A simple questionnaire will not sufficiently reveal a lack of objectivity…

On Monday, 09 January 2017, Steven Stewart and Eric Parker motioned to allow “Attorney Conducted Voir Dire” which is a process where their attorneys will take time to verbally ask questions of potential jurors. The matter is entirely at the discretion of the court; there is no statutory requirement that binds judges to a decision either way. Stewart and Parker argue that due to the highly politicized nature of the incident at Bundy Ranch in 2014, it is unlikely that a simple questionnaire would suffice to weed out jurors who may not be able to view the evidence objectively.

Constitutional rights are inherently subject to strong personal opinions…

The motion plainly argues that since the Tier 3 case revolves around First and Second Amendment Rights, that attorney conducted voir dire is necessary to uncover “latent biases or prejudices that may be present”. Most of the publicity from the Mainstream Media focused on Cliven Bundy’s alleged mountain of unpaid grazing fees and the alleged “standoff” on Saturday, 12 April 2014. Very few outlets covered other elements for the backdrop of the entire scenario. Media the fact that many traveled to Nevada specifically to protest heavy-handed Bureau of land Management (BLM) enforcement tactics, as well as the creation of “First Amendment Areas” some distance away from where Federal Agencies conducted the roundup of Bundy’s cattle.

The iconic photo of Parker laying prone on a bridge is the last thing most people remember seeing, and subsequently associate the image with the media’s widespread dissemination of incorrect narrative describing an “armed standoff”. Attorneys will need to probe potential jurors to uncover questionable objectivity in order for Tier 3 Defendants to get a fair trial.

How does a protest go from demonstration to standoff?

People arrived to protest (exercising First Amendment rights) and were lawfully armed (exercising Second Amendment rights). Federal Agencies including BLM and the US Park Police, acting under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Daniel P. Love, recklessly and senselessly escalated an otherwise non-issue into what the media described as a standoff. Prior to this, the unfolding of events were nothing nothing more than a peaceful demonstration.

Pictures of citizens posturing defensively with weapons only became necessary after the lawless, tactical deployment of militarized agents and a SWAT team with snipers whereupon they threatened to exact lethal force on unarmed protesters; a crowd made up of men, women, and minor children. Lawfully armed protesters on the I-15 overpass looking down into the Tuquop Wash (simply waiting for Bundy’s cattle to be released as promised by the Sheriff) could observe through binoculars snipers with weapons trained and agents armed and at the ready. None of these senseless escalations made the evening news leaving the general public to take at face value the incorrect narrative of an armed standoff.

source