Public Perception Important to Bunkerville Standoff Trial
Editorial by Shari Dovale
We previously reported on a motion filed by Ryan Bundy to have Judge Gloria Navarro recused from the Bunkerville Standoff case.
This motion is based on the premise that public perception is heavily against Navarro. It goes to the general consensus throughout the country that activist Judge Navarro is using her authority to further her agenda by blatantly ruling in favor of the prosecution and against the defense.
The motion was based on dozens of articles from both alternative media and Main Stream media. Sites including Redoubt News, as well as the Las Vegas Review Journal and the New York Times, are reporting that the story has now become about Judge Navarro and her obvious bias, instead of what actually happened on April 12, 2014.
This is a powerful motion. This argument does not address whether or not Navarro is actually biased, it only references the public perception of her bias. This goes to the growing lack of trust the citizens in the country have against the federal judicial system and, by extension, the Federal government.
The motion has been filed to be ruled on by Judge Gloria Navarro herself, and whether or not she will voluntarily recuse herself from the case. This makes it different from a disqualification motion, which would be ruled on by a different judge. However, when Navarro denies the recusal motion, the disqualification argument can be made on appeal.
The reason this has garnered so much attention is that, contrary to Navarro’s typical habits, she has actually told the prosecution to file a response to this motion. This would seem to indicate that she knows it is a very strong argument and needs help from AUSA Steven Myhre to come up with a basis to deny it, versus the outright denial she normally uses.
She needs a stronger legal argument just because she has been caught denying so many defense arguments arbitrarily, as the motion indicates.
It is already a given that Navarro is ruling based on the agenda of Harry Reid, her apparent mentor and fairy godfather to which she can thank for her current position. Reid is well known to want the Bundy Ranch for his pet money-making project of a Chinese Solar farm.
They need the Bundy ranch to complete the deal.
This explains the five, yes five, forfeiture clauses built into the superseding indictment against Cliven Bundy, et. al. The prosecution makes clear that any guilty verdict against any of the 19 defendants gives them leave to take the Bundy ranch and cattle.
However, the problem that the government now faces is simple: The people are on to them.
They are being scrutinized in an unprecedented way by the citizens of the country. We The People are not all rolling over for whatever the government tells us any more.
If the BLM was right in everything they did on April 12, 2014, then why can’t the feds take responsibility for their actions? Why are they so intent on not allowing the jury to see all of the facts? Haven’t they learned from their previous fiascoes?
The jury acquitted several defendants, and deadlocked on others, based on not receiving the whole story. The jury is not rolling over for it either. They want the whole truth.
The prosecution is required to file a response by October 17th, whereas the defense will then reply by Oct. 19th.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Why is it that no one gets Bail in the federal system of Las Vegas
And your rights to a speedy trial are ignored
What the hell is going on with this system in Vegas
Phillip: The Bundys are eminently qualified for pre-trial release, and are being held as persecution. As one of the accused in Portland I was given pre-trial release, but as a bit player – I was a cook at Malhure – I was barely visible in the case. It didn’t hurt that I had turned myself in to the FBI. If the Feds are trying to keep Ammon and Ryan inncomunicado in jail, they have certainly failed,as the documentary “Bundy, the true story” is narrated by Ammon himself, from his jail cell! As Shari articulates so well, Public confidence in the judicial system is the foundation of it’s authority, but Navarro’s surreal antics smack of a Kamakazi. Your “What the hell is going on” is just what we courthouse gang have heard from everyone who has visited the Federal Castle. The nuts have taken over the nuthouse….
Here, here, well reported Sherry. What you state is precisely the reason why I’m so angered by the lack of response from the major “liberty-minded” players that were willing to be there for the press conferences, but have been largely AWOL ever since.
I, again, ask why the national chaplain, and the man who so passionately defended Cliven Bundy and all those involved in the stand-off just one month before Cliven was arrested, and has remained silent since. If the man I was talking about was a Mr. Nobody, I guess it wouldn’t matter, would it. But that man is Chuck Baldwin, who is a perceived leader in the liberty fight but has been TOTALLY silent, ever since Cliven Bundy was arrested.
Chuck has a “national” platform, with over 17,000 Facebook supporters (up over 4,000 since Cliven was arrested in 2016). Has he used that platform to raise attention to the fact that Cliven, his boys, and many other good people are being railroaded by the feds? Nope.
Has he used that column to tout the NOT GUILTY verdicts in the Burns OR trials? Nope.
Has he used that column to point on that LaVoy was shot at by FBI agents with his hands in the air? Nope.
Has he talked about the fact that the government, with unlimited funds, is continuing to try these good people over and over? Nope.
Did he ever question once, the fact that the very well planned take-down of the patriots, including the LaVoy shooting, was NEVER captured by 1 LEO camera (body, helmet, dash, or otherwise)? Nope.
Did he ever point out (CNN did) that the FBI agent was indicted in June for lying that he shot at LaVoy with his hands up? Nope.
And why did he take down the video of his message, delivered just 5 days after LaVoy was killed, where he says that LaVoy was shot justifiably and that Victoria Sharp’s highly accurate testimony (in retrospect), was highly untruthful and inaccurate?
This would be a NON-STORY if this wasn’t Chuck Baldwin. But this man is supposed to be the purveyor of truth. And for him to pull this stunt, and then try to bury it, is highly suspicious. People should at least have the chance to learn more about this position he’s taken, and never recanted of.
For heaven sake, he gave Michael Brown, the thug shot in Ferguson, MO, more grace and latitude then a man who was taking a stand for something very important and relevant to the liberty fight. Geez.