Navarro Cuts Defendants Rights to TWO
by Shari Dovale
During the first trial of the Bunkerville defendants, this past March, Judge Gloria Navarro made the specific point to Todd Engel that, in her courtroom, defendants have only three rights.
In happened after Engel, who was representing himself as was his right to do, asked the unforgivable question, “Is it true that [Special Agent In Charge] Dan Love is under criminal investigation?”
The prosecution threw fits, yelling objections. Navarro not only sustained their objections, but stripped Engel of his right to self-representation. Navarro told Engel that he had lost his privilege to self-representation and was no longer allowed to talk in her courtroom.
She went on to say that, “As a defendant, you have only THREE rights.”
:She said that he had the right to:
- Plead Guilty
- Testify on his own behalf
- Appeal his conviction
This same judge has banned the US Constitution in her courtroom.
- These men have been incarcerated for over 18 months.
- They have been denied bail.
- They have been denied a speedy trial.
- They have been denied the right to face their accuser (Dan Love).
- They have been denied the right to present witnesses in their favor.
- And so much more.
Navarro has ruled that an affirmative defense is not allowed in the case. That means the defendants cannot claim self defense, defense of others or provocation by the government.
The are not allowed to mention the First Amendment or the Second Amendment.
They are not allowed to portray the BLM, FBI or any other alphabet agency in a negative light. They are are not allowed to show emotion on the stand and say they were afraid of the government.
This is after the Federal Agents were allowed to testify that they were afraid of the protesters, cry on the stand and completely misrepresent the events of April 12, 2014.
And now, they are not allowed to testify in the own defense, on their own behalf.
Eric Parker was removed from the witness stand on Thursday, August 10th. Parker had mentioned the “First Amendment Zone” and alluded to seeing government “snipers”. After objections by prosecutors were sustained, he continued saying he looked “up and to the right.”
That was it. Navarro was afraid that he might tell the jury that he had seen the snipers up on the mesa, since the mesa was up and to the right of where he was standing.
Navarro had Parker removed from the witness stand, denied him his right to testify on his own behalf, and struck his entire testimony from the official record. She then dismissed the jury for the weekend, and left the courtroom.
The jury was left speechless.
Navarro has stripped the defendants down to 2 rights remaining: The right to plead Guilty and the right to appeal their conviction. Everything is based on their guilt, with no mention of innocence until proven guilty.
The bedrock of our judicial system is under attack in this Las Vegas Federal Courtroom. The Constitution is under attack. Judge Gloria Navarro has stated from the Bench that defendants have no rights but the 2 she has dictated.
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: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
First, Navarro was required to take an Oath to “Support and Defend” the US Constitution (along with either another Oath or as a combined Oath). Not keeping that Oath is a felony and Perjury.
Second, Judges are allowed to serve for as long as they use the constitutionally required “good Behaviour”. Good behavior is a standard set by the US Constitution (and state Constitutions when they apply) when it lists the delegated duties for the judicial branch and requires taking and keeping the Oath.
Third, I see over and over again where those reporting on this use the terms “our government” when referring to actions committed by a person who SERVES WITHIN our government. There is a huge difference between those that SERVE WITHIN our government and those same people actually being our government like a King or Queen, Dictator. When you (generic “you”) refer to a person who serves within it as “the government”, you give them way too much power in the eyes of those that are not aware of these distinctions. Words do matter in conveying meaning and power. A person who SERVES is seen – rightfully so – as wielding less power then one who is the actual government. Thankfully we do not have people as an actual government so that they do NOT need to be “overthrown, merely replaced as employees are everywhere.
Our government here in the USA is a constitutional republic, and it is the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution, NOT the people who serve within them; nor is it any branch or office within our governments. That is why the Oaths required that those that SERVE WITHIN our governments support and defend the documents instead of people, branches, offices within a branch. (Of course those who serve as US Presidents are held to a higher standard of Preserving, Protecting, and Defending the US Constitution)
JFK, Yale University, June 11, 1962: “For the greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”
J. Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, OUR POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE SHALL RUN NOT TO INDIVIDUALS, THAT IS, TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan OUR ALLEGIANCE AND THE ONLY ALLEGIANCE WE OWE AS CITIZENS OR DENIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, RUNS TO OUR INSPIRED CONSTITUTION which God himself set up. SO RUNS THE OATH OF OFFICE OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. THIS PRINCIPLE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION IS BASIC TO OUR FREEDOM. IT IS ONE OF THE GREAT PRINCIPLES THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS “LAND OF LIBERTY” FROM OTHER COUNTRIES”.
United States v. Moylan, the Supreme Court yet again acknowledged the “undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.” (1969)
Archibald Maclaine said during North Carolina’s ratifying convention: “If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’” (This applies to any who serve within our governments)
Jesus, Matthew 20:25: “…the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.”
To me the next question is should Judge Navarro be charged with treason? With *terrorism? Adding these to her other crimes against the American people and the US Constitution, our supreme LAW of this nation.
Thomas Jefferson: “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…. In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort;…”
Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”
Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I understand that the three key elements that are necessary for an offense to constitute treason are an obligation of allegiance to the legal order, the intent to disrupt, destroy it from within, and then action to violate that obligation.
Sorry, left this out.
*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of this land, and it must be observed that the only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations.
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
How is this right? This judge needs to be removed from the case and the bench. Talk about prejudice.