As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
It is the purpose of this blog to continue to put before the public, the events connected with the murder of Lavoy Finicum in Oregon in January of 2016, as much as to keep before the public that numbers of Americans are now in prison, awaiting to be railroaded to confinement for life, for "crimes" which literally are over cows eating grass and trespassing.
In the latest court rulings, now by Judge Peggy Leen, her honor has clamped down on evidence, in the People and the Press have been denied their rights to this case, and it reaches to the defendants as the lawyer for Cliven Bundy was highly disappointed and the counsel for Pete Santilli was appealing the ruling over "security concerns".
In a 23-page decision filed late Friday, Leen explained that the government was within its constitutional authority to obtain a protective order from her because of security concerns in the high-profile case. Among the concerns Leen cited was a death threat against the prosecutors.
“The government has made a sufficient threshold showing of actual and potential threats, intimidation and harassment to victims, witnesses and law enforcement officers to show good cause for a protective order restricting dissemination of pretrial discovery,” Leen wrote.
She also said the media and the public do not have a “common law or First Amendment right” to access pretrial evidence obtained by the government.
Discovery is vital to all defenses, as much as for the jury of the public, in not allowing a regime to railroad it's Citizens into prison in denying the People from knowledge of what is taking place in courts.
The Lame Cherry makes the point in this, as this Obama regime via the Lynch Department of Injustice, has criminalized Americans unfairly, that for Judge Leen to issue this ruling is either collusion on her part or she is incompetent, as it appears all the legal minds are associated with these cases.
The Lame Cherry can solve this and when you read the solution in the People having the rightful access to discovery, it will seem like all things Lame Cherry, obvious.
Discovery: What and When the Prosecution Must Disclose | Nolo.com
Discovery is the process through which defendants find out about the prosecution's case. For example, through standard discovery procedure, they can:
The solution to this is call REDACTED.
That is the balance in this. The Courts have a right to protect witnesses or in some cases information which would lead to the discovery of who a witness was, to protect the public. The Court though does not have the right by the prosecution though to withhold all information and that secrecy should have been balanced with redacting names and certain accounts from the press and the public.
The defendants though through their attorneys have all right to discover witnesses and evidence that the prosecution is collecting. In that, it is then up to the prosecution to place said witnesses into protective custody.
The Defense has all rights to reveal those facts of the case to the public to inform the People as a check and balance against the regime. This is Jeffersonian / Madison Declaration and Constitutional foundation law to protect the People from the regime.
As for Judge Leen, citing that threats have been made to prosecutors. That again is already public information in who the regime employs, so using secrecy to hide what is public is ridiculous in that finite class of prosecutors. Again, if there is a legitimate threat, that is what federal protection is for and not denying the defendants, the American People or the American Press access to information.
It becomes the obvious point in this, if this trial was so dangerous, then why is Judge Leen's identity known, as surely she should be in danger in ruling over these trials. In view of this entire set of circumstances, Judge Leen's ruling should be overturned in appeals, with the court simply redacting the names of witnesses from the public, and knowing that only the defendants and their attorneys have access to the witness list, which is going to appear in court facing these people to be known, the defendants and attorneys will be criminally responsible if harm comes to the witnesses.
There is a responsibility of these Courts to not appear like kangaroo courts as much as Justice not appearing like a lynch mob, with no pun intended for Loretta Lynch, because that will only inflame the public to more acts and make greater martyrs out of the defendants.
The Right of the People is the supreme Right. The Golden Thread of Anglo American Law is one which all of this stands upon is "everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty as judged by 12 Citizens". It is that presumption of innocence which has been violated as much as the reality that not one person involved in this Bundy case has been assaulted or murdered in all of the years this has been taking place, except two people in Ammon Bundy was assaulted by federal agents in Nevada and LaVoy Finicum was murdered in Oregon, by whom we do not know, because that murder does not match the law enforcement statements or evidence presented.
The Presumption of Innocence | Robina Institute of Criminal ...
The presumption of innocence was famously described as the 'golden thread' running 'throughout the web' of the criminal law. It is usually asserted, and di
- The Right of Innocence
- The Right of public review of the charges and evidence
- The Right to a speedy trial
- The Right to discovery
- The Right to be judged by your neighbors
- The Right to face the accuser
agtG
