Bundy Trials - Nevada

[Notorial Dissent]

I have a feeling that if either of the very sorry defense witnesses testify that one of the following is going to happen, they are going to either perjure and/or incriminate themselves, or others, with statements that they probably shouldn't make. It sounds like the judge has done just about all she can to keep them from self immolating, but I suspect this bunch "knows" better than the lawyers. Probably NOT going to be pretty if it happens.

[Hektor]

Here's Krazi Kelli's manifesto. This will surely wind up in a lot of email inboxes (DOJ, White House, Gloria Navarro's chambers, etc.).

So waaah, waah, pocket constitution. Waah, Waah, Greg Burleson was the totally only one who had a message of violence but waaah, Americans totally have the right to point guns at government agents because second amendment. Followed by a waaaah the mean judge won't let us do what ever we want and call it a "defense."

[pipistrelle]

Here's Krazi Kelli's manifesto. This will surely wind up in a lot of email inboxes (DOJ, White House, Gloria Navarro's chambers, etc.).

So waaah, waah, pocket constitution. Waah, Waah, Greg Burleson was the totally only one who had a message of violence but waaah, Americans totally have the right to point guns at government agents because second amendment. Followed by a waaaah the mean judge won't let us do what ever we want and call it a "defense."

Sure they can point guns at government agents. Then they get to face the consequences.

[Maybenaut]

In civil trials, at least in California courts, there is no warning given. It is just assumed the person testifying, or their attorney, will assert whatever objections are appropriate. In my experience, at least. I'll add that these kinds of things in most civil trials are known well in advance and often dealt with through motions in limine.

Thanks, TL. Makes sense that it wouldn't likely come up in a civil trial what with depositions and all. Here's how it usually plays out in the military -- defense counsel asks underage witness if she was drinking at the party, underage witness starts to say, "Well, I had five or six shots of Jagermei..." and the prosecutor jumps up, asks for a session outside the presense of the jury, then the prosecutor or the judge will give a rights warning and the witness invariably invokes. Then there will be a fight about whether what she's said about the five or six shots should be stricken (usually not because it wasn't admitted against her, but sometimes). If the witness is also a victim of a sexual assault, she'll have her own attorney present who is allowed to object.

I've just never given any thought to how any of this plays out in the civilian sector. I think the argument can be made that if you're under subpoena you're not free to leave, and your're being interrogated. I was just wondering whether anyone present -- the judge or the prosecutor, has a duty to provide rights warnings.

From what NMGirl said, Judge Navarro is doing that, and I wonder if that is because it is required or if she is just being cautious. I could look all this up, but I'm too lazy right now. Maybe later.

[NMgirl]

@ElaineSoCal found the Government's motion re defense witnesses on Deb Jordan's FB. According to Poots, this document was filed Sunday night. Customary grain of salt required.

[RVInit]

Here's Krazi Kelli's manifesto. This will surely wind up in a lot of email inboxes (DOJ, White House, Gloria Navarro's chambers, etc.).

So waaah, waah, pocket constitution. Waah, Waah, Greg Burleson was the totally only one who had a message of violence but waaah, Americans totally have the right to point guns at government agents because second amendment. Followed by a waaaah the mean judge won't let us do what ever we want and call it a "defense."

Sure they can point guns at government agents. Then they get to face the consequences.

Edit: I just happened to think I should state that I''m all for them being arrested. Not that I am hoping they will be shot by LE

[Grumpy Old Guy]

@ElaineSoCal found the Government's motion re defense witnesses on Deb Jordan's FB. According to Poots, this document was filed Sunday night. Customary grain of salt required.

I wonder if any of the poots, after reading the government motion, would realize what a**h**es the Bundys and their minions are.

Probably none.

[NMgirl]

No trial today because a juror is sick.

[boots]

In civil trials, at least in California courts, there is no warning given. It is just assumed the person testifying, or their attorney, will assert whatever objections are appropriate. In my experience, at least. I'll add that these kinds of things in most civil trials are known well in advance and often dealt with through motions in limine.

Thanks, TL. Makes sense that it wouldn't likely come up in a civil trial what with depositions and all. Here's how it usually plays out in the military -- defense counsel asks underage witness if she was drinking at the party, underage witness starts to say, "Well, I had five or six shots of Jagermei..." and the prosecutor jumps up, asks for a session outside the presense of the jury, then the prosecutor or the judge will give a rights warning and the witness invariably invokes. Then there will be a fight about whether what she's said about the five or six shots should be stricken (usually not because it wasn't admitted against her, but sometimes). If the witness is also a victim of a sexual assault, she'll have her own attorney present who is allowed to object.

I've just never given any thought to how any of this plays out in the civilian sector. I think the argument can be made that if you're under subpoena you're not free to leave, and your're being interrogated. I was just wondering whether anyone present -- the judge or the prosecutor, has a duty to provide rights warnings.

From what NMGirl said, Judge Navarro is doing that, and I wonder if that is because it is required or if she is just being cautious. I could look all this up, but I'm too lazy right now. Maybe later.

From my perspective, I could see the logic in a system which requires it, and I could also see the logic in a system which does't. I remember being in court and a prisoner in orange was there for a restraining order hearing, which had a related criminal matter. As the prisoner was unrepresented, the judge in that case did make clear that he might be able to assert the 5th amendment to certain questions, but IIRC it never came up after an initial discussion. I think she probably is just being cautious but still it makes sense as a good practice.

[NMgirl]

I'm on the teeny screen. Hope this link works.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/

This is an article about defense being evicerated by the court's decisions about defense witnesses.

Any Fogbow attorneys care to chime in on this issue?

[bob]

This is an article about defense being evicerated by the court's decisions about defense witnesses.

L.V. Rev.-J.: Bundy supporters’ lawyers say ruling eviscerates their case:

Lawyers representing rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters accused a judge of eviscerating their defense case Monday by effectively prohibiting several planned witnesses from testifying.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro’s ruling blocks defense witnesses from testifying about federal authorities’ actions in the days before the 2014 Bunkerville standoff between protesters and Bureau of Land Management agents who tried to seize Bundy’s cattle from public land. Law enforcement officers’ actions were expected to be a cornerstone of the defense case in the conspiracy trial; the ruling so affected the strategy that defense lawyers asked for an evening to reassess before they call witnesses.

* * *

Previous legal filings have revealed that defense attorneys intended to argue their clients were not the aggressors, but acted in self-defense against a militant and excessively forceful police presence. In the pre-standoff days, videos showing law enforcement officers using a stun gun on two of Bundy’s sons and tackling a middle-aged woman were circulated widely on social media.

But Navarro sided with the federal government when she ruled that testimony related to authorities’ pre-standoff behavior was “irrelevant to whether there’s excessive force or reasonable force” on the day of the standoff. A self-defense argument is permissible only if there is evidence that police’s actions were not “objectively reasonable,” Navarro ruled.

[SparklyFlitter]

Jenny Wilson‏ @jennydwilson 1m1 minute ago
More
Judge sends jury home - defense has not called any witnesses; say they need time to re-evaluate after judge eliminated 3 witnesses #BundyNV

Those three witnesses would be: Margaret Houston, the woman who was "thrown to the ground" by Feds (in the wash, I think); Corey Houston; and Dan Love, the BLM agent under investigation because he scored some tickets to Burning Man allegedly in some kind of disreputable way.

I believe Margaret and Corey Houston are both relatives of Cliven.

I'm feeling a lot of love for Judge Gloria Navarro so far.

Apologize if this was answered already-I'm far behind on my TFB reading..but both of the women are Clivens sister. Margaret (the one "thrown to the ground") was going to testify about that incident,which happened days prior to the confrontation in the wash..the other woman was going to testify about Ammon being tapered, again days prior to the wash. Neither were allowed as the boys on trial were not even in the state when that happened and it has no bearing on what they are being charged with. Essentially the defense has a long list of people who want to testify about things that happened prior to these guys arriving in Bunkerville, and it's been found not relevant, and a tactic meant to confuse the jury.

[Plutodog]

[facebook]1018173541659562[/facebook]

[Sterngard Friegen]

The commentary is clueless, but there is a lot of good information from the three patriots talking heads.

I'm amused that they're outraged that the judge won't let their heroes put on whatever crap they want. The concept of "relevance" doesn't seem to have penetrated their thick skulls.

[DejaMoo]

The commentary is clueless, but there is a lot of good information from the three patriots talking heads.

I'm amused that they're outraged that the judge won't let their heroes put on whatever crap they want. The concept of "relevance" doesn't seem to have penetrated their thick skulls.

Ah, but you forget - they get to decide what is relevant, not the judge. They get to make the rules, or change other people's rules to suit themselves. No one's the boss of them; they're the bosses of everyone else. That's Freedumb!

[NMgirl]

Could someone post Lamb/Parker, etc., vids today? I'm in meetings most of the day. Thanks!

[Jeffrey]

It reminds me of that scene from Quills where they're trying to write down a book being dictated by the Marquis and transmitted via several lunatics.

[NMgirl]

First defense witness Lamb/Parker Lunch Update:

[Kendra]

First defense witness Lamb/Parker Lunch Update:

I can't wait to get home and listen.

[NMgirl]

H/t @ElaineSoCal

Free Range Report
3 hrs ·
Most of the prosecution's witnesses (federal agents) were allowed to be in the court room before they took the stand, but potential witnesses for the defense have been restricted from hearing the trial before taking the stand. The prosecution witnesses have spoken of their fear, and were even allowed to cry on the stand, but the defense witnesses were told they could not do or say anything that would make the jury feelbadly for them.

Harry Reid’s pet judge violates civil rights of Bundy Ranch defendants

FREERANGEREPORT.COM

I highlighted "badly" just because there has to be a grammatical error in every Poot report. It's a Poot law.

[NMgirl]

I've only viewed a bit of the lunch update video, and that was on my tiny phone screen. Gonna sound like a Poot here, but I think that shofar-blowing Brand Nu Thornton, who is anti-semitic and makes no bones about it, might be wearing a tallit. What.a.fuckwad.

Lamb says there may be as many as 10-12 defense witnesses. Monday they had one defense witness, i.e., Eric Parker. Pretty impressive work on the part of the defense attorneys to dig up that number of witnesses on such short notice.

Moar later, I hope.

[DejaMoo]

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 23h23 hours ago
Bundy went to court, argued his case & lost. The appropriate response would have been to appeal his case.

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 23h23 hours ago
Instead he hyped up 410 angry people and sent them into a wash to intimidate fed LEOs into releasing impounded cattle. Bundy's plan worked.

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 23h23 hours ago
It was a successful act of violent civil disobedience.
1) Bundy got his cattle released, and
2) it generated huge attention to his cause.

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 23h23 hours ago
Bundy convinced a lot of people to break laws on his behalf. Civil disobedience, whether peaceful or violent, has a trade off.

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 23h23 hours ago
The benefit: the release of the impounded cattle + attention for cause
The cost: those who participated by breaking the law can go to jail

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 22h22 hours ago
One day, maybe, supporters will take a critical look at what Bundy told them and realized they were used. Probably not, though.

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 22h22 hours ago
There's already some indication that Cliven Bundy will try to distance himself from what happened at the wash on 4/12/2014.

JJ MacNab‏Verified account @jjmacnab 22h22 hours ago
While he sent hundreds of angry men, women, and children to confront the feds that day, he stayed home.

[Sterngard Friegen]

And Cloven's brave gun slingers hid behind the skirts of the wimmen and children. (Well, the girl children.)

[Kendra]

I didn't pick up much of any interest in Lamb's lunchtime video, just one witness I've never heard of. Skippy has all kinds of outside the courthouse video from today on his FB page. https://www.facebook.com/jdspeece?fref=ts

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

H/t @ElaineSoCal

Free Range Report
3 hrs ·
Most of the prosecution's witnesses (federal agents) were allowed to be in the court room before they took the stand, but potential witnesses for the defense have been restricted from hearing the trial before taking the stand. The prosecution witnesses have spoken of their fear, and were even allowed to cry on the stand, but the defense witnesses were told they could not do or say anything that would make the jury feelbadly for them.

Harry Reid’s pet judge violates civil rights of Bundy Ranch defendants

FREERANGEREPORT.COM

I highlighted "badly" just because there has to be a grammatical error in every Poot report. It's a Poot law.

I think it is correct. It is an adverb. What say ye, grammarians?