted…

    • “In my opinion, the body count resulting from Bundy’s toxic and delusional ideology is now at 6,…”…what do we count that slander as? Lies, Damn Lies or Statistics? Squarely pathetic to associate the Bundys with the shootings of Police Officers…if anything there should be great praise given to those who gathered…with NO RULES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN VOLITION governing them…for not engaging in armed resistance.

      For perspective, this is not entirely about Bundy not paying a fee, just like the rancher’s named Hammond up in Oregon have a long legal war going on with the Feds documented from the 1980’s…in Vin Suprynowicz book “The Ballad of Carl Drega” he highlights the Bundy’s case from 2001 but then the Feds were restricting the range due to Turtles.

2 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Scott Drexler Testifies in Bunkerville Retrial | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  2. Judge Navarro vs. the Jury – Bunkerville Retrial – It Matters How You Stand

Comments are closed.