Posted on 08/11/2017 2:20:04 PM PDT by Nextrush
The latest on the removal of Eric Parker from the stand....
There is no court today but court is expected again Monday in Las Vegas.
Another defendant is planning to try to testify, Scott Drexler.
The defense may call on the judge to declare a mistrial in the case.
Supporters of the defendants are asking as many people as possible to come to either be witnesses in the courtroom or to protest outside.
Ammon Bundy, still in prison with no trial date set in connection with Bunkerville (April 12, 2014) is expected to speak from prison about the trial with his comments posted on Bundy Ranch and Gavin Seim for Liberty Facebook pages.
(Excerpt) Read more at nextrushfree.blogspot.com ...
I don’t know much about this case, but I’m pretty sure the judge can’t do that.
He should have never taken the stand.
Born: May 2, 1967 (age 50), Las Vegas, NV
Appointed by: Barack Obama
That’s all that needs to be said.
Depends on the context and ground rules. These posts here are so biased there it is really difficult to take at face value.
Take two contradictory propositions; let’s call them A and B.
A is correct; B is erroneous.
Half the tribe strongly believes in A; the other half believes incorrectly in B.
Are they equally biased? Is it correct to call a strong commitment to the truth “bias?”
So what stopped you from posting your whole blog-mess?
Why excerpt?
Why direct traffic to you blog to read your obvious brilliance?
By any chance, is she an anchor baby?
Can the jury member overrule?
I am writing in general about the posts on FR about the Bundys and Hammonds and their co-conspirators. Many are so biased as to be laughable. This particular post is, instead, completely lacking detail. Why was he scolded? Did he use foul language, pick his nose, or take his answer into areas not relevant to the trial? And besides, why is this guy on the stand anyway? I presume his is trying to make a political statement, which is not relevant to the charges—did he do or not so something. Actions have consequences and he is on trial for those actions, not for his political ideas.
Well, no.. not exactly.
It's an excerpt to drive traffic to your blog.
(Excerpt) Read more at
Yeah, pretty much just you looking for a few hits, huh?
Jurors: Do your nullification duty.
Do a little research for yourself. The judge shut him down because he had the gull to reference the 1st Amendment. The judge had previously ruled that the 1st and 2nd Amendments could not be used in his defense. If you think that is foul, well you may be on the wrong site.
A useless post.
Basic reporting requires, at minimum, who, what, where, when, why, and how We know nothing from having read your excerpt.
I could say the man fainted and was removed from the stand. Nothing you report here would deny it.
Oh, and he used the word sniper to describe a sniper.
In law there is a principle called “but for.”
But for the bald tires, the accident would not have happened.
But for the breach of contract, there would have been no bankruptcy.
You get the idea. Or maybe you already knew.
Anyway, when you have a chain of events each causing the next like some Rube Goldberg contraption, you can control the outcome of a trial by breaking the chain of “but for” at any particular point. That is what the judge is trying to do.
If you follow the chain of “but for” all the way back to first principles, which is exactly what should be done, then the government is at fault.
The judge is determined not to allow this. Therefore, she arbitrarily picked one point in the chain that leaves the dependents appearing to be in the wrong, and refuses to allow any more investigation into the truth.
Now, if you have followed the chain all the way back to the first “but for,” and you have seen that the government is at fault, why in the world would you pretend (falsely) that the government has a leg to stand on?
Imho, the poster/blogger is the one to do the “research”, not the reader. He’s the one recommending we set our hair on fire, after all.
I always like to know why I should run for my matches. :)
I am glad you are reporting on this travesty.
The Ministry of Propaganda has a blackout on this kangaroo trial.
I take back some of my comments, for reasons you will understand if you read this article https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/judge-cuts-defendants-testimony-short-in-bunkerville-retrial/
It is a more accurate description, with no slant that I can discer. Still not sure about def. not being able to reference our Amendments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.