Corruption Continues in Upcoming Bundy Ranch Trial As Prosecution Asks Judge To Not Allow Defendants to Defend Themselves

by Tim Brown, Freedom Outpost:

The upcoming Bundy Ranch trial is already setting up as a display of the amount of corruption inside the federal court system.

The latest example of this corruption comes from Prosecutor Steven Myhre, who hasn't made his case twice and is attempting it a third time on two defendants, which seems so clear to me to be a violation of the Constitution's Double Jeopardy clause that Myhre should never be allowed to serve the people in any capacity ever again, along with Judge Gloria Navarro, who allowed it.

However, last week, Myhre submitted a twenty-six page request to the judge, which amounted to calling on the judge to suppress the defendants right to defend themselves.

According to the documents that were filed with the court, the prosecution wants to "preclude the defendants from:"

  1. addressing in voir dire, opening statement, or closing argument and/or
  2. adducing or eliciting during direct or cross-examination, an information or argument that: portrays or implies that the law enforcement officers acted unlawfully or unethically during impoundment operations; or that the actions of the defendants were justified by the US Constitution or other law.

So, the prosecution is basically saying, "Hey, we were right and they don't have a right to challenge our own usurpation of the clear wording of the US Constitution."  That is what Myhre is saying, you know?

Furthermore, Myhre wants to keep the jury in the dark about the unlawful, unethical and criminal activities of the central government, its agents and prosecutors who seek to defend them.  How, you might ask?

According to the documents, Myhre and company seek to "preclude evidence, information, commentary, beliefs, explanations, or opinions about the following:"

  • Self-Defense, defense of others, or defense of property, justification, necessity arguments which have no foundation in the law;
  • Third-party/ lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations, including operations on April 6, 9 and 12, 2014;
  • Opinions/public statements of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM impoundment operations.
  • Allegations of workplace misconduct by the SAC of the impoundment, or regarding those who worked for, or with, him.
  • Allegations that officers connected with the impoundment acted unethically or improperly by the way they were dressed or equipped during the impoundment, or that they improperly shredded documents during or after impoundment operations.
  • References to supposed mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operations;
  • Legal arguments, beliefs,  explanations, or opinions that the federal government does not own the land or have legal authority or jurisdiction over public lands where impoundment operations were conducted, or that the land was or is otherwise owned by the State of Nevada;
  • Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions regarding infringement on First and Second Amendment rights, including any effort to confuse the jury that there is some form of "journalist" or "protest" immunity for the crimes charged;
  • References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses;
  • References to the Oregon trial of United States v. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and Ryan Bundy, or the results in that trial;
  • References to the outcomes in the previous two trials in this case; and
  • Legal arguments, explanations, or opinions advancing defendants' views of the US Constitution, including claims that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior have no constitutional authority, that "natural law" or other authority permits the use of force against law enforcement officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that the US District Court for the District of Nevada has no jurisdiction or authority under the Constitution to order the removal of cattle from public lands.

Now, listen carefully.  Mr. Myhre doesn't want to deal with any of this because it would simply demonstrate the house of cards and lies that he and those like him have bought into regarding the central government's usurpation of the US Constitution since the time of Abraham Lincoln.  That is a fact!

He doesn't want legal arguments that point to the fact that the only way the central government may own land outside the 10 square miles in DC is by obtaining it from the states, through the state legislatures and for specific reasons.

Read More @ FreedomOutpost.com