New Developments in Bundy Case - Star Chamber Trial Aug. 12, 2017

It looks like the judge has gone off the rail, disallowing people to testify in their own behalf, barring and 1st or 2nd Amendment arguments from being heard, removing the jury during testimony - the Bundy retrial is becoming the worst travesty of justice yet seen in the US. One man is already serving life in prison for daring to protest while armed (even though it was not illegal).
This guy has some harsh things to say about the Police (I don't entirely agree with on it) who are the force behind the abuse of the judicial system that has been going on. As an aside, Michelle Malkin has written extensively about several people convicted on DNA evidence that was beyond flimsy and how prosecutors are abusing the perception of DNA evidence as "damning" of innocence.



Our justice system is badly broken, being used by corporate and government interests to railroad innocent people who stand in their way of million dollar profits. We need to pull the curtain down, toss out the activist judges and restore the Constitution as the law of the land. Otherwise it is rule by the oligarchy and we all saw with the TARP bailouts and QE to infinity who they are looking out for. It's OUR government, not just the few who have enough money to bribe everyone.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The guy is overly dramatic and didnt bother to get all the facts (or he just ignored them to make his rant).

During testimony the defendant was on the stand. He kept trying to discuss what occurred leading up to the standoff after the court already ruled he could only discuss what he witnessed at the standoff. I get the impression he delved into the hearsay problem, trying to explain what occurred leading up while not actually being present or witnessing what he was trying to explain or trying to raise issues from previous incidents which are inadmissible.

The prosecution made numerous objections and finally the judge called a sidebar (both lawyers go to the bench for a conversation with the judge). Defense was warned again testimony prior to the incident could not be discussed and sent both lawyers back. When his testimony resumed he tried again to discuss what occurred to the lead up, causing the prosecution to object again. The judge stopped his testimony and told him to return to the lawyer table. She then stated if defense had any witness ready they could call - no. The judge then ended the trial and said they would resume Monday at which point she dismissed the jury and ended the court session and left the bench.

The defense lawyer acknowledged their error in discussing matters that were not allowed.


The non existent media coverage -
Drama erupts at Bundy retrial as judge scolds defendant, orders him off stand

Parker was attempting to tell jurors what he saw during the standoff over a barrage of objections from prosecutors, who said he was violating court orders not to talk about what happened in the run-up to the standoff.

Defense lawyers said Navarro called them to the front of the courtroom and told them Parker could testify only about what he saw during specific moments of the standoff.

As soon as Marchese resumed questioning, prosecutors intensified objections, and that’s when lawyers said Navarro halted the testimony and shut down the courtroom for the day.

Lawyers said after Navarro removed Parker from the stand, she asked them if they were prepared to call additional witnesses. Then she ordered the parties to return to court Monday morning and told jurors they could leave.

The judge left the courtroom before jurors filed out.

“We were really trying to be careful not to violate the court order,” Marchese said. “But it was very restrictive and difficult.”

The concern is jury nullification, which is NOT a valid action, contrary to armchair consitutionalists who ignore case law on the subject.

ETA -
The guy "sentenced to life" is 53 years old and was found guilty on 8 charges that provided a max of 57 years in prison. He conviently left those facts out of his video as well.

One man is already serving life in prison for daring to protest while armed

That's not "protesting", that is threatening a federal officers with a deadly weapon, armed insurrection & conspiracy to commit murder.

Stop trying to sugar coat the crimes of these thugs.
Armed supporters of a thief who steals from others should be sentenced harshly.

K~

a reply to: aethertek

to the jury.

In testimony, BLM special agents Rand Stover and Michael Johnson dramatically detailed the approach of the protesters, which included cowboys on horseback, as officers spotted guns in the crowd and on the hillside and bridge above Toquop Wash, where the government had corralled nearly 400 head of Bundy’s cattle.

“We were receiving significant information that individuals calling themselves militia members were coming into the area,” Stover said.
Added Johnson, “It was unlike anything I’d ever seen before in my law enforcement career.”

But they also had to admit that not every member of law enforcement seemed as concerned about the weapons. Nevada Highway Patrol troopers and Metro police officers were casually walking on a highway bridge not far from the alleged threats.

“I’m still confused to this day,” Johnson said of seeing the apparently relaxed troopers nearby as he crouched behind a light generator and scanned the crowd for snipers. “I don’t exactly know what they were doing.”

The case is loaded with still photographs and video taken from high altitude and at close range.

But the images cut both ways.

While photographs of each defendant carrying weapons are part of the evidence, some of the video shows the supposedly frightened and intimidated federal agents on less-than high alert.

www.thedailybeast.com...

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It looks like the judge has gone off the rail, disallowing people to testify in their own behalf, barring and 1st or 2nd Amendment arguments from being heard, removing the jury during testimony - the Bundy retrial is becoming the worst travesty of justice yet seen in the US.

There were ... always ... going to be one of two outcomes here.

This one ... or The Revolution. To have a revolution, you've gotta pull the trigger. You can't just wish you did.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Thanks so much for posting this

And "Star Chamber" is exactly right:

The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings.

I don't think anything better exemplifies the corruption and tyranny of our federal government and its many tentacles than the Bundy Affair -- from it's origins to this absolute travesty of a trial. It's outrageous, shameful, and unconscionable.

The bad behavior of the Bundys et al -- real or imagined or made up out of whole cloth! -- does not excuse any of the really bad behavior on the part of Feds that brought us to this point. If anything, the bad behavior of the Feds may in fact excuse some or all of the behavior of the Bundys et al... and which the dis-Honorable Judge Navarro has barred from testimony.

If I were on that jury, there's no question of my vote: Not Guilty.

a reply to: Xcathdra


He is barred from testifying about what he saw leading up to the standoff, and barred from testifying about specific moments of the standoff, where is hearsay mentioned in the article?

Sounds to me like this guys rights are being breached! The judge barred testimony of why the defendant took the actions that he did, under the guise of preventing jury nullification. How many different excuses for censorship are they going to use?

The concern is jury nullification, which is NOT a valid action, contrary to armchair consitutionalists who ignore case law on the subject.

Sure it is, you just vote not guilty, easy peasy.