No products in the cart.


Judge Takes Over Prosecution In Bunkerville Retrial

by Shari Dovale

Judge Gloria Navarro has made new rules for her courtroom that (I would bet) stun even the prosecution.

Last week, Judge Navarro shocked the courtroom with her manipulation of jury selection in the Bunkerville retrial in Las Vegas, Nevada. She refused to allow the defense to have their allotted peremptory challenges and selected the jury for them.

She also ruled against the defense on every single pre-trial motion, including shutting down their defense strategy. Things that were allowed in the previous trial will not be allowed in this trial. The defendants will not be allowed to explain why they went to Bunkerville, nor will they be allowed to say the words “First Amendment”, “Second Amendment” or “Constitution”.

Today, during the questioning of the first witness of [then Under-sheriff] Lombardo, Judge Navarro’s control issues took a very bizarre twist.

During the re-direct testimony of Lombardo, the prosecution, reminding him of being questioned about accidental discharge of weapons, asked the witness what factors he was concerned about during the incident on April 14, 2014.

Lombardo responded that he was concerned for officer safety, the safety of the Nevada Highway patrol and also that of the BLM, if there had been a firefight.

Navarro decided, after this questioning was completed, to finish the prosecution’s examination of the witness, eliciting more testimony for the government’s case. She obviously felt that the prosecution did not phrase their questions the way she preferred and asked the witness, since he was asked about ‘accidental discharge’ was he ever concerned with ‘intentional’ discharge?

Of course, his answer was “Yes”.

But, this was not where Judge Navarro stopped. She continued to take over the questioning of the witness by asking the jury to write their own questions and submit them for her to ask Lombardo.

It is not unheard of to have a jury submit questions in lower courts, but it is highly unusual in Federal court. However, asking questions would be one point to discuss, but Judge Navarro took it even further by controlling those questions and answers herself. She read them herself and then decided what answers would be given to the jury.

The jury had many questions, including some that referenced the previous trial. Navarro did not allow much discussion on those questions, basically telling the jury that “there are different hearings in criminal cases with multiple testimonies” and she wanted to leave it at that.

The jurors also asked about the BLM’s prior operation, was the plan to release the cattle or to ship them out of the area? Navarro would not allow an answer for that, stating that this particular witness could not testify to that. However, the jury might get that answer at a later time.

One juror wanted to know if Lombardo knew if everyone’s firearms were “loaded”, and another wanted the definition of “cease and desist”.

This is highly unusual conduct in a criminal case. The judge has turned this entire case into a circus. The defense has been instructed that they cannot present their defense, and the judge has taken over the prosecution’s case. Everyone might just as well go home.

What can possibly happen tomorrow?

Redoubt News, plus video here:

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.





  1. Is Sessions in session??? Talk about AWOL…maybe I’m asleep at the protocol switch, but there is something very, very wrong here. What in the hell are we doing?

  2. Of couse we will do nothing in support of due process.
    We will do nothing in support of these American citizens.
    We will do nothing about this overreaching elitist puppet.

    We dont have great leaders because they cant count on
    our support, when they stand to fight, the supporters scatter
    at the first sign of resistance. I am not talking about politicians
    as any type of leader nor am I stating that any of the people
    on trial are great leaders. I am not a leader but willing to do
    What I can.

    1. @Pistolpete or whoever, I am a Christian, I used ride motor cycles, Harley’s particularly were my favorite, probably due too the Hells Angeles movies an such that I used to watch back in the sixties. I wanted to be a biker. Well I am an old guy now would love to go riding with my son, but my body won’t let me any more. I do not want to be a part of the out law biker clubs neither. But my point would be, that I have kept up with the goings on of Sonny Barger over the yrs. and he as probably most of you know became the undisputed leader of the H.A.M.C. one of the reason that Barger became so popular was that when the fun ended and a brother was in trouble, the guys would split and go their way. Barger was NOT a fan for this. He was more of a one for all and all for one kind a guy and that got other bikers attention and history is history. The club is still around and global and Sonny is the leader that pulled it off. I probably would not put him in the same ranks as George Washington, but the guy knew naturally how to lead. I’ll leave it at that.

  3. Where is the ACLU? Why are they not intervening–after all, if Judge Navarro can set a precedent like this for this trial, then the same will be used in the future, it’s just a matter of time.

    This feels like living in a nightmare, and I can’t even imagine what the men undergoing this charade called a trial, must be feeling right now. There’s no possibility that a fair trial will be forthcoming if this continues. What can we do to stop this from happening?

  4. ” . . . if Judge Navarro can set a precedent like this for this trial, . . . ”
    One of the key players in the aftermath of the Madisonville Hoax that took place in April of 2010 was charged with “intent to commit a disturbance”. This was an old Vietnam era “law” that was never used at that time. He was convicted without testimony on his behalf and the charge “enhanced” after the conviction with the addition of, “with a firearm”. He was sentenced to four years in federal prison, which he served. His public defender spent several months preparing and eventually submitting the appeal which was never acted on, thus establishing being charged with a “thought crime” as precedent.
    This trial is following that pattern but there seems to be so much misconduct on the part of the judge that a mistrial could be called, but certainly any outcome could be challenged on appeal, and should be.

Comments are closed.