Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants?
HOW DEEP DOES THIS COVER-UP GO? WAS IT ALL FROM STEVEN MYHRE, OR WAS NAVARRO COMPLICIT?
By Shari Dovale
The recent mistrial in the case of US v CLIVEN D. BUNDY et al. Sets some issues on the table for Judge Gloria Navarro that she has avoided thus far.
The mistrial came on December 20th, weeks into the case that was the third try for the government. Prosecutors, including Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, AUSA Daniel Scheiss, AUSAA Nadia Ahmed, and AUSA Erin Creegan, have had extraordinary difficulty in getting juries to convict any of the 19 defendants.
There have been no convictions on the most serious charges of conspiracy, and the only convictions that have been handed down were admittedly based on the defendants statements after the fact, such as within the entrapment video by the FBI and there phony “Longbow Productions”.
The most significant achievements by the prosecution was the plea agreements that several of the defendants accepted, based on the false narrative the prosecution alleged. The men were told they would face a lifetime in prison, and they already knew that they would not receive a fair trial. They were bullied into accepting the plea agreements.
Yes, the defendants already knew they would not receive a fair trial. They had access to the discovery evidence and knew some of what had been left out They filed motions to get certain evidence placed into the record, yet Judge Gloria Navarro continued to rubber-stamp the prosecutions motions.
Navarro never seemed to consider that these men were innocent until proven guilty. The more she validated the prosecutions narrative, the more she denied the defendants their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. This should come as no surprise, however, considering she repeatedly refused to allowthe Constitution to be mentioned during the first two trials.
Things did change during the third trial, which brought Cliven Bundy to the defense table. The prosecution seemed to have lost their edge as the new team of defense lawyers, which includes a stellar performance by Ryan Bundy, challenged the rhetoric that Myhre and company continued ranting.
Evidence was finally allowed into the trial of the misdeeds of the government, and the prosecutions deliberate suppression of this evidence. Judge Navarro made it clear on December 20th that the Court, “does find that it was a willful disclosure/suppression of this potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information”.
Navarro finally came clean and smacked the prosecution for the “willful” Brady violations. This means that she recognizes that the Acting US Attorney for the entire District of Nevada, Steven Myhre, and his crew of miscreants, deliberately broke the law and tried to illegally railroad these men into prison for the rest of their life.
Still, Navarro has shown that she is not quite up to speed on the workings of the judicial system, a hard pill to swallow for a seated Chief Judge. She made a blanket declaration of a mistrial, instructing all parties to submit motions for and against a dismissal with prejudice, or whether the government should be allowed yet another bite at the proverbial apple.
What Navarro should have done is follow Rule 26.3 which states that “Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives.” Navarro bypassed this rule and did it her own way, which is exactly what the prosecutors have done all along, and she has allowed.
However, since the truth has begun to come out, Navarro has been put into a position to make some hard choices.
The original indictment was against 19 men. Some of these men have already been sentenced, such as Jerry DeLemus and Greg Burleson. If Navarro dismisses the case against the current defendants, will it include the dismissal for all 19 men?
The general consensus seems to be that this is the only ethical answer to the problem. The previous trials were conducted under the same false premise and Brady violations. The plea agreements were based on the defendants not being allowed a fair trial.
But, how deep does this cover-up go? Did Steven Myhre design this farce on his own? This might seem the obvious response, as the case being cited for Brady violations is US v Chapman, a case that Myhre was intimately involved in.
Still, we must ask the next questions: Was Navarro complicit? Were they taking their orders from a higher entity, possibly from Washington DC?
With the announced investigation by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I am sure these questions will be answered in the coming weeks. For now, the defendants will continue to fight for their freedom.
Defendants that are scheduled for sentencing are requesting delays, so as to see the outcome of the January 8th hearing. This include Pete Santilli and Todd Engel. The remaining defendants are showing patience through this hearing, wherein they will decide their next move.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.
You can donate HERE.