After Prosecution "Missteps" in Bundy Trial, is it All Over? - Jury Sent Home, Will Be Called Back "If They Are Needed" - The Washington Standard

[raykeller]

http://thewashingtonstandard.com/prosecution-missteps-bundy-trial-jury-sent-home-will-called-back-needed/

After Prosecution "Missteps" in Bundy Trial, is it All Over? - Jury Sent
Home, Will Be Called Back "If They Are Needed"
Tim Brown / December 13, 2017 / 174
On Monday, reports of prosecutor misconduct emerged in the Bundy Ranch
trials, but you probably didn't hear that in the mainstream media nor much
of the alternative media.
I had been on vacation and was very limited in what I was able to write on
during that time, but having come back, I've seen some of the reports,
mainly from Shari Dovale at Redoubt News, who has been keeping the public
informed, along with a few others of what is taking place in Nevada at what
has been deemed "The Trial of the Century.

First, let me allow Terry Noonkester to update you on the misconduct aspect
in the case by the prosecution and we'll move on to whether this may result
in the end of the trial.

Prosecutorial misconduct has affected the USA v Cliven Bundy trials in Las
Vegas in regards to pretrial detention, convictions, plea agreements, and
sentencing. Just within the first few weeks of the Tier I group trial, there
is evidence that the prosecution has used false information to keep the
defendants incarcerated. Other evidence proves the Bundy's and militia
leaders did not make false statements to incite the protest, possibly
eliminating at least one of the criminal charges. Due to the serious affect
of the mishandling of evidence by the prosecution, the defense attorney's
continued to make motions for a mistrial and dismissal of the case.

The prosecutions misrepresentation's and withholding of evidence may have
started by influencing the grand jury to indict on a total of sixteen
charges. Misrepresentation at the grand jury level could possibly void the
basis of even plea agreements accepted by some Bundy Ranch Protest
defendants. If a criminal charge is proven to be based on false government
claims, can the government continue to enforce that charge in a plea
agreement? According to contract law, an agreement based on false
information is not binding nor enforceable.

There has also been extreme pressure applied to the defendants to accept
plea agreements. Historically, prosecutors across the country gained
leverage when bargaining with defendants after the passage of the Bail
Reform Acts of 1964 and 1984. These acts allowed federal judges to deny
bail to defendants when they were indicted for noncapital cases.

The USA v Bundy case was defined by the court as a 'complex case' giving
the prosecution up to five years to complete the trials and still conform
with the speedy trial requirements. Pre-trial detention of such great
duration fosters desperation in the defendants, causing many to buckle under
the pressure when a plea bargain is offered.

Noonkester then listed those in the Bundy shakedown who have accepted plea
bargains, many of which have families and believed they were facing such a
corrupt system that their chances of having a fair trial in light of facing
most, if not all, of their life in prison seemed reasonable. Others were
convicted, but their convictions should be called into question considering
the obvious suppression of evidence by the prosecution that came out in the
latest trial.

Noonkester comments, "As the third trial proceeds, more is revealed about
government overreach and prosecutorial misconduct. Greg Burleson's and Todd
Engel's convictions must be questioned in light of all the evidence withheld
in their trial. Plea deals need to be reevaluated to make sure that these
men haven't pled guilty to a criminal charge that will later found to be
fabricated by the government."

"The author and member of Ammon Bundy's defense team, Roger Roots, describes
the condition of the federal criminal justice system aptly in his book "The
Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts," Noonkester
added. "Ammon Bundy's attorney, Morgan Philpot, and his team are relying on
donations at AmmonBundyDefense.com."

So, is this impacting the trial? Has it merely brought it to a standstill
or are we about to see a mistrial declared or possibility a dropping of the
charges?

Shari Dovale reported on Monday that Judge Gloria Navarro said, "The jury
won't be called back before [December 20th], if they are needed."

If needed? Aren't they a part of the very court that is weighing the
evidence here? Perhaps the government's leniency in the matter of releasing
the defendants in the case during trial is only a sign of what's to come in
hopes that they can make all this go away quietly because they know they
have wasted millions of dollars, violated the rights of the people and lied
to the American public about what was all going on.

However, Dovale reported:

Judge Navarro discussed in open court the numerous violations made by the
prosecution and the agents of the BLM and FBI in relation to this case.

Multiple Brady violations topped the list, with many exculpatory items not
being turned over to the defense teams. Items such as the Threat Assessment
reports, names of potential witnesses, reports from the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) reprimanding the BLM for not enforcing the court
orders for years, and many more.

There are at least seven Brady violations the judge referred to in court
today. Additionally, there were violations of evidence not being turned over
in a timely manner, which are referred to as 'Giglio' violations, pointing
to the court decisions of Giglio v. United States .

After the jury was sent home, the courtroom was cleared of spectators so
the principle players could immediately go into another of the now infamous
super-secret sealed hearings.

This court trial has become known for their overuse of the sealed hearing
rules. A majority of the evidence has been sealed from the public view,
bringing questions as to why the government is hiding so much information
from the citizens. Our Constitution guarantees public trials, yet the
government does not hold themselves accountable to the US Constitution, as
their representative so testified.

So, as it stands now, it would appear the government is in the hot seat, but
keep in mind that the government is acting as both plaintiff and prosecutor
with a judge rooster guarding the hen house, but how long will they be able
to maintain the charade here, or are they actually waking up to the fact
that there was no crime actually committed here except on the government's
behalf?

[Steve from Colorado]

On 12/13/2017 02:12 PM, raykeller wrote:
> http://thewashingtonstandard.com/prosecution-missteps-bundy-trial-jury-sent-home-will-called-back-needed/
>
> After Prosecution "Missteps" in Bundy Trial, is it All Over? - Jury Sent
> Home, Will Be Called Back "If They Are Needed"
> Tim Brown / December 13, 2017 / 174
> On Monday, reports of prosecutor misconduct emerged in the Bundy Ranch
> trials, but you probably didn't hear that in the mainstream media nor much
> of the alternative media.

Thanks for posting this. It seems that the MSM has ignored this trial,
just like they seem to have shut down all mention of the shooting in Las
Vegas a couple of weeks ago. You're performing a public service by
keeping people informed on the Bundy Trial.

--
That which men capable of independent thought understood intellectually
decades ago, men less so well endowed, finally, understand viscerally.
They have woken up and smelled the agenda: the ship of state has an
iceberg embedded in her hull; and it is Political Correctness, or
Cultural-Marxism, which put it there.


http://www.globalgulag.us