Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Outlaw Government  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Oct 29th, 2017 07:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/navarro-govt-defendants/

Quote:
In the pattern of her previous rulings, Navarro granted almost all of the government requests to prohibit the Bundys from mentioning the following:

1. Self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property;

2. Third-party/lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations, including operations on April 6, 9, and 12, 2014;

3. Opinions/public statements of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM impoundment operations;

4. Allegations of workplace misconduct by the SAC (Special Agent in Charge) of the impoundment (Dan Love), or regarding those who worked for, or with, him.

5. Allegations that officers connected with the impoundment acted unethically or improperly by the way they were dressed or equipped during the impoundment, or that they improperly shredded documents during or after impoundment operations;

6. References to mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operations;

7. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions that the federal government does not own the land or have legal authority or jurisdiction over public lands where impoundment operations were conducted, or that the land was or is otherwise owned by the State of Nevada;

8. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions regarding infringement on First and Second Amendment rights, including any effort to confuse the jury that there is some form of “journalist” or “protest” immunity for the crimes charged;

9. References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses;
10. References to the Oregon trial of United States v. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and Ryan Bundy., or the results in that trial;

11. References to the outcomes in the previous two trials in this case; and

12. Legal arguments, explanations, or opinions advancing defendants’ views of the U.S. Constitution, including claims that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior have no constitutional authority, that “natural law” or other authority permits the use of force against law enforcement officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has no jurisdiction or authority under the [C]onstitution to order the removal of cattle from public lands.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 29th, 2017 07:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
That is not what people have been (Falsely) led (like sheep) to believe, to be, the law of the land. The law of the land includes presumption of innocence, until proven guilty. Clearly these posers (Navarro, Myhre, etc.) are a clear and present danger to the peace, and as such they ought to face charges, and be asked, politely, to stop attacking innocent people. If they refuse the polite request to stop attacking innocent people, so as to face prosecution on the charge of disturbing the peace, then they should be arrested as out-laws, who refuse to comply with the laws that protect everyone.

From the article above is this: "Briefs and pleadings by the defense teams of Cliven Bundy and Ryan Payne—which argued that the Judge’s previous rulings were unlawful—may have caused Navarro to adjust her rulings slightly." Now consider, please, how difficult it is to impart to someone the fact that criminals - as a rule - do not obey the law. Chew on that a moment, please. Out-laws, as a rule, do not obey the law. Why is it difficult to impart that knowledge to someone when speaking about the Bill of Rights, for instance? It is very difficult, for example, to impart this fact to someone who is hell bent on controlling the peaceful ownership of weapons: a.k.a. "Gun Control." Now, with that in mind, how much more difficult is it to convince someone of the demonstrable FACT that criminals IN GOVERNMENT, AS A RULE, DO NOT OBEY LAWS. When a "Lone Gunman" is caught red handed mass murdering people, is the "Lone Gunman" allowed to stroll freely anywhere, anytime, at Day Care, or in Church? At least the "Lone Gunman" isn't in control of the process that is designed to find the truth concerning what the "Lone Gunman" may have done, or may not have done, to anyone, anywhere. Why are CRIMINALS (out-laws) in Government afforded all the power they need to make their claims of immunity a FACT?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Oct 29th, 2017 07:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/us-attorneys-office-implicated/

Quote:
Love was on the stand for an entire day, and visibly drank at least three Diet Cokes as he testified. He came across as articulate but arrogant, and quite bitter over his recent firing from his high status in the BLM.
One thing that Love was very clear on was that the US Attorneys office was deeply involved in this operation. Acting US Attorney Myhre attempted to stop this line of questioning, stating that it would cross the line of “confidentiality”.

When attorneys Bret Whipple (who represents Cliven Bundy) and Dan Hill (who represents Ammon Bundy) questioned Love regarding Love’s phone calls with the U.S. Attorneys Office during the standoff, prosecutor Steven Myhre sternly objected. Whipple asked if (then-U. S. Attorney) Daniel Bogden had instructed Love to release the cattle. Myhre objected, claiming the U.S. Attorney had no authority to issue such an instruction. However, Daniel Love stated that the order to surrender and release the cows was given immediately after he spoke to Bogden.

This revelation raises the question of whether the Justice Department deliberately entrapped the Bundys, and made a showing of releasing the cattle solely to set up the Bundys to be prosecuted. Was Love directed by the highest-ranking federal prosecutor in Nevada to release the cattle, so that the Justice Department could stage this elaborate criminal prosecution?

Love also stated that he was told that the decision had been made that anyone involved in ‘Operation Gold Butte’ was then considered a ‘victim’. “My role changed on April 12th from Incident Commander to a victim,” he said.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 29th, 2017 07:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
What?

The U.S. Attorneys Officer Steven Myhre used his office, his false authority, to perpetrate the crime of entrapment, so as to steal land from the Bundy's? And the criminal judge won't allow the country (as in the jury in "trial by the country") to know this exculpatory evidence that exculpates the Bundy defendants?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 01:40 am  
Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2015 > Updates > Outlaw Government Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems