Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 2800 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Jury refuses to convict in Bundy ranch standoff - Las Vegas Sun News

https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2017/aug/22/jury-refuses-to-convict-in-bundy-ranch-standoff/

Jury refuses to convict in Bundy ranch standoff

A federal jury in Las Vegas refused Tuesday to convict four accused gunman in a 2014 standoff with federal authorities near the Nevada ranch of states' rights figure Cliven Bundy.
In a verdict that delivered a stunning setback to federal prosecutors, the jury acquitted Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges against them.
Defendants Scott Drexler and Eric Parker were found not guilty of most charges against them. The jury did not reach verdicts on four charges against Parker and two charges against Drexler.
The results stunned a courtroom full of the defendants' supporters, many of whom broke into applause after Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ordered Lovelien and Stewart freed immediately.
The judge set a hearing Wednesday to decide whether to free Parker and Drexler pending a decision by prosecutors whether to try them for a third time.
Prosecutors said the men conspired with Bundy family members and wielded weapons to threaten the lives of federal agents enforcing lawful court orders to remove Bundy cattle from public land after he failed to pay grazing fees.
Each man standing trial in Las Vegas faced 10 charges including conspiracy, interstate travel in aid of extortion, weapon possession and assault and threatening a federal officer.
Combined, the counts carried the possibility of more than 100 years in federal prison.
The four were among 19 men arrested in early 2016, nearly two years after the confrontation near the rural town of Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
All 19 remained in federal custody, despite pleas from family members and attorneys for the release of those who have not been brought to trial. Bundy's attorney, Bret Whipple, notes that his client is now 71.
Bundy stopped paying grazing fees decades ago, saying he refused to recognize federal authority over public land where he said his family grazed cattle since before the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was created.
The dispute has roots a nearly half-century fight over public lands in Nevada and the West, where the federal government controls vast expanses of land.
Calls for action have grown louder and more frequent in recent years with internet bloggers protesting federal agency decisions to designate protected areas for endangered species and set aside tracts for mining, wind farms and natural gas exploration.
Prosecutors characterize the standoff as an armed uprising by self-styled militia members who answered a Bundy family call to take up arms to prevent the lawful enforcement of multiple court orders to remove Bundy cattle from what is now the Gold Butte National Monument.
Defense attorneys cast the tense standoff as an ultimately peaceful protest involving people upset about aggressive tactics used by federal land managers and contract cowboys.
They point to skirmishes days earlier involving armed federal agents using dogs and stun guns against Bundy family members; the closure of a vast range half the size of the state of Delaware to collect Bundy's cattle; and corrals set up as protest "First Amendment zone" protest areas for people.
A first trial earlier this year involved men who carried guns, but who prosecutors characterized as the least culpable of the co-defendants. It lasted two months and ended in April with a jury unable to reach verdicts for the four men, while finding two other defendants guilty of some charges.

22 comments:

  1. Nice to see citizens standing up to an out-of-control federal government - and getting their fellow citizens on juries to understand the matter with them.

    The federal government has attempted to become a purely nationalized government over some years now, with no constitutional controls on it. This tendency must not stand. A welcome outcome for these American citizens - and the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Government overreach is rampant. NONE of that land belongs to the federal government. It belongs to the state. Now if state legislators would just rise up and reclaim what rightfully belongs to the state, then none of this would have happened. For too long, state legislators have caved on the 10th amendment to the detrement of their state people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who was their attorney. Juries rarely like people who claim to be "attorneys in fact..!!! Or pro se..For some reason they are biased to patriots who refuse to be represented by a PD or a BAR attorney...!!.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ok. as it is, and should have been, a jury who actually may have listened. Wonderful news! (who cares about the set back for the prosecutors, awww, too bad.)
    This is a prefect example of how we have the number one ability to just segway, by this very example...in with the system, because 'it' isnt broke, well, they ARE, but you know what I mean. In their best fictitious actor capacity, they have and continue to abuse 'us' (the debt slaves, as the 'masters' they think they are). We've been too busy not paying attention, sidetracked with life, and all else that life gets in the way with. It's all designed this way.
    Let me introduce all to Paul J Hansen who is looking for jury/jurats,(a few good men and women, to help hold our own courts complete with judgments that are 'FAIR', 'JUST', and ' By and For the actual/real/hard working human of this LAND' and we can now do it all online...(wish I thought of this, kuddo's to Paul and his group) drop him an email. or better yet, listen to him on angela's last weeks call, talkshoe.(contact info there) We can hold our own courts,(Rod Class) We are our own Attorney in Fact... ONLINE! This is exactly what Anna, has been writing about over the last decade. Pretty nifty and directly inline with what we see occurring all around us. A big shift. Do you feel it? see it happening all around you? If we move with this 'digital shift', I mean really flow right with it and just establish a new government...I mean what better time? The seats are actually vacant anyway...get it? It's all happening for a reason. There are no coincidences, Out with the old and in with the new...us. "there's no place like home, there's no place like home" (that actually came at the end of the movie, wink, we're almost home) Let's write the next Land of Oz, only call it Land of us. Together we can do this, even if it's one court case at a time. Chaulk one more up for the good guys!!
    Rene' a tejas national, secured party, paramount to no other but one, without the united states and with the united States of America. God Blesses us all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. William Penn enprisoned for street preaching , British judge demanded conviction jury wouldn't convict . Jury's food and water cut off and jailed still no.our found father made note and judges could only hear cases under 50 dollars . They crept back in in a new procedure the arraignment were You Go Before A judge.No Trial By Jury Not Trial By judge. And if he talks to jury that's jury tampering actually he shouldn't be in the room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats right. I almost forgot how juries got their start. That incidence gave rise to Penn's famous quote..." I know not what others may do but for me, give me liberty or give me death" !!! It always takes men of courage to stand up to unjustice, even if it cost him his life. There is no one today with that kind of integrity and moral courage to stand up like that. In fact, just the opposite. Weak minded, uneducated, sports addicted, automatons that "FEAR" everyone and everything...!! Go along to get along...!!!

      Delete
  6. I take it the Bundy's got extremely lucky. But I'm under the impression that you must be under the right jurisdiction to argue a point regarding the rules ofthat jurisdiction. Example a man gets pulled over, he has yet to become a state National 100%...but starts telling the officer it's his right... Failing to understand that he is still about the U S. SHIP CITIZEN... NOT ON THE LAND... In other words it would be like getting arrested in Canada for possession of firearms.. and a person screaming ... It's my right.. I'm an American I have 2 nd amendment rights... And the mount... Going to laugh his ass off for you are on his ship..... So why do we have judges, like doucette try to do the same... Argue from wrong jurisdiction... Why was he in Oregon and Nevada? ... Why do people keep arguing from the wrong jurisdiction? It only hurts recruiting efforts to wake People up... Or am I missing something...? And a suggestion for Anna... Thanks for your work.. but if you added vlogs on YouTube would generate money, plus people watch videos before reading... Some are making 4k a month with smaller audiences... Check out homestead home with Doug and Stacy for example.... They do drawings etc... People click on you tube

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. its all about challenging subject matter jurisdiction FRCP 12(b) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 you are right on point. if you dont challenge it you lose it. subject matter jurisdiction is the only thing that can be challenged at any point in the case.

      also worth noting to challenge the constitutionality FRCP 5.1 early on too.

      Delete
    3. WONDERFUL NEWS. Now what about the Bundy's?

      Delete
    4. From Anna Von Reitz

      Dear Trident---


      The reason people argue from wrong jurisdiction is that they don't take the time to understand it. They are indoctrinated to believe that they world is organized the way they assume it is, and refuse to learn anything different. I told Bruce Doucette over and over and over --- to no avail. We even argued violently about it prior to his arrest. I tried everything short of hog-tying him and the others trying to keep them out of jail. Nobody listened.


      So, there's your answer. Even those who should know better, who have the information --- don't quite believe it and follow it.


      As for videos--- the only reason I would do it is to educate people and if I did it, I would want to do it right, with good quality production and time spent. There hasn't been the time, the money, or anything else to do videos. So I stick to what I do best--- and maybe some day the rest will fall into place.

      Delete
    5. I wouldnt have it any other way. This material is too important to put on a video. No one wants to read anymore and thats part of the problem. This is a law class, and this site represents our "text book" for the course. I grew up my entire life studying this way, because if i came across something i didnt understand i re-read it over and over until i got it. That simply isnt possible with a video. I guess no one went to school or read books. Everyone wants a simple way out and i wont change now. This generation is lazy. How can she relate the semantic deceite taking place without seeing it in print. Some things may be on video as just updates on current events, etc. But when it comes to the LAW it has to be in print. And you always have the option of printing it out, so instead of trying to find a certain article of importance, you can simply and quickly shuffle through all the paperwork at a glance...much easier. I know dome people are right brain dominite, and therefore more aptd to understand videos, but most of us need to see the written word. Most of the people i grew up with are to lazy or stupid to read anything but the sports page of the newspaper....sad..!!!!

      Delete
  7. So, this case should set a precedent in favor of those who stand against the tyranny of the BLM. Back them right the hell off back to the DC swamp they oozed out of.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Congratulations to the members of the jury !
    They obviously prefer facts over the fraudulent propaganda of the FBI/BLM/CIA/MSM.
    The accused should file charges against whichever organization filed the court case.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just read all of the above comments. Most of them don't make sense to me. Many read like they are written in a secret language and contain run on sentences which are hard to read. Folks should read what they write and edit themselves carefully.

    The average adult reads at the 9th-grade level and people like to read two levels below that. This accounts for the fact that the popular blockbuster novels are written at the 7th grade. The average newspaper is written at the 11th-grade level, the tolerable limit for a 9th-grade reader. I'm sorry. I had to say this. My educational level is 19, but I'm off my reading game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no thanks were just fine don't need your criticism .

      Delete
  10. Jury Nullification - I am so grateful that it appears to be alive and well here in America!
    Just in time to celebrate "Jury Rights Day":
    http://fija.org

    ReplyDelete
  11. In respond to what you said about being able to read, it is true thanks to our beloved governmental school system. But that's not the case here. what is the case is rather these fraudulent governmental Administration buildings that we call courts have jurisdiction over subject matter.

    .
    In matters involving Court appearances, hearings, etc., it has already been established that all judicial power is vested in one Court -- the Supreme Court, and to any Courts the Congress may from time to time, delegate such powers to, which is done with a "Delegation Of Authority Order (DOAO), and of course it is in written form.
    .
    There are three things placed before the Court
    as a matter of Protocol, prior to Adjudication.
    .
    1. Status: (i.e. your social standing in the community; are you a flesh and blood being - a Natural Person, or a Corporate Person, an artificial construct). 2. Jurisdiction / Venue: (i.e. where are you? is it a lawful Court Room or Tribunal?; does it have Personum jurisdiction? (jurisdiction over the person [back to status which determines that]); Is there jurisdiction over the Subject Matter(s)? Does this court have jurisdiciton over the Territory? Territorial Jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime or civil violaton occurred? and, do they (the court or any officers of the court) have the capacity to rule over such?

    .
    If you let them get pass on Status, and you let them pass on both Status and Jurisdiction / Venue, then the court moves to 3. Adjudication: (determination of penalties, punishment, sentencing, including court fees and fines).
    .
    When you are dealing with the "Courts", you must ask for their Delegation of Authority in written form to be placed on the record, for the record and entered into the record as evidence, as proof of their Authority. It is a tangible document, an 'Averment of Jurisdiction' and if they do not produce it, they don't have it, and technically the matter is closed. "Ask and you shall receive".
    .
    You can, and ought to "Ask" (and you must be answered) for their Delegation of Authority, particularly and especially in lieu of the fact that most of the Courts, or Tribunals you encounter are Ministerial, and/or Inferior, lacking jurisdiction and lacking Judicial Authority. As well, you ask for the Judge/Magistrates' "Oath of Office" (which indicates their agreement, responsibility, and obligation, taken under oath to support the Constituion, as the constitution is where their Authority is derived). As the Delegation of Aurthority is for alleged Court itself and the Oath of Office is for the Officers of the Court themselves, individuallly. If they give you the run around in regards to acquiring this Oath, because that is what they are doing, and it public information, so you can stop the chasing for it and ask for it in written form of course, as evidence that you asked and they did not provide it. You ask for it, and for the DOAO, in a "Writ of Discovery" (along with any other requests for information), or, you can ask for the DOAO independently. This request for the "Averment of Jurisdicton" has been updated and is the "Quo Warranto. An updated example is enclosed in the Word Document attached below, for your review, study, and application. Also, an example of a Writ In The Nature of Discovery" can be found on the "Writs of Freedom Page" on this site for your review and inner standing for when you wish to utilize it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh you can find more info here:
    http://www.rvbeypublications.com/id106.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is great news! Hope it's the beginning of many setbacks for the federal "government."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Most people going to court dont realize that all courts are "civil"(commercial) courts(FRCP 1). Its your first appearance , the arraignment, where the judge gets jurisdiction which magically turns the case to criminal. Thats because people do not realize that there are 2 things being addressed by the court not one...The first is the "LAW" and the most important, and the hardest on the court to prove. Once that is addressed, than the court can move to the secound part..."THE FACTS" which places the "person" in a very vunerable, and almost immpossible postion of trying to prove a negative. Your only chance of winning a case is to stop them at the first level. And it has to be done before you plead to the charges. Thats the reason for a "Demurrer" which is found at penal code 1003 , under pleadings. Its actually a pre- pleading defense that has to be in writting(unless your an attorney of course), that you can address all legal/lawful questions like the ones you brought up above, demanding an answer before the court can continue with a pleading.... like failure to state a claim for which relief cannot be given(FRCP12(b)6. And "Who is the REAL PARTY OF INTEREST in this case(FRCP17a). The nice thing about Demurrer is that it is not considered a "motion" like all the things you listed above, which can all be denied by the judge. A demurrer can only be answered by "Sustaining" it(and therefore case closed) or "Overuling" it(and he better have a damn good reason for overuling it right then and there and not giving some excuse like the court will take it under advisment or i will send you my answer to you by mail). Oh, hell no, you wont. Objection.!! If your going to overule it than you already know why you can overule it and i want an answer right now or im moving for dismissial immediately. Heres the real kicker though. Most judges and attorneys have forgotten or never studied or learned anything about a Demurrer and are simply answering questions or documents out of repetitive conditioning of constantly dealing with motion all day long. So when you bring up a Demurrer his knee jerk response will be an immediate..."Denied". Objection your honor. That is not a motion you can simply deny. It can only be "overuled" or "sustained" which you should already know, unless you are intentionally testing my knowledge of law, and trying to get away with fraud(they hate that word) or trying to get away with "obstuction of justice" using an answer to a Demurrer that you knew was wrong. Remember what you always tell us..."ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially from a judge(supposedly the professionals in law). If your not, then i suggest you step down from your position, because if you continue with this case and i catch you one more time in misrepresenting i require an answer to, it will be interpreted as an intensional "LIE".

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.