No products in the cart.

News

Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights – Bunkerville Standoff Trial

By Shari Dovale and John Lamb


Todd Engel, of Boundary County, Idaho, is among those fighting for his life in a Federal Courtroom in Nevada.

Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights - Bunkerville Standoff Trial
Todd Engel (photo: Facebook)

Engel has been representing himself, and do very well by all accounts, in the Bunkerville Standoff Trial being held in Las Vegas. He is well spoken, articulate, and personable. His arguments are well thought out and relevant.

In describing the events on April 12, 2014, he told of how everyone thought it was over, and the cows were to be released. “It was festive. It was flags and cowboys,” said Engel in his opening statement. “It doesn’t get more down home than that.” But, they soon learned that it was not true. The FBI and The BLM were still there, threatening all the protesters.

Engel had decided to represent himself after his attorney, John George, showed less-than-professional representation. There are reports of this attorney actually falling asleep during court and walking out in the middle of proceedings.

During this week’s court proceedings, Engel cross examined an FBI agent. The prosecution objected to Engel’s questions over 50 times, yet, Todd did not allow himself to get flustered. Towards the end of his questioning, Engel asked, “Is it true that [Special Agent In Charge] Dan Love is under criminal investigation?”


The prosecution blew a gasket. All four prosecutors stood up yelling objections. They claim that Engel violated rules that prohibit the defense from discussing the criminal investigation of Love. All of this was stated in front of the jury.


Judge Gloria Navarro not only sustained their objections, but she took it a step further. Navarro told Engel that he had lost his privilege to self-representation and must now allow his standby attorney to handle all court business. Engel was no longer allowed to talk in her courtroom.

If this wasn’t bad enough, Navarro went even further on Thursday.

At the end of the day, Engel stood to make a plea to Judge Navarro. Contrite and soft spoken, he begged to be allowed to defend himself in this trial.

Attorney George was less than impressive throughout the day, spending only a few minutes on cross examination of witnesses. Engel states that George did not comply with any of his requests, and is not representing him well.

Judge Navarro berated Engel and said that he cannot tell his attorney how to defend him. “It is up to him. It is his discretion.”

Not only did Navarro deny his request, she laid out the only rights that she would allow him to have.

Navarro told Engel that she would decide if he would be given the privilege of delivering his own closing arguments, and that would be based on her interpretation of his behavior and attitude through the rest of the trial.

Then, she went on to tell him that, “You, as a defendant, have only THREE rights.”

:She said that he had the right to:

      1. Plead Guilty
      2. Testify on his own behalf
      3. Appeal his conviction

That’s it. Three rights is all he is allowed, by Navarro’s royal decree.

This same judge has banned the US Constitution in her courtroom.

Navarro refused to let him speak after this. She said that she would not listen to anything from him again, and he was not to address her again.

As soon as she finished chastising him, and stripping him of all of his God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, she adjourned the court. I am told that this was all said on the record.

These men have been incarcerated for a year or more. They have been denied bail. They have been denied a speedy trial. They have been denied the right to face their accuser (Dan Love). And so much more.

They are being denied all protections under the US Constitution by this Federal Judge.

Where is the law of the land? It is not in Las Vegas, Nevada.

 

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


 
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

0

nancy.larned

Oath Keepers Merchandise

14 comments

  1. Looks to me that the Judge is setting up pretty good grounds for having the case overturned on appeal. Also don’t understand why the question as to the Agent being under investigation was not alowed. It clearly goes toward demonstrating lack of credibility of the witness.

  2. for the love of god, DISBAR THIS RAGING THUNDER OF THE NEW WAVE OF FEMINISM.

    she, as a judge, should have studied law, and know the rights this man has, INCLUDING self representation, she does NOT have to power to bar the constitution from her courtroom or remove his right to self represent. i would appeal the courts decision and treat it as a mistrial due to the judge alone.

    and on top of that, the agent in question for investigation is an entirely relevant question because it brings to light the fact that he is not as infallible as the prosecution wants the jury to believe.

    1. Rights are not taught in college (and rarely elsewhere), and mostly “color of law” being taught as “law”. Precedents (judge’s Opinions) are the “supreme law” instead of the document that they are not only Oath bound to, but is the source of the authority they are ALLOWED to use, and the contract that they agree to conduct their actions by while serving – and this is contract is in writing.

      Basically they are running the US Courts as if they were a foreign nations courts, … or maybe a NWO court.

      But we allow it to go on even when we know what they are doing is treason, let alone breaking our Laws.

    1. you are so right ! but will he keep his oath to the u.s. constitution ? I agree with Stewart Rhodes about the fourth amendment.People have the fourth amendment blindness they can`t see it, I sent A message to MR. sessions about this ,do not commit treason !at http://www.justice .gov it seems like this disease is spreading like wild fire !through out all the amendments whats next ,The Declaration of Independence & the U.S. Constitution ? ps GOD BLESS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS & FRANCES MARION (THE SWAMP FOX).

  3. I am truly having great difficulty mentally and emotionally processing what is happening in this country today. I’m in shock and sick to my stomach. I’m just wondering when and what the catalylst “heard around the world” will be. We seem to be teetering on the brink.

    1. I’ve sat on a few juries! And i found it to be Really Odd how Judges Operate the Court room’s! In two Different States! It seems that the Robe Makes them a god! For the Most part! I heard judges tell people to Shut up i do not want to hear what you have to say! Appointed Judges have only one Thing to Serve and that is The Government! Very few will defend the Constitution! To which they took an oath to up hold! And defend the Average Persons rights! This Judge is Apparently one of those judges! That put her self above The Constitution and the rights of others! I have said many times that the biggest problem in this Country is The Judge’s sitting on the Bench in the last 40-50 years! They have taken away most peoples rights! They have Signed unto the Police state Agenda! Along with the Government that they know what is best for The American people to regulate their life! Just look around at all the laws passed in the last 50 years to control mans life! And to protect yourself from you! I could go on about this !! I think most people with an ounce of brains know what i’m saying!

  4. The Constitution is the LAW of the LAND–However the corruption of the “progressive sophistry” which has pervaded and perverted our nation has ASSUMED predominance due to the appointments of individuals such as our former presidents who had NO respect for the LAW of the LAND.

    Before one PIGEONHOLES one defending the CONSTITUTION, then-Senator Barry Goldwater, a STATESMAN, not a POLITICIAN, stated it best when he said that he defended the RIGHT of those with whom he disagreed completely IN ORDER TO PROTECT his own rights! The CONSTITUTION applies to US ALL and MUST be ENFORCED without regard to their position–THIS JUDGE MUST BE REMOVED as she has VIOLATED the LAW of the LAND.

  5. If anyone in the office of the President of the United States of America, searching references to President Donald Trump reads this. Please pass on our humble plea to intervene on behalf of the Bundy’s & their supporters as well as those involved in Oregon~

  6. BAR attorneys,Bar judges we can’t have non-BAR citizens representing themselves in a BAR courtroom can we?Common denominator here is?

  7. Sessions needs to put a stop to this farce, and end these prosecutions. If he doesn’t, then Trump will lose the trust and support of millions of American patriots. Free Todd Engel! Hell, free all the defendants! End these prosecutions.

    If Obama can pardon cop killing terrorists and drug dealers, then Trump nad Sessions can put a stop to these “lawfare” revenge prosecutions by leftists looking for their pound of flesh out of the Bundy’s and their supporters.

Comments are closed.