Probably the most egregious of the ruling is that no argument can be presented about the violation of the Bundy’s grazing rights guaranteed under federal law. The federal laws pertaining to grazing rights which were violated wholesale by the BLM are off the table. I will not repeat those here as I have outlined them in numerous previous columns.

Suffice it to say that if the cause of the actions of the defendants is not to be considered, there is no defense left. Did they impede government agent? Of course, they did. But it would seem to me it would be relevant for the jury to know why they impeded the government agents. Were the BLM agents engaged in an illegal act? Of course, they were.

I am concerned that a judge can rule that the past actions of the defendant are open for consideration but the action of the government leading up to the confrontation is not. I understand it is the judge’s role to see that the material presented to the jury is relevant to the case, but I fail to see where it is fair to look at the past trial, identify those things that caused doubt in the minds of the jury and then exclude them from the next trial.

If you have had the privilege of being selected to appear for jury duty, you have seen the way justice is supposed to be served in America. The judge is supposed to be an impartial arbitrator. There is a prosecutor to represent the government and defense lawyer to represent the accused.

I have been called for jury duty many times and for whatever reason, I have never been selected to sit on a jury. The last time I appeared for jury duty it seemed as though I had survived the questions of both the defense lawyer and the prosecutor when the judge asked me if I would follow his instructions as to how to rule in the case. He apparently picked up on something in my answers he did not like. I told him that I believed my role as a juror was to listen to the facts in the case and make up my own mind as to the guilt or innocence of the individual. I told him it was his job to make sure the trail was fair, it was my job to determine guilt or innocent based on the facts presented to me. I was dismissed.

Judge Navarro’s rulings reminds of the story of Roman days when Nero was trying to rid Rome of Christians. He brought a Christian into the coliseum, tied him hand and foot and released a lion. When the lion sniffed the Christian, the Christian did the only defensive thing he could do and bit the lion on the nose sending the lion running off yelping in pain. Nero yelled down: “Fight fair, fight fair”.

The defense from the beginning has challenged the neutrality of Judge Navarro, who is the epitome of a liberal 9th Circuit federal court judge. She was recommended by Harry Reid and appointed by President Obama; enough said. Judge Navarro reflected the 9th Circuit’s disregard for the Constitution when she ordered that the defendants could keep their pocket Constitution with them but that they must be turned b