No products in the cart.


The House Does Not Lose In Las Vegas – Bunkerville Trial

The House Does Not Lose In Las Vegas

By Loren Edward Pearce

In Las Vegas, Sin City, it is known that the house never loses.  Likewise, at the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada the federal team, consisting of the judge, the prosecutors and the marshals, will not lose in their own house.  The statistics are clearly in favor of the house.  Between guilty pleas and trials, the conviction rate was 99.8% in U.S. federal courts in 2015: 126,802 convictions and 258 acquittals. That wasn’t an anomaly. In 2014 the conviction rate was 99.76% and in 2013 it was 99.75%.

That is why the full acquittal in the Oregon trial of the Bundys et al, is such a miracle.  Now, in Nevada, we have an entirely different situation as the federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals) double down in a determined effort not to repeat the loss in their own house.  Kelli Stewart, who attended most of the trial in Oregon, was able to see the contrast between the two federal District Courts.  Stewart, who came all the way from Washington to attend court and see/hear/smell/sense for herself how awful Nevada court is, was able to confirm what she had heard from others.  I was in Las Vegas also and it was refreshing to have Kelli confirm what we were experiencing, i.e., that the behavior of the Nevada federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals) was abysmally awful.

I was there also.  I can vouch for and confirm what she is describing.   As noted in previous articles, the bias and incompetence of Gloria Navarro are breathtaking.  We cannot shrug it off because of the mind boggling consequences to the defendants, many years of prison, sexual abuse, solitary confinement and separation from family and means of earning a livelihood.


1.     Referring to Prosecutor Nicholas Dickinson, Stewart describes his sinister, malevolent and smug mannerisms and behavior as he cross examined defendant Eric Parker on the witness stand.  It almost seemed that Dickinson slithered rather than walked around the courtroom.  As he presented government evidence with photos and video, dozens and dozens of times he would say, “that is you with the long rifle, the vest with the metal plates and the hat with the white logo?”  And dozens and dozens of times, Eric would say respectfully, “yes sir”.  Finally, in frustration, Eric said, “yes sir, I never changed my clothes until that night.”   What Dickinson was trying to achieve, I don’t know, but Peewee Herman weirdness, it was.

2.     As we returned from a break, a supporter of the defendants was beginning to take a seat when a marshal screamed at him that he didn’t have his pocket constitution turned the right way.  The man acted confused and before he could get clarification, a marshal grabbed him by the arm and ejected him from the court.  The marshals demand that the front cover of the pocket constitution not be shown but must be turned around and face backwards.   If there is any doubt that this court is their house, the marshals confirmed it was.

3.     The prosecution presented evidence that Eric Parker was associated with the Idaho 3% militia in an attempt to show the jury that anybody that is associated with a militia is a bad guy.  Regardless of the fact that a civilian militia is mentioned three times in the constitution, the federal team would have you believe that a militia is bad.


4.     For me, the most shocking development of the trial was the federal team’s use of Facebook posts against the defendants.  The defense attorney’s objected on the basis of authenticity.  Other people can post, tag, like, share or fraudulently post in your name (identity theft) and you are guilty of conspiracy against the federal team and subject to harsh penalties and years of prison if you post something (or somebody posts for you) that the government doesn’t like.  1st Amendment right to free speech?  No mention of the 1st Amendment in front of the jury was allowed.   The defense also objected on hearsay and almost all defense objections were denied by the federal team in their own house.

5.     Dickinson tried to use Facebook posts from Parker that referred to having won against the feds as a show of conspiracy and Facebook quotes from “Art of War” by Sun Tzu as evidence that Parker conspired to war against the feds.  Parker responded that he was debating with another Facebook user about “Art of War” and not conspiring to war against the feds.  Again, the lengths the federal team was willing to go to not lose in their own house.  The feds had pulled off the internet reams of posts, emails and other private matters in violation of the 1st and 4th amendments.

6.     The prosecution showed quotes from Parker that had to do with Range War.  Parker explained that the word “war” does not refer to violence or blood shed any more than the War on Poverty, or the War on Obesity refers to violence.    The prosecution tried to use a video interview with Parker on the bridge where he asked for a “show of force” as further evidence that he was inciting violence against federal officials.  Parker replied that he wanted a show of force in terms of numbers, strength in numbers, not in the use of firearms or weapons.


7.     At one point, the prosecution raised the subject of Margaret Houston, the woman who was body slammed by the BLM agent, and the defense claimed that the prosecution had opened the door to having Houston testify.  The federal team (Navarro) sustained their own objection and refused to allow Houston to testify as her testimony would be very harmful to the federal team’s goal to not lose in their own house.

8.     As you may know, Special Agent Dan Love, who was in charge of the Bunkerville operation, was prohibited from testifying by the federal team (Navarro) so as to not lose in their own house.

Stewart said that we need to prepare the defendant supporters, emotionally and psychologically, for a guilty verdict absent divine intervention.  As she notes in her video, the defense attorneys have basically given up, are ineffective and defeated as they realize it is impossible to win in the house of the federal team.

The problem is this,  losing is not an option for the defense.  Having visited some of the unconvicted prisoners in the Nevada prison, I can say that the degree of suffering and depression experienced by the prisoners is beyond comprehension.

I am writing this article in a local McDonald’s.  I just overheard one of the customers say, “Are you ready for Easter?”  as the average American, oblivious to these atrocities, goes about their lives.


Put yourself in the prisoner’s place.  What would you do?

From Redoubt News





  1. The effort to appoint the defendants as violent people is in contrast to the real violent people called “government.” The same ones who show up armed with full auto weapons and battle rattle. The ones who open fire on moving vehicles on lonely highways.

  2. If there was ever a good reason for the overthrow of tyranny by the people, this is it. Hard to believe this is happening in the U.S.A. Nevada instead of California? Hmm.

  3. What it comes down to is are we under the US Constitution or not? Because Judge Navarro is Oath bound to the US Constitution, and her position is the result of the US Constitution – all governmental positions are. If there is NO US Constitution, if Judge Navarro is not under it as her contract (states have the US Constitution as their compact, but those that serve within our government – it is their supreme CONTRACT that comes before all other contracts, before any orders of “superiors” and before the duties of the governmental position they occupy – then she is NOT a judge, she is just a person. Those “Marshalls” that followed her orders in the court are not law enforcement but armed people, armed thugs forcing the will of a person they consider their boss, terrorists under any definition.

    No US Constitution then we have no real government, just thugs pretending and using force which is *Terrorism. I am not the only one who says this is so.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.”

    North Carolina Supreme Court decision: “But that it was clear that no act they could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.” Bayard v. Singleton [1 N.C. 42] 1787

    Gov. Samuel Johnston, North Carolina Ratifying Convention of the U.S. Constitution (1788): “When Congress makes a law in virtue of their constitutional authority, it will be an actual law. I do not know a more expressive or a better way of representing the idea by words. Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void. I am at a loss to know what he means by saying the laws of the Union will be unalterable. Are laws as immutable as constitutions? Can any thing be more absurd than assimilating the one to the other? The idea is not warranted by the Constitution, nor consistent with reason.”

    What must be done? We must insist that those who serve within our governments KEEP their Oath and contract or charge them with the crimes they committed. Some of those who serve within our governments have committed crimes so heinous that they must be charged without the option of keeping the contract that they serve under.

    It is important to remember that the “power” that those who serve within our governments use is NOT their power, but is the power that was assigned to the branch or to the named-in-writing office within a branch. Those that serve are ALLOWED to use that authority, that “power” only as long as they keep the contract and take and KEEP the Oath. That the US Constitution IS the supreme LAW of this land, and as a LAW can be charges can be brought beyond that of contract law (which is more generic), and other laws that would apply. As a nation of Law, and that our governments, our supreme and highest Laws are put into writing so there can be NO CONFUSION about what is allowed/required, and that which is forbidden to those that serve.

    Judges can be removed from office in two ways, one is impeachment, and the other is for NOT using Good Behaviour. Good Behavior is doing the duties assigned by the Constitution(s), taking and KEEPING the Oath. Just because Judge Navarro herself “removed the US Constitution from the courtroom” does not mean that it is not there, but that she is a criminal. She has committed at least one felony, and the crime of Perjury, plus other crimes. She has also committed much to get her impeached but those that serve within our governments are too corrupt themselves to do the duty and also MUST be replaced.

    I recommend, and would be interested in Dr. Vieiras opinion on, starting with charges against “Judge” Navarro. If we are to keep OUR Oath, we must follow the US Constitution and it and the framers required us to bring charges where crimes are committed. Not to take matters into our own hands, but to REQUIRE that those that serve within our governments KEEP their Oaths or be charged with at least one felony and Perjury, removed and replaced.

  4. I’m praying for a miracle……and “may the Lord rebuke them”. They may not be just but God IS.

  5. From a commenter above, this is the course of action Americans must take:

    (quote): “…starting with charges against “Judge” Navarro. If we are to keep OUR Oath, we must follow the US Constitution and it and the framers required us to bring charges where crimes are committed. Not to take matters into our own hands, but to REQUIRE that those that serve within our governments KEEP their Oaths or be charged with at least one felony and Perjury, removed and replaced…” (end quote)

Comments are closed.