Cliven Bundy walks by a first amendment area set up by the BLM near Bunkerville, Nev.
Posted on 08/11/2017 11:25:04 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
The Retrial of Defendants Eric Parker, Steven Stewart, Scott Drexler, and Ricky Lovelein took a decided twist today in a Las Vegas Federal courtroom.
Cliven Bundy walks by a first amendment area set up by the BLM near Bunkerville, Nev.
The defense had already been shot down by Judge Gloria Navarro. Yesterday, the day was spent previewing the defense witness testimony and Navarro refused to allow their witnesses to take the stand. She called the testimony “Not Relevant”.
She has made it clear that there is no such thing as self defense against the government, or that of defending anyone else against the government. Law enforcement cannot be considered to use “excessive” force in this case. She believes that if any of this is brought to the jury, they may acquit for “jury nullification”. Navarro seems to have a pathological fear of jury nullification.
It was left to Parker to take the stand in his own defense.
BLM Snipers above the wash in Bunkerville
Within 10 minutes of taking the stand, AUSA Myhre began his objections. Between Parker mentioning the “First Amendment Zone” that was set up several miles away from the wash and his saying that he “looked up to the right” (where the BLM snipers were located), Myhre nearly went into conniptions.
After long side bars, Navarro finally removed Eric Parker from the witness stand. She came back to the bench and, without explanation, told him to step down. He will not be allowed to continue defending himself, there will be no cross examination and no jury questions.
Parker was so stunned that it took him a minute to get back to the defense table where he became very emotional at the thought of not being allowed to fight for his very life.”The jury was also stunned and shocked. When Judge Navarro released them so abruptly, they all sat there for several moments, with at least a few jurors having their mouths hanging open.
Judge Gloria Navarro made several points earlier, outside of the jury’s hearing. Self Defense is not allowed. Defense of another is equally not a valid defense. Provocation by the government is not a defense. All of these are irrelevant and only go to jury nullification.
Navarro has said that a group of protesters that advance on the government are aggressors and the law is clear that the government agents and law enforcement can defend themselves using deadly force.
Based on the statements, rulings and opinions of Judge Navarro, Martin Luther King, during his march from Selma to Montgomery, could have legally been shot by the government, and his crowd of supporters, as well.
I do not support civil disobediance, but the Constitution clearly provides for a fair jury trial. That is not what this is.
Re-post, but yes, the beast will shred those who claim they have any rights; especially those from YHVH.
Based on this single event, if I was on the jury, I would acquit.
Thanks to the internet, a LOT of americans are aware of jury nullification. If there is even one juror here that is aware of this, the best the prosecutors can hope for in this case is a hung jury. I’d have been so pi$$ed at that judge that I’d find them not guilty out of principle - even if all the facts of the case pointed to guilt.
Short of armed resistance, this is the best hope.
The judge was angry because she had lost control of the outcome of this case. And this case is a VERY big deal for the deep state. They simply MUST win.
Yes if that happened with me on the jury I would vote to acquit.
Was the title the same? I checked before posting and found nothing. However I posted using my cell phone, not the best tool for this. I’m on a trip, my old laptop has issue with https certificates, won’t work here. Newer laptop has keyboard problem. Sorry
Chicago Eight trial
Ain’t new
The judge will get precisely what she most fears, acquittal by nullification. There is no other viable option. She has poisoned the jury with her antics and broad brush opinions.
Agree
The judge said that is not admissible defense.
No, not new. And the number of people acquitted in federal cases is very small.
Not an attorney as you shall soon see. Shouldn’t the defendant decide on what his defense is and shouldn’t the jury decide if it is admissible.
Bookmark
. I’d have been so pi$$ed at that judge that I’d find them not guilty out of principle - even if all the facts of the case pointed to guilt.
++++++++++++++++++++
Me too!
The silver lining is I don’t see how these trials stand up against appeal.
That's it.
I learned long ago, the U.S. justice system was becoming increasingly manipulated and corrupted by those in government. This story is a perfect example of that.
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.