Bunkerville defendant kicked off the witness stand by judge for, well, defending himself

First Amendment area cordoned off by BLM.

The judge in the trial of four defendants in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff with BLM agents attempting to confiscate rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle has made it clear she will not allow a defense based on First or Second Amendment rights or claims that BLM misbehavior provoked the protest.

On Thursday she cut short the testimony of defendant Eric Parker after he tried to mention in his defense testimony a “First Amendment area” the BLM had set up to isolate protesters — an area that Gov. Brian Sandoval said “tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution” — and attempted to mention where a BLM sniper was positioned.

BLM snipers?

The judge told Parker to step down without completing his testimony.  Reportedly there will be no cross examination and no jury questions.

Now, if Parker can’t even mention the First or Second Amendment, can he mention the Sixth?

You know, the one that guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, rather than one that takes place a year and a half after an arrest; the one that guarantees an impartial jury, rather than one stacked by the prosecution to remove anyone who has ever even heard the phrase “jury nullification”; the one that guarantees the right to obtain witnesses in his favor, rather than having witnesses testify without the jury present, as happened earlier in the week.

This is the text of the Sixth Amendment:

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.

No need to mention the Eighth’s prohibition against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment, nor the Fifth’s double jeopardy clause since the first trial ended in a hung jury, probably due to all that nonsense about constitutional rights to free speech, assembly and bearing arms that this jury will not hear.

Protesters outside courthouse. (R-J pix)



32 comments on “Bunkerville defendant kicked off the witness stand by judge for, well, defending himself

  1. Steve says:

    This might not play well with a jury, even one as stacked as they tried to get.

  2. Athos says:

    Jury nullification anyone?
    This is been a circus from the start.

  3. deleted says:

    I’m left wondering why, with Sessions as gung-ho as he says he is about using civil forfeiture as a remedy, why the Bundys property has not been seized?

    Clearly the government has more than enough evidence that he operated a criminal enterprise and his assets were obtained as a result of that conduct.

  4. Stoner says:

    The Sessions is an ass.

  5. Rincon says:

    Interesting observation, deleted. Maybe the government is treating the Bundys with kid gloves 🙂

  6. Deleted says:

    Some of us are apparently more equal than others Rincon.

  7. Rincon says:

    Speaking of right wing outlaws, seems to me that many here were pretty vocal about the recent U of C Berkeley violence. The silence here regarding the Charlottesville terrorist attack is deafening. I looked up right wing terrorism and left wing terrorism separately in Wikipedia.

    Regarding left wing terror: “After 1985, following the dismantling of both groups, one source reports there were no confirmed acts of left-wing terrorism by similar groups.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#United_States

    Regarding right wing terror: “As of June 2015, right-wing attacks since the September 11 attacks (9/11) had claimed more lives (48) than attacks committed by jihadists (26).[38] Thereafter, jihadist terrorist attacks (the 2015 San Bernardino attack and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting) raised the Islamic extremist death toll above that caused by right-wing extremists. As of July 2016, the New America Foundation placed the number killed in terrorist attacks in the U.S. (since 9/11) as follows: 94 killed in jihadist terrorist attacks, 50 killed in far-right attacks, and 5 killed in far-left attacks.[39]

    New America’s tally shows 21 instances of right-wing terrorist attacks causing 53 fatalities since September 11, 2001. These were:[39]

    The 2017 Portland train attack (2 killed),
    The 2017 stabbing of Timothy Caughman in New York City (1 killed),
    The 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting (3 killed),
    The 2015 Charleston church shooting (9 killed),
    The 2014 ambush attack on Las Vegas police officers (5 killed),
    The 2014 Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting in Kansas (3 killed),
    The 2014 Pennsylvania State Police barracks attack in Blooming Grove, Pennsylvania (1 killed),
    A 2012 tri-state killing spree by white supremacists, David Pedersen and Holly Grigsby (4 killed),
    A 2012 ambush of St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana police (2 killed),
    The 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (6 killed),
    The 2011 FEAR group attacks (3 killed),
    A murder in 2010 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania (1 killed),
    A 2010 suicide attack by airplane in Austin, Texas (1 killed),
    The 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers (3 killed),
    The 2009 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting (1 killed),
    The 2009 assassination of George Tiller (1 killed),
    The 2009 murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores in Pima County, Arizona (2 killed),
    The 2009 murders in Brockton, Massachusetts (2 killed),
    The 2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting (2 killed),
    And the 2004 bank robbery in Tulsa, Oklahoma (1 killed).

    Other recent events include:

    The 2017 Transylvania University stabbing[40] (0 killed),
    The 2016 Comet Ping Pong shooting (0 killed).
    The 2017 murder by driving a car into counter-protestors there to protest against the alt-right in Charlottesville, Virginia (1 killed).

    According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right wing extremists groups.[41][42]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_States

    I guess who’s right or wrong is open to debate, but the left wingers certainly have the moral high ground. Conservatives should consider cleaning up their rhetoric.

  8. Steve says:

    ANTIFA, BLM. So far all seems ok….

  9. Steve says:

    oop, spoke too soon…kinda like rincon with the copy paste effort.


    “I thought we were being alarmist,” Sutherlin said with a chuckle when I called him at his home outside Bloomington, “but it turns out things were way worse than even we imagined.” He’s no longer on parole and has been lying low, taking care of his six-year-old son and going to anti-Trump rallies but avoiding more militant activism. Since the election, he said, he’d also heard from people who were inspired by his example and seeking his advice. One was a childhood friend, a “gun-loving backwoods survivalist” who had never been political until Trump was elected but recently bought more weapons and talked about defending himself against the radical right wing. “I think a lot of people are now realizing that you can’t be neutral,” Sutherlin said. “A lot of people are suddenly realizing you have to pick a side and go to war.”

  10. “The left wingers certainly have the moral high ground.” Seriously? Obviously you haven’t seen the videos of the Berkeley radical leftists beating and kicking a man on the ground while the police stand ten feet away…ordered to “stand down” by the Mayor and Police Chief (which is what happened again in Charlottesville). Also…the listed right wing terrorist incidences are inflated with bogus numbers. Example…”The 2014 ambush attack on Las Vegas police officers (5 killed)”…this number includes the deaths of the perpetrators! They killed 3 innocent people, before the police killed them (the female reportedly shot herself rather than being taken into custody). One more example…”A 2012 tri-state killing spree by white supremacists, David Pedersen and Holly Grigsby (4 killed), which fails to mention that the first two victims were Pedersen’s father and stepmother. My point is this…there are radical, violent, and in some cases severely mentally deranged psychopaths on the extreme fringes of both ends of the political spectrum…they are facists, and don’t represent the mainstream of either side. But for three days now the leg humping, lazy lamestream media would have you believe that the white supremacist perpetrator who drove the car into the crowd was a main stream Trump supporter…which is complete and utter balderdash. The police again sat on their thumbs and did nothing to stop the escalating violence…and there were far more Antifa facists wielding baseball bats and clubs than the despicable fascist white supremist contingency…but you would never know this if all you listened to was the “drive by” mainstream media outlets! When a female reporter from the NY Times tweets about the violent actions of the fascist leftists…you know something is askew!


  11. Oh…and he who must not be named, the Feds did try civil forfeiture. They paid a helicopter cowboy and his wranglers a million dollars to confiscate the Bundy cattle…that’s what led to the stand off in the first place! And then the defendants spent a year in jail awaiting trial…so much for “kid gloves!”

  12. deleted says:


    That attempt to round up and seize the cattle had nothing to do with civil forfeiture.

    Like I said, apparently, some lawbreakers are more equal than others; you can normally distinguish the ones that are by the color of their skin.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Can we add this to the list of far right terrorism efforts? Or does someone have to die to count?


  14. You’re correct…it was uncivil forfeiture!

  15. deleted says:

    Interesting and rather proud history of anti fascist movements throughout history.

    It’s odd that anyone would attack those brave souls among us willing to stand up to the fascists and it’s even more odd that the ones who voices are most often raised to attack the anti fascist groups come from the right whose members will constantly talk as if the Nazis represent the left wing.


  16. Athos says:

    The Nazis, just like the Communist, occupy the left-wing.
    Tyrannical rule vs God given inalienable rights.

    Just thought you might want to know.

  17. Athos says:

    “Like I said, apparently, some lawbreakers are more equal than others; you can normally distinguish the ones that are by the color of their skin.”

    BLM immediately comes to mind.

  18. deleted says:

    Well I guess if you say then it must be true.

    Although, as I said, the farthest of the far right wing folks seem more interested in attacking those who have in the past, and continue to this day, fighting against the fascists. If what you say is true, shouldn’t the anti fascists be made up of far right wing types? Instead of the people that actually do make up the anti fascist groups that you’d probably consider far left wing types.

    Odd don’t you think?

  19. deleted says:

    And as far as “more equal” seems to me that if a bunch of BLM folks, violated the law, then violated the court orders which ordered them to comply with the law, then took up arms to prevent LE from enforcing the law, those LE types wouldn’t have just wandered away and left em be.

    But, as I said, some white multimillionaire lawbreaking ranchers, and their clans, are more equal than others.

  20. Steve says:

    “Interesting and rather proud history of anti fascist movements throughout history.”

    Conversely (and I find myself on common ground with VOX and the ACLU) the first amendment applies to everyone.


    Decry the actions of people who commit crimes, yes. But do not commit “guilt by association”.

  21. Athos says:

    Little p, you should listen to Stoner’s video and learn the terms Fascism, and anti-fascism (along with Anarchy). It only takes 10 minutes, and then you won’t have to embarrass yourself!

  22. deleted says:


    Stoner contributes nothing and I don’t listen to people who have earned no credibility.

    Course, if he was interested in answering why it is that it’s the left who are in constant opposition to fascists while the consistently gives them a wink and a nod, at worst, I’m all ears.

    Same goes for you.

  23. Athos says:

    If you don’t know what a fascist is, or worse yet, have your own made up conception, all you do is further embarrass yourself.

    But that’s just a normal day in the life of little p, isn’t it?

  24. deleted says:

    I’m pretty familiar with the normally ascribed attributes of fascism which include nationalism, militarism, scapegoating, and some measure of corporatism and mix of corporations with the state. Obviously many others that the right demonstrates consistently in their beliefs and practices.

    An interesting read from some of those who have spent their lives studying about fascists is here.


    Read or don’t but I doubt that anyone who cottons to your peculiar philosophy is going to be able to understand what is here, much less agree since it mostly says that the farthest of the far right wing has expressly adopted most, if not all of the things that make fascists fascists.

    Nationalism, militarism, exceptionalism, and racism are all elements that both the far right in this country, and the fascists have in common. “Why doesn’t Obama have more business types” in his administration? Was a question posed by the right wing often during his 8 years in office. The unity of business with politics is an economic aspect of fascism and of course these constant attacks by the right, during Obamas administration implicate the rights attitude for joining business with governing that the fascists share. Raise defense spending is another. Anti immigration, scapegoating immigrants, blacks, “liberals” “socialists” are all means by which the right in this country, and fascists in other countries have used to unite the right.

    So, now I’ve given you some of the things that I believe fascists are, and some of the things the right in this country share with them, which is in accord with the opinions of people who have studied the issue. Maybe you have something which argues the other way, and I’d love to hear it.

  25. deleted says:

    Oh and Libertarian candidate for Vice-President Austin Peterson opens up about Libertarians and Fascism.

    From the mouth of one of your own.

  26. Steve says:

    “Reich-Wing Watch”


  27. deleted says:

    Every word from the mouth of Libertarian Vice President candidate Austin Peterson.

  28. Steve says:

    This is a totally honest and from the heart piece of bullshit. Good thing he’s not a Libertarian anymore. Libertarians and Fascists are not compatible (another reason he lost) but right wing conservatives have been used by fascists trying to gain power. After which, those same right wing conservatives are summarily dumped in the trash heap.

    Of course, he lost (to a libertarian and a Massachusetts ex gov) and is now a “sincere” republican. (lower case intentional) He thinks he can gain power through the GOP hierarchy. To which i say good luck. So far Trump is decimating that party. You guys should be happy about Trump.

    And your “Youtuber” is only out for himself too, looking to get paid for spreading stupidity. Looking at the video offerings on his channel is a trip to say the least. Hes certainly going for the low hanging fruit with his versions pap about the pap he’s lampooning…and that is the best word for what he and his targets all do.

    But, feel free to eat it up, Patrick. You are just as bad as any of the ultra wingers.

  29. Steve says:

    I posted August 11, 2017 at 11:51 am
    This might not play well with a jury, even one as stacked as they tried to get.

    Well, it looks like the jury didn’t appreciate being told what to think. Does anyone want to bet on the Government going for three?

    Next up, Bundy. And the odds are not in the government’s favor.

    This source has the most detail…more to come!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s