Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

More dirt on BLM's agent Dan Love.


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...849b4c740b836a


The Oath with SSG Moe

1 hr ·

DANIEL P LOVE -- BLM SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE @ BUNDY RANCH A VICTIM? REALLY? I DONT THINK THAT'S GOING TO FLY!!

During Pete Santilli's failed bid for a pretrial release this past tuesday, the Prosecution gave away their future narrative concerning Special Agent Daniel P. Love. Prosecutor Steven Myre called Daniel P. Love a suffering victim, a description I am sure Mr. Love's massive ego has a hard time swallowing.

While this article is the best I have seen on the web so far concerning Love, it does not have all the info on him that will definitely be coming out in court by a witness that not only grew up with him, but served on the Salt Lake City Police Force with him --

This article states that Loves character will be important to the prosecution and there is key evidence that Loves character has many flaws.

Did the SLCPD cover up an incident involving Special Agent Daniel P. Love during the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in which Love was said to have been found drunk, half naked, and having sex in a booth while on duty?

Was Daniel P. Love dismissed from the Salt Lake City Probation Dept. for failing to do his job?

The 2012 Winter Olympic incident was reported by another officer who was working the detail with Love in which it was their job to oversee dignitaries who had traveled to Salt Lake City to enjoy the games. Daniel P. Love had not answered calls from his team for hours, and being concerned for his safety the team went looking for him.

According to the former Law Enforcement Officer and life long acquaintance of the Love family, Special Agent Love was found in the bar with his pants half down, and a drink in his hand. He was also with a female, that wasn't his wife, who had her face buried in his lap.

Mr. Love threatened his team with repercussion if they breathed a word of what they had seen, but the witness tells us that SLCPD was made fully aware of the situation and chose to cover the incident up.

Oh yes Mr. Myre, your Golden Boy will have to answer some questions about his character on that stand -- Questions about his character that go beyond what this article has to say.




https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...fs=1&upscale=1



PUBLIC LANDS: The Bundy witness BLM won't talk about

As federal prosecutors seek to convict Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy for his role in a near-violent 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land…
WWW.EENEWS.NET


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...849b4c740b836a


The Oath with SSG Moe

1 hr ·

DANIEL P. LOVE -- WHO IS BOUND TO BE THE GOVERNMENTS KEY WITNESS DURING THE BUNDY TRIALS -- IS NOT A VICTIM!

" I urge you to make Dan Love accountable for his actions that caused the death of Dr. James Redd and fire him immediately —This is the consequence he deserves for his leadership of the BLM law enforcement Agency " ~Quoted - Bruce Adams

Bruce Adams is a county commissioner from San Juan County Utah (Blanding, Monticello). In This video he is speaking to Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Congressman Chris Stewart, Congressman Ron Bishop and a congressman from Arkansas. The first 3 congressman are from Utah and Jason Chaffetz is the head of the oversight committee for congress. It was recorded this past January 22, 2016.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kn4scNZ5W1g&feature=youtu.be
*************************************************
~Chastity

http://youtu.be/kn4scNZ5W1g

https://fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.ne...12f27ae393dfbb



https://www.facebook.com/TheOathwithSSGMoe/

Liberals petition BLM to attack Bundy Ranch.

http://youtu.be/jLHPUblbEMM

https://youtu.be/jLHPUblbEMM








Note: I had to remove the "s" from https to get it to embed.

Pete Santilli says the governments case in Nevada wil fall apart because Clark County never was federal land. The boundary was changed by an act of Congress on May 4, 1866 to add the territory to Nevada subject to the approval of the Nevada Legislature.

Jan. 17, 1867 Nevada Legislature votes to extend Nevada's border to include Clark County.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00750043.tif

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00750043.tif

Bundy Ranch Political Prisoner Drops Bombshell from Jail: US Government will panic when this comes out

http://thewashingtonstandard.com/wp-...ard-728x90.jpg

Reporter and political prisoner Pete Santilli of The Pete Santilli Show dropped a bombshell from jail earlier this week. He claims that the information below, once it comes out in the open in court, will have the US government in a panic.


In a recorded statement by Deb Jordan, Pete’s co-host, Santilli said that the information comes from the congressional record 1866.



“The dirt at Bundy Ranch is in Clark County,” Santilli began. “Clark County has always been a part of the State of Nevada and is not federal land in any way shape or form, period.”


Take a listen to the entire interview below.

http://youtu.be/5C1Yzili8GM



“It is documented and we have the documentation,” he continued. “We will be going through the court system appropriately, but the entire Bundy Ranch debacle and what Cliven Bundy said on that stage to that Sheriff… unfortunately, these buffoon people that the US government’s US Attorney’s Office actually put on the record that Nevada, part of the Hidalgo Treaty and all this stuff is absolute lunacy that they are lining us all up about an incident that took place in Clark County Nevada that has never been part of federal lands since 1866.”


Santilli is right too. Even according to Clark County Nevada’s website, it was on May 4, 1866 that Nevada extended southern border into Arizona Territory, covering territory to point where Colorado River meets California Border. However, on January 17, 1867, the Nevada State legislature voted to extend southern border, taking in today’s Clark County.


That makes the land of Clark County a legal part of the State of Nevada, not federal land.
Prior to that, according to the website, “10/31/1864 Nevada becomes a state during the Civil War. Area now encompassed by Clark County is not part of original state of Nevada but is part of Arizona Territory.”


Clark County came into existence on July 1, 1909.


In all of the records on the Clark County website, there is no mention of what the Constitution demands for the federal government to acquire land in the state, namely the approval of the State legislature.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution is clear about federal control of land.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added).

Santilli attempted to convey this message on Monday at his hearing where he left the courtroom saying, “I’m a journalist. This is what they do in Communist China!” Instead of being released till trial, the judge continued to rule against him, as well as the Bundy men. Now, Cliven Bundy has filed suit against Judge Gloria Navarro, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, and Harry & Rory Reid for violating a myriad of rights that are to be protected in the Constitution.


Other representatives of the people took issue with the tyranny of the feds during the Bundy Ranch siege.


Republican Senator Dean Heller blasted Harry Reid’s comments about those who supported the Bundy’s as being domestic terrorists, “What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots. We have a very different view on this.”


Former Governor Brian Sandoval ripped into the Bureau of Land Management over the issue as well.
“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” the Republican governor said. “The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”


One can hope that this information would be spread far and wide and educate the people as to what is really taking place with the unconstitutional federal land grab.



If you would like to support Pete’s legal funds and help him in standing for the truth, click here.
If you would like to write to Pete and offer him some encouragement, here’s the address.


Pete Santilli SWIS #795071
Inverness Jail
11540 Inverness Dr.
Portland Oregon 97220

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.


http://thewashingtonstandard.com/bun...l-panic-comes/

From Bundy Ranch facebook

Bundy Ranch

3 hrs ·







We are not surprised......
Former Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey was "personally and substantially" involved in the sale of federal lands in Nevada that would have earned his future consulting firm $528,000, in violation of an ethics pledge he signed, the Interior Department Office of Inspector General said in a report released today.
The report also concluded that Mike Ford, a consultant and former BLM employee who was Abbey's business partner before and after Abbey's tenure as BLM director, leveraged his connections to agency leadership to gain insider knowledge of the land sale and expedite its approval.


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902)]https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...fs=1&upscale=1[/COLOR]



PUBLIC LANDS: Former BLM chief pushed deal favoring his future firm -- IG
Former Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey was "personally and substantially" involved…
EENEWS.NET

Home › News › Did The FBI Pose As Documentary Filmmakers To Gain Access During Bundy Ranch Standoff?

Did The FBI Pose As Documentary Filmmakers To Gain Access During Bundy Ranch Standoff?

petesantillishow 06/13/2016 News
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...-operatori.jpgGMN© Staff Writer – Guerrilla Media Network LLC – June 13, 2016“Journalists should not pose as police officers, and police officers should not pose as journalists. The welfare of the republic requires it.”
Rumor has it – much of the evidence gathered by the government for the upcoming trial, United States vs Cliven Bundy et el, will come from footage taken during and after the “Bundy Ranch Standoff” by FBI agents who posed as a film crew gathering information for a documentary being made by a company called Longbow Productions. It is not clear just exactly when the agents would have gained access and who specifically they spoke with. If this information is true then it answers the question as to just one of the ways the FBI infiltrated Bundy Ranch, and almost certainly raises the question of whether or not the persons being filmed and interviewed had their 5th amendment right violated.

We spoke with John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, who explained why this type of interrogation if true, would raise serious doubts as to whether or not it was legal and should be allowed to be used in this case.

If the FBI went to Bundy Ranch with the intent to interview possible suspects, and build a case against them while posing as “Press [journalists]” to do it, then yes – it most definitely would be the duty of any defense attorney to vigorously challenge it. If this “documentary film crew” were indeed FBI agents asking specific questions to build a case against the person they were speaking with, then it would be in my opinion, a direct violation of that person’s 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves.

In simple terms; if any person being interrogated has not been Mirandized and given the choice to have legal counsel present before the questioning begins it would not be a legal interrogation, and the information they garnered in my opinion, cannot be used against them in this case. ~ John Whitehead

Posing as journalists in and of itself is a serious breech that has been opposed by The Society of Professional Journalists;

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has no business permitting its informants to impersonate journalists, said G. Kelly Hawes, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, after learning that an informant posed as a newspaper reporter during an FBI sting operation.

“The Society of Professional Journalists opposes the practice of police officers or FBI agents or their informants posing as journalists to obtain information,” said Hawes in a letter to Louis J. Freeh, FBI director. “It is imperative that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies be able to do their jobs. The American system of justice depends on it. But it is also imperative that journalists be able to do their jobs, acting as the watchdogs on government and the criminal justice system. Journalists should not pose as police officers, and police officers should not pose as journalists. The welfare of the republic requires it.”

Source
The Press is the only directly protected occupation mentioned in the 1st amendment to the Constitution and should be considered sacred. When someone is speaking with someone whom they perceive is a journalist, they have every reason to believe that the person to whom they are speaking is engaging in a constitutionally protected act.
Is it any wonder why FBI director James Comey made this statement in December of 2014 – after the Bundy Ranch [Operation Longbow] had supposedly taken place;

FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday left open the possibility that an agent might again pose as a journalist as part of an investigation, though he said such a tactic ought to be rare and “done carefully with significant supervision, if it’s going to be done.”

Comey told reporters at a roundtable discussion that he was “not willing to say never” when asked if the FBI would swear off future use of the tactic in response to an Associated Press demand made last month.

The AP sought assurances from the Justice Department and the FBI that impersonation would not be used again following revelations that an agent in Seattle posed as an AP journalist in 2007 during an investigation into bomb threats at a high school.

“I’m not willing to say never,” Comey said. “Just as I wouldn’t say that we would never pose as an educator or a doctor or, I don’t know, a rocket scientist.”

Source

There is no doubt; “if” evidence collected in an FBI operation like this proves to be what happened at Bundy Ranch, defense attorney’s in this case should and probably will oppose it. The government would just as likely argue the interrogations conducted at Bundy Ranch under the alleged FBI operation were legitimate because the persons being interrogated were not yet in legal custody. There would also be a strong argument as to whether or not “documentary filmmaker” is the same thing as “journalist.”

What future implications this has for an already rocky relationship between activist and journalist remains to be seen. If the FBI chose to use the cover of being a journalist to gain access to this historical protest, it will likely have many repercussion for the legitimate media when future events take place.

It’s not like filmmakers at Bundy Ranch were not willing to help the FBI out. Dennis Michael Lynch, a renowned documentarian who filmed at Bundy Ranch and was present at the gate when the standoff ended, has already admitted he turned all of his footage over to the FBI without even putting up a fight.

End Article


http://thepetesantillishow.com/did-t...anch-standoff/

Northwest News interview with Carol Bundy
Again America is Ruled by a King 18 minutes

http://youtu.be/xGmMJ97incU

https://youtu.be/xGmMJ97incU

Another wife's story



https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...90c80d9b308eb4


Andrea Olson-Parker added 2 new photos.

July 14 at 10:03am ·






Today I am going to share with you the truth about my husband. He is not a terrorist. He does not believe are public lands should be sold to private owners. He loves this country.

He went to the Bundy Ranch because of the image below. We have a First Amendment and it's not a Zone in America or at least it didn't used to be. He was not involved in the Oregon wildlife refuge take over. When he got into the defensive position that is shown in the picture of him, he was in fear of his life and the lives of the men woman and children in the wash.

He had BLM snipers aimed at him the entire time. He was also on the bridge with actual police who at any time could have arrested him and did not because he did not break the law.

When the BLM announced over the loud speaker that they were going to use tear gas on the protesters the protesters said a prayer and kept going. The BLM said we have been authorized to use deadly force on the protesters and that is when he took cover and was in fear of his life.

The media will not talk about the truth. After the Bowe Bergdahl situation happened in this town people should know that the media has an agenda and does not tell truth.

My life has been ruined by this situation but if it keeps America the land of the free I am ok with that. People think just because I am around the FBI is going to take them away. People will not look me in the eyes anymore. Everything I have done good in the past is not even a thought anymore.

People say "it must be so hard to be married to a terrorist" outside my kids school.

People tell me I should let him pay for what he did and stop talking to his friends. I have not spoke out because I was in a situation where I could not. I know people say these things because of fear and ignorance.

America is not the country I grew up in and I do not think it is a great place to have children in. If I knew what I know today I would not have brought children into this world. I fear for them after I am gone. I know many will read this and unfriend me but they were never my friends in the first place.

Call me a terrorist if it makes you feel better.


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...64c5f5c4fa1f75
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...18&oe=5822DDFE





35 Likes33 Comments172 Shares

This communist judge violates her oath of office and makes a stunning ruling in Bundy case.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/jud...sharingbuttons

Judge Makes Stunning Ruling In Bundy Case

"... the government wants to prosecute him in secret ..."
Scott Mason July 19, 2016 at 11:17am

Advertisement - story continues below

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that without the benefit of a public hearing, U.S. Federal Judge Peggy Leen has issued an order ruling that no transcripts, reports or witness statements of any kind may be disclosed by defense teams for all 19 defendants in the 2014 armed standoff between Cliven Bundy’s camp and the FBI.
Leen made her decision Friday, citing potential death threats against prosecutors as justification.

“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,” she wrote.

Advertisement – story continues below

Leen continued saying that a “common law or First Amendment right” for the press and the public to access the government’s pretrial evidence does not exist, though all information obtained through “open sources” such as the internet or social media would be accessible.

Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Dan Hill, was not pleased with the judge’s decision.

“It”s unfortunate that so much information is going to be kept from the public in this case. Ammon Bundy has never hidden anything and now the government wants to prosecute him in secret. I will continue to fight for justice in this case despite the government’s effort to keep information hidden,” he said.

Advertisement – story continues below

Chris Rasmussen, the attorney for defendant Pete Santilli, shared Hill’s opinion and says he plans to file an appeal on behalf of his client.

“He wants this trial to be open to the public, and he wants the public to see all of the evidence so that he can prove his innocence,” he said.

Maggie McLetchie — an attorney who represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Battle Born Media and The Associated Press — said she was disappointed with the judge’s decision.

“From the media’s perspective, the order still cloaks much of the information about this case in secrecy despite the heightened need for transparency the judge recognized when allowing the media to intervene,” McLetchie said. “It is deeply troubling that so many documents will be automatically hidden from public view.”
Advertisement – story continues below

The trial is currently set for Feb. 6 in U.S. District Court.

h/t: Las Vegas Review Journal

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore says FBI has no evidence against Bundys
Watch the video on her facebook page, I am not able to embed it here


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...9f8406d60640c2


Assemblywoman Michele Fiore

2 hrs ·

Inside information FBI cover up - NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE. MUST SEE & SHARE.

5.7K Views
https://www.facebook.com/votefiore/

https://www.facebook.com/votefiore/v...type=2&theater

Nevada Assemblywoman on Twister Radio. FBI has no evidence on the Bundys and more

http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...Bombshell-.m4a

Briana Bundy with an update on the Oregon and Nevada cases on Twister Radio


http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...rs-Release.m4a

^ That was a pretty good interview with Jim and Michele on Twister radio but they always have to take a swipe at Germany and Hitler repeating the filthy lies of the Jews. They need to wake up and learn the truth about who Hitler and the German people faced because that's who we're all facing now and they don't realize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

^ That was a pretty good interview with Jim and Michele on Twister radio but they always have to take a swipe at Germany and Hitler repeating the filthy lies of the Jews. They need to wake up and learn the truth about who Hitler and the German people faced because that's who we're all facing now and they don't realize it.

---

I noticed that myself, and in the past interviews as well. Your comment made me laugh a little, not because it is humorous, but because of the truthfulness.

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1627

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 24, 2016

The Bundy Affair #15 – Free Speech and Assembly v. Conspiracy

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...il-300x253.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 24, 2016

The Preamble to the Constitution begins with “We the People”. The reason for such an introduction is perhaps a bit more intricate than most understand it to be. There are two reasons for this introduction. The first being that the Articles of Confederation and the government created by it, were created by the states. It was a “perpetual union“, and could not dissolve itself. However, going to the ultimate source, the People, they had every right to reject that government for one created by themselves. The right is clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, to wit:


That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


The People’s authority then is embodied in the document that had, just a decade earlier, justified separation from British rule. It was called into play, once again, since strife and turmoil were beginning to undermine the relationship between the states under the Articles of Confederation — a government created simply to unify the fight for Independence.


The second reason is based upon who was to approve the Constitution. Most of the states had created new governments, via their respective constitutions. However, the constitutions, in most states, were created and approved by the legislative body. Each had an amendment provision, though that provision allowed the successive legislatures to change the constitution through legislative enactment. This meant that the constitutions were an ineffective safeguard against usurpation. By the time of the Philadelphia Convention, most states had resorted back to the people for both ratification and amendment to their constitutions. This concept had permeated the legislative bodies, including that Convention — and the authority of the People, though through conventions, the sole source of authority. The government could not remove the constraints placed upon it by the Constitution.
.
About the time that the Philadelphia Convention was going on, a matter had come before the North Carolina Supreme Court. Their constitution did not allow the taking of land without compensation. However, a returning Tory had claimed his land, so the legislature enacted a law that prohibited the land being returned to him. This was in direct violation of the North Carolina Constitution, so the North Carolina Supreme Court demonstrated the relationship of the government to the very document that created it, when they decided the case, in Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787):


“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass, could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”
Now, understand the significance of what they said that if the government violated the Constitution that created them, it would, at the same time, void the Constitution and the government created by it.


Now, let’s look at two of the provisions of the First Amendment, though we must first understand that what became known as the Bill of Rights did have a Preamble that set out the purpose of the amendments:


THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS


Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.


Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


Now that you understand why the Bill of Rights was adopted, we can look at the First Amendment:


Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or [abridging] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Perhaps we should consider just what led the Founders to include this Amendment. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification. As explained in the Preamble, they wanted to be assured that the federal government didn’t misconstrue or abuse its power.


From the Stamp Act, in 1765, to the events in Lexington and Concord, on April 19, 1775, the colonists demonstrated, occasionally violently, against the tax collectors, as well as other British officials, including judges, and they used muskets to do so. They saw such demonstrations as simply a louder voice, freedom of speech, when the ears that should have been listening refused to do so. The escalation in activity was consistent with the disregard by the government of the colonist’s legitimate concerns.


Did the colonists use these rights, of speech and assembly, to attempt to avoid conflict by forcing the government to abide by the British Constitution? Surely, this must be the case, as efforts were tried, for over a decade — to avoid the consequences of a government’s failure to abide by its agreement with the people. Were those same rights embodied in the Constitution so that redress could be had, so as to avoid a potentially serious conflict that evolved from the government’s failure to heed the will of the People?


Now, the government, today, wants to assign a stigma because those who stood up for the Bundys, both before and during the Unrustling of 2014, were doing so in an effort to avoid serious conflict. They never threatened anyone, though a response was threatened by those who chose to provide protection, should the government decide to fire on those in the wash under Interstate 15.


However, those in the wash did not brandish weapons. They did speak, and they were peaceably assembled. However, unlike 200 years ago, they are being prosecuted for asserting those two very fundamental rights of a free people. Those rights are embodied in the Constitution, including the right to bear arms in defense, which was their only purpose. So, does this call into play the consequence of the failure of the government to abide by the Constitution, as expressed in Bayard v. Singleton?


Now, there is another side to the story. That side is the government’s side. They had placed snipers above the ranch and were most often seen in battle gear and armed. There can be little doubt that the government snipers would aim their rifles at some of the supporters, and probably joke about being able to take some of them out.


When you consider that they did this while conducting one of the most heinous crimes conceivable in cattle country, Rustling (rounding up and stealing cattle, horses, or sheep). Now, the government argues that they had a court order allowing them to do so. However, we must consider whether a court can order an illegal act.


The ‘authority” which motivated the BLM to seize the Bundy cattle was a Summary Judgment signed by United States District Judge Lloyd D. George, on July 9, 2013. It reads:


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.


It makes no mention of any authority to skirt existing state laws regarding branding inspection as health certificates, nor could they could transport the cattle across state lines. It contained no order that branding inspectors or health inspectors had to ignore the existing laws and allow the BLM to just walk over any law that was an obstruction to their intention to seize, transport across state lines, and violate the mentioned requirements.


The order by the Judge was, on its face, illegal and unlawful. However, it stands as justification for the BLM to point their guns at innocent people simply asserting their rights to speech, assembly, and personal protection, all protected by the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. Whether the judge chose to violate the laws, or did the BLM, on its own policy, chose to violate these laws, I believe it is safe to say that the federal government chose to violate these laws.


Perhaps looking at the approach that the government took to seize the cattlemight give insight into the possibility that they were treading in an area that might not be considered the proper role of the government. Instead of simply pursuing a civil solution to the problem, they prepared for war. As was discussed in a previous article, “Gold Butte Impound”, they had committed at least 242 people to seize the cattle. Their entire 20 page “Gold Butte Impound – Incident Action Plan” identifies and describes the intended implementation, and, perhaps, a conspiracy. This Plan includes office, contract, and field personnel. It also includes teams, just to name a few, such as:

• Command Team, headed by Dan Love, who is currently in charge of security and intelligence for the BLM (sort of a BLM SWAT)
• LP/OP Team (Listening Post and Observation Post) – whose initial duty was to “Find high ground and establish LP/OP”)
• Interdiction Team – intercept and prohibit
• First Amendment Team – who established two “Free Speech” areas, apparently trying to both recognize and restrict such deplorable activity.
• MS/RP Team – Duties, Reactionary Force
• MRT/FOB Team – Duties, Reactionary Force
• Demolition Team
• Media Escort Team – the propaganda arm
• Night Operations Team – just wondering what night operations might be necessary

They came prepared for “Free Speech” by providing a location for the invitees to peaceably assemble and speak freely. However, since the patriots chose a different location that that designated, the invitation has become conspiracy. And, they have indicted those who came, if they asserted their Second Amendment right.


Now, does this sound like a government of the People? Or, is it a government committed to subduing the people? However, the government wants to assign any criminal act on the supporters, not the true criminal acts of the government. Such a massive force would surely convince the American public of the necessity.


Now, we need to look at the chicanery perpetrated by the government in the 63 page Superseding Criminal Indictment, filed nearly two years after the alleged crime (Did it take two years to figure out how to make the innocent appear guilty and the guilty to appear innocent?). Count One (page 37) reads:


Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States (Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)


Now, for the record, let’s also look at 18 U.S.C. § 371: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States:


If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


So, the question arises as to the ambiguity of the phrase “offense against the United States“. If the United States, or “any agency thereof“, is committing a criminal act in the eyes of the People, is it a crime to attempt to keep that act from being committed? Surely, in their arrogance, the United States, or any agency thereof, would feel offended, which I suppose to them constitutes an “offense“? However, even in this age of anybody being offended by nearly everything, I doubt that the subjective interpretation of offense is the intention of the statute.


Now, let’s look at the allegation of a conspiracy. My first reaction is that “two or more persons” sat down, behind closed doors, and planned this extravaganza to steal cattle back from the government, which cattle had been stolen by the government. Well, I think that it is more likely an effort to assure that if he cattle were stolen, there would be “just compensation” (See Fifth Amendment).


Continuing with the conspiracy aspect, it was not behind closed doors. Heck, it was all over the Internet. Granted, many came for different reasons. However, all of those reasons had to do with an overarching government, circumventing the Constitution and laws. Each participant decided that they would partake of the rights protected by the First Amendment, and some chose to protect themselves, and others, by virtue of that right protected by the Second Amendment. Here is how Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition) defines conspiracy:


A combination or confederation between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means for the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.


So, do we consider that if a group of people wants to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, and to do so with the full weight of the Founders and the Constitution, that the act of coordinating, or participating in such protected activity has now become a criminal conspiracy?
If we find that the government is determined to circumvent the Constitution, in favor of increasing their power and influence, do we leave it to the courts to decide what the Founders intended? When the Founders determined the necessity to state that “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers“, was that intended for us, or the courts, to determine just what our rights were?


If the latter, then the Constitution is nothing but a memory. However, if the former, then it is time for us to assure that justice, not the law, prevails in defense of those rights.

Ryan Bundy's closing statement to the jury should be along these lines:

Quote:

---

So, do we consider that if a group of people wants to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, and to do so with the full weight of the Founders and the Constitution, that the act of coordinating, or participating in such protected activity has now become a criminal conspiracy?
If we find that the government is determined to circumvent the Constitution, in favor of increasing their power and influence, do we leave it to the courts to decide what the Founders intended? When the Founders determined the necessity to state that “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers“, was that intended for us, or the courts, to determine just what our rights were?


If the latter, then the Constitution is nothing but a memory. However, if the former, then it is time for us to assure that justice, not the law, prevails in defense of those rights.

---

Jerry DeLemus has agreed to sign a plea agreement, he asked the judge if "I sign it knowing its a lie isn't that perjury"?

Short 28 second video at the link

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch/...type=2&theater

Comment from one of the posters:

Rob Robinson It's more complicated than that, because the court is not Constitutional, nor even following Constitutional Law, BUT, they can't SAY that, because the Law they're following cannot be publicly acknowledged, as it is, itself, unconstitutional.

Admission of unconstitutionality, is an admission of guilt, of TREASON.

68 · 6 hrs


https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch/

More to follow.

Short video update from Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Jerry DeLemus

https://www.facebook.com/jdspeece/po...07431227521295

Jim Lambley with Attorney Larry Klayman on his lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for parents of Benghazi victims and defense of Cliven Bundy. Larry Klayman refers to Harry Reid as "the most corrupt senator in Washington. The first 17 minutes are discussing the Benghazi lawsuit.

Twister Radio

http://ice9.securenetsystems.net/med...-Interview.m4a

Nevada Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton Stands with the Bundys


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...cb1c14a64b0104


Teresa Brookshire shared Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton's photo.

44 mins


https://fbcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.ne...be96fa2ac10bad

Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton1 hr

This is near Bunkerville where some of Cliven Bundy's cattle graze.

This was taken on the day of the picnic following the release of the cattle.

In the coming months in court you will likely hear horror stories from environmentalists about cattle stalking tortoises like wild cats waiting to pounce on them and trample them to death.

Stories of bovine feces being dumped into the river by the ton making the river flammable or some other such nonsense.

You will likely hear of the dry, parched earth left in the wake of the ravenous few hundred head of cattle that roam the hundreds of thousands of acres of land like turbo charged John Deere Lawn Mowers.

But most importantly you will hear the quaking voices of grown men and women employed by the federal government who wear bulletproof vests and carry automatic weapons as they try to convince you that they feared for their lives in the presence of Americans who chose to protest while legally armed.

2000 Americans protested, fully armed, without a shot being fired. Why? Because the citizens were not there for violence. They were there to ensure there WAS NO VIOLENCE, and they succeeded.

Not one American was beaten. Not one American was shot. No officers were even touched.
So when you hear the lies, the exaggerations, the outright propaganda and the joke that our courts have become in the coming months I'd like for you to keep a couple of things in mind.

1) The Native Americans in North Dakota are Protesting without arms. Let's watch and see how that turns out. They are already being attacked with dogs. The media is already calling warding the dogs off with sticks "violent resistance". Let the future show us exactly WHY the founders were so adamant about including the 2nd amendment in our constitution.

2) The Bundy issue resulted in two years of complete and utter peace in the Gold Butte area where there was zero harassment by federal officials. The people were able to enjoy the land, meat production was able to continue, and no one had to look over their shoulder for a BLM agent everywhere they went. And the sky did not fall. - No new solar plants or strip mining operations were set up there to enrich any politicians.

Lastly - Contrary to some of my fellow Republicans who, like Paul, have chosen to deny those they once called friends, I firmly stand behind the Bundy family as I always have.

From the moment I studied the issue and found they had been cheated out of their rights by an evil criminal conspiracy aided by crooked politicians and the courts I have stood behind them and will continue to stand behind them until justice is served upon those who have wronged them and they are awarded restitution for their losses.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/237360123055985/

A secret recording I hadn't heard before, between Dan Love and Pete Santilli during Bundy Ranch confrontation.

The transcription below from the fedbook page was edited for length and continuity.


http://youtu.be/9p0YemhFnw8

The Oath

September 5 at 3:57pm ·


Secret audio recording from Bundy Ranch between BLM Special Agent Dan Love and Pete Santilli
Recording transcript

Note: I typed this in myself (Mike Adams), late on a Saturday night, so I apologize for typos or errors. Doing my best to get this out ASAP for the sake of liberty in America...

The first voice you hear in this audio is of Pete Santilli asking, "Where's the cattle?"

The next voice, the lower voice is of Dan Love from BLM. Some of the highlights of the recording, transcribed (this transcript is EDITED for length and continuity, listen to the actual audio if you want every single word).

Santilli: "We want zero conflict. You know, confrontational, nose to nose..." And then later, "Are we going to be here screaming at you, and you're gonna be tasing, are you gonna do that type of confrontation. What we are trying to do is to completely de-escalate, 100%."

Santilli: "What we're going to ask for to de-escalate and to make sure we are not in confrontation with you... we want to let you know that we're going to come here and it's going to be non-negotiable what we believe in, and what we believe is the right thing to do."

Dan Love: "We have two federal court orders, and if you interfere, you will be arrested. If you impede and interfere, you will be taken into custody."

Santilli: "Tell DC Justice [Eric Holder] this is non-negotiable... but if you choose to go face to face and people get hurt, then we are going to hold you personally accountable."

Dan Love: "And I will hold you legally accountable. And I guarantee that the Constitution is on my side and not that side... Your Constitutions aren't decided on the dirt... you can fight that argument from jail."

Santilli: "It's not gonna be a fight, it's gonna be a non-negotiable terms, peacefully. If you bring violence..."
Dan Love: "If you interfere, if you impede, you will be arrested. I don't know how you plan on arresting me, but good luck with that."

Santilli: "There are gonna be some law enforcement officials who are gonna be going to jail."
Dan Love: "Yeah, don't do that. That's not gonna end well for ya. That doesn't happen. And again, I've seen your numbers right now, you'd better hope that 10,000 show up..."

Dan Love: "You're telling me you're gonna show up and arrest officers? That's not gonna happen, Mr. Santilli."
Santilli: "If anyone is unconstitutional, is not following to abide by their oath to the U.S. Constitution, they are going to be arrested including the Sheriff of this county."

Dan Love: "Okay, you start with him, go arrest Mr. Gillespie, and once you accomplish that you come back..."
Santilli: "He will be incarcerated if he fails to uphold his oath to the U.S. Constitution... he will go to jail."

Dan Love: "I'm telling you right now I'm putting YOU on warning as the messenger, if you violate, if you impede, if you interfere with two lawful court orders, you will be prosecuted, you will be arrested."

Santilli: "They are unlawful court orders.... I did not come here to do anything but to give you the opportunity to prevent a scenario where you're going to make a decision to cause harm to people."

Dan Love: "We're lawfully here! Do you see all these signs? You're in an enclosed area, you're on federal land..."

Santilli: "It's not federal land."

Dan Love: "It is federal land. I am positive."

Santilli: "I'll bet you lunch."

Dan Love: "Mr. Santilli, if you were right, I wouldn't have a job. So you know what? Be right. Get it changed, and then I'm happy not to wear this little gold shield..."

Santilli: "Do you know how dangerous it is for you to run around with a gun and a badge with what you just told me?... That you actually believe that you have the Constitution, and the law behind you, and the entitlement and you have a badge and a gun?"

Dan Love: "If you come unlawfully, to impede or interfere, you will be arrested. Non-negotiable."


Listen here for audio: https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=CTpldasvnBs

To read full article:http://www.naturalnews.com/044697_secret_audio_recording_Bu…

Copied from: Full article: http://www.naturalnews.com/044697_secret_audio_recording_Bu…


https://fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.ne...4bdbee5c7bfccd





12 Likes4 Comments12 Shares



https://www.facebook.com/WithChastit...=page_internal

The road to hell is paved with bad intentions when politicians and corporations become involved.

http://tvoinews.net/wp-content/uploa...oi_logo_65.jpg

• Home
• Special Reports
• Opinion
• About
  
  
• Authors

HOME F-NATIONA

ROAD TO HELL PAVED WITH BAD INTENTIONS

http://tvoinews.net/wp-content/uploa...ad_to_Hell.jpg

Road to Hell Paved with Bad Intentions

Posted By: admin on: September 07, 2016In:

F-National, Featured, MalheurNo CommentsPrintEmail

The saying is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions but sometimes, the road to hell is paved with bad intentions and this may very well be one of those instances. Today, I was given cause to look at the case file of Pete Santilli on Pacer, the government’s document repository for the U.S. District Courts. Santilli’s case number on Pacer is 3:16-MJ-00024.

What I was looking for was any and all statements filed by anybody in the case record. There are none. What I did find was Document 3, Government’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Pretrial Detention. It wasn’t relevant to what I was looking for but since I was there… when I got to the following sentence, I had a major ‘ah ha’ moment.

Page 12 of the motion:
Santilli’s co-defendant, Cliven Bundy (“Bundy”) 69, is a long-time resident of Bunkerville, Nevada, living on 160 acres of land in a very rural and sparsely populated area of the state. Bundy Ranch, as he refers to the property, is located near the Virgin River a few miles from where Interstate 15 crosses from Nevada into Arizona, approximately 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. Bundy Ranch is surrounded by hundreds of thousands of acres of federal public lands commonly referred to as the Gold Butte area or the Bunkerville Allotment. Bundy uses that entire range of land to graze his cattle unlawfully.

http://tvoinews.net/wp-content/uploa...f_overpass.jpg

The “ah ha” is that the Bundy grazing allotment is a perfect location for an Intermodal Commerce Zone on the CANAMEX high priority corridor. It has the on-off ramps and it’s just outside the nearest town which is St. George, Utah. Being 90 miles from Las Vegas makes it a good location for a “pit stop” for truckers but more importantly, a microwave communications hub for the corridor technology (Intelligent Vehicle Highway System – IVHS).

This map has the route of the CANAMEX corridor with a black arrow point at the approximate location of the Bundy Ranch.
http://tvoinews.net/wp-content/uploa...ow-232x300.jpg

The planning for the international, technology-laden corridor system began following the completion of a 1986 Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Transportation Study. The name of the project was Mobility 2000.


“Founded in 1988, Mobility 2000 was an informal assembly of industry, university, and government representatives created to promote the use of advanced technologies to improve highway safety and efficiency. The initiative was formalized in 1991, when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was enacted, and the national Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) program was established. A growing sense soon developed in the IVHS community, especially in the public transit arena, that “intelligent vehicle highway systems” did not embrace all the transportation modes addressed in the national IVHS program. In 1994, the national IVHS program was renamed the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), to clarify the multi-modal intent.” Source: 11) I-70 Rural IVHS Corridor Master Plan, Colorado Dept of Transportation, De Leuw, Cather & Company, April 1996, 660205-01450 Appendix C–ITS Acronyms

http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/edldocs/3825/app-c.pdf

Recovered local copy: Corridor Master Plan, Colorado DOT


The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (PL 104-59) designated the I-15 as a “high priority corridor” that is named the CANAMEX Corridor as follows:
(26) The CANAMEX Corridor from Nogales, Arizona,
through Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City,
Utah, to Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Montana, to the
Canadian Border as follows…:

What the U.S. Department of Transportation did with this plan for an international corridor system was to put a target on Cliven Bundy’s back. And to make matters worse for Mr. Bundy, the BLM was given a dual mission of not only managing federal lands for multiple use, they were also the lead agency for Microwave Communications across public lands which was a requirement for the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) which is an integral part of the international corridor system.

The following is an extract from a 2004 memorandum from the Oregon Office of the BLMconcerning siting of federally administered lands with a high potential for development.

Purpose: To assist the districts in identifying communication sites on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands with a high potential for development and to identify those sites in need of a communication site management plan or an update to an existing plan. Each site will require a cadastral survey of the site and the development of a map to identify the location of all facilities on the site, potential future development areas, the legal access, etc.

The BLM has no mandate or mission to protect ranchers property rights including the right to graze on federal lands. It’s possible – and highly likely with hindsight that they could have given priority to the Bundy grazing land as a development site for the international corridor system over cattle grazing under the same theory that was used to take private property in the Kelo v. The City of New London. Higher and better use I believe was the argument. The reason I didn’t specifically say CANAMEX in that statement is because it would be true for anybody who was living on property that could potentially be designated as having a “high potential for development” as happened with the FLDS community in Texas in 2008 and may have been the real reason behind what happened to David Koresh and his followers at their Waco Compound which was near an airport.

As if all of that were not bad enough, Mayors and City Councilmen and probably County Officials were made aware of the plans for the Corridor system. The North American International Trade Corridor Partnership was formed as a private partnership of public officials. Shortly after they were discovered, they merged into a private non-profit named NASCO – North American SuperCorridor Coalition but not before some of the website was captured. The point being that anybody who was aware of the plans for the international corridor system, had what is essentially insider information that was very valuable providing a plausible motive for silent complicity with corruption to relieve property owners of their property.

There needs to be an end-to-end investigation of the corridor system for all routes to see how many private property owners were driven off their property and more importantly at this point, to put an end to the abuse of property owners who have the misfortune to be owners of property that has a substantially increased value for purposes of which the general public is not aware.

---

Related Reading
How the United States Became a Land Bridge Between Two Bodies of Water
NAFTA Superhighway History
NAFTA Superhighway Memory Hole






Tags: BLMBundy RanchCANAMEXIVHSPete Santilli

Shar

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/ec97566...?s=80&d=mm&r=g

admin

LAVOY FINICUM

http://tvoinews.net/wp-content/uploa...204203200_.jpg

http://tvoinews.net/f-national/road-...ad-intentions/

The truth about "the man on the bridge" Eric Parker at the Bundy Ranch standoff:

phttps://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...1fe087216da160


Jay Arehart

7 hrs ·



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...0597894&type=3

I am fuming right now!!!!! I came across this in my feed.

Let me explain the WHOLE DAMN PICTURE, since this is floating around Fb land with NO REAL STORY!

The Patriot in the picture has taken a DEFENSIVE POSTURE AFTER HEARING AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT :
"FEDERAL AGENTS WILL USE DEADLY FORCE" upon protesters, which consisted of MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

THE REASON FOR THIS DEFENSIVE POSTURE WAS TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND OTHERS FROM HARM PERPETRATED BY THE FEDERAL AGENCY.
Now for the BACKSTORY:
The Man on the Bridge is an American that simply went to Bunkerville to defend the First Amendment because the CORRUPT GOVERNMENT created
"FREE SPEECH ZONES". For those of you who don't understand the Concept let me break it down.

The First Amendment already has a zone:
FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA, FROM THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF CANADA TO THE NORTHERN BORDER MEXICO.

That's right the whole damn land we all call home!
THE WHOLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!

Not some area cordoned off by some UNCONSTITUTIONAL ALPHABET AGENCY (BLM)!
He was on the bridge originally, simply to observe the protest in the Wash below when he heard the announcement for the Use of Deadly Force Against AMERICANS ! Those American protesters had assembled peacefully and consisted of CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN. Those Protesters DID NOT BRANDISH ONE SINGLE WEAPON OR MADE A SINGLE THREAT OF VIOLENCE!

YES THERE WERE FEDERAL SNIPERS IN POSITION AND ALREADY AIMED ON THEM AS WELL AS BLM AGENTS IN FULL TACTICAL ATTIRE READY TO ENGAGE IN AN ACT OF WAR.

He was originally UNARMED until the announcement of DEADLY FORCE. Of course you'll never see pictures of that. THAT IS NOT THE NARRATIVE THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO KNOW!

THE NARRATIVE YOU ARE TO BELIEVE PER THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IS EXACTLY AS IT IS STATED IN THE MEME.

"That he took aim on 'federal agents' as an act of armed defiance and conspired terrorism"
THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!

He was DEFENDING HIMSELF AND OTHERS IN HARMS WAY FROM A TYRANNICAL FEDERAL AGENCY. HE WAS DEFENDING HIS RIGHTS AS WELL AS THEIR AND OURS!
"The Man on the Bridge" is someone I consider family. I call him my Brother. I have spoken to him,broke bread and spent time with his family. I pray for him and his family with every dawn.

Eric Parker
Scott Drexler
Todd Engel
Steven Stewart

Four AMERICANS,
Four IDAHOANS,
Four MEN.....

Who did nothing more than what they believe in
Standing for others and themselves
Upholding the Constitution
In a time when "God-given Rights" are abused
By tyrants who only have abused the power
WE THE PEOPLE have entrusted them with.

Wake up, know the story! Explore the TRUE NARRATIVE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
Most of all don't MAKE OR POST A MEME THAT YOU TRULY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

(sample below)

It makes stupidity a reality for those of us that know the TRUE NARRATIVE.


https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...f01ca12d3665b7

Deborah Jordan on the United States purposefully withholding discovery from the media. She says the government doesn't want the public to know who pushed for the arrests in Nevada. The troubling thing about the Bundy Ranch standoff, the government will never admit, is the United States governmnet has no jurisdiction to enforce their laws in the states, even on public land. The armed BLM attack goon squad led by The egotistic Daniel Love only have jurisdiction over another federal employee on the public land. This was demonstrated by E. Wayne Hage when he had Sheriff Tony DeMeo defend him from the FAKE BLM "law enforcement" in Nye County. This is also addressed in many court descisions which are covered in the excellent video published last week https://youtu.be/HLLUTU0Nowo, nor do any of the federal alphabet agencies.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/bundy...ing-discovery/

Bundy Defendants Accuse Nevada Courts Of “Political Lynching” After Viewing Discovery

Home › News › Bundy Defendants Accuse Nevada Courts Of “Political Lynching” After Viewing Discovery

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...M-1024x568.png
Published by Guerrilla Media Network LLC — GMN has been a strong advocate for activist since 2012

IN NEVADA: Men arrested for being present at the 2014 Bundy Protest in Bunkerville, Nevada, are accusing the United States Government of purposefully withholding discovery from the media because they don’t want the public to see who pushed for the arrests, and just how weak the Government’s case against them really is. Judge Gloria Navarro, who refused to give any of the prisoners being held in Nevada a fair pre-trial release, is suspected of basing her opinion on a completely bogus narrative conceived by the Government, without even looking at the facts in the case. The defendants in this case feel she has a political agenda that aligns her decision with the man who helped her attain the bench, Harry Reid.

“It serves her political masters to have the discovery shrouded in secrecy, a source has told me; ” You would be hard pressed to find anyone close to this case that will tell you it wasn’t just by chance that Navarro was chosen to preside over this trial.”

The fact Judge Gloria Navarro was recommended by SEN. Harry Reid and appointed to the Bench by President Barrack Obama, moved Attorneys for Cliven Bundy to ask Navarro to recuse herself this past Spring.

After receiving and viewing a good portion of the “discovery” these men now say they finally understand why the Government wants to keep it all a big secret, and believe the information, once made public, will raise many questions about just why they are being held without chance of being released before their trial.
According to one prisoner, the discovery proves their ongoing incarceration is nothing short of a “political lynching” designed specifically to create the perception they are all guilty of committing a violent act so the Judge can claim justification for keeping them behind bars.

While they cannot divulge any portion of what they are seeing in the discovery they certainly have no court ordered “gag” preventing them from voicing their reaction to it.

The public needs to remember why Bundy Ranch happened in the first place, said one prisoner. We didn’t all just show up in Bunkerville one day because we were mad about a cattle round-up. The facts are the same as they were in April of 2014. The BLM was acting aggressively toward the Bundy family. They had snipers trained on them, they reacted violently and beat a man for taking photos of them, they set up an illegal free speech area, they were killing cattle and burying them on “so called” public lands; and despite numerous warnings to “back off” by Clarke County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Governor Brian Sanddoval, and plenty of other State and Federal Officials, Daniel P Love escalated his militarized response and refused to to use diplomacy over violence.

This accusation by the prisoner is backed by numerous statements made by both Gillespie and Governor Sandoval, during and after the time of the protest. In a statement made to the Las Vegas Sun, Gillespie said he warned BLM Special Agent In Charge Daniel P Love, that he had lost control of the situation and would only escalate it to violence if he did not stop the round-up. Love refused the advise of both the Sheriff of Clarke County and Governor of the State of Nevada. Many people who know Daniel P. Love say his over inflated ego would not allow him to heed that warning.

“I think if anybody would look at how they handled the protesting with the use of Tasers and police dogs, anyone who had been in policing would question those tactics,” he said. “And I believe that led to the heightened interest and escalating the situation.” ~ Douglas Gillespie

“Federal Prosecutor Steven Myhre would now like the court and the public to believe that Dan Love and fellow BLM Agents are all victims of propaganda, and that the BLM did nothing to provoke a visit from an outraged Bundy Family which resulted in a video release exposing their aggression” said one attorney working on the case;

When the family approached the BLM that day, Ammon Bundy was tazed three times, a recovering cancer patient and grandmother, was violently thrown to the ground, and a pregnant girl was threatened by the release of a dog. That video is far from propaganda, it’s the truth, and it speaks volumes about the mindset of the BLM. Evidence will clearly show that the Bundy’s were right about the BLM killing cattle and burying them on public lands; and that, coupled with numerous other violent incidents perpetrated by the BLM, is what caused the escalation in Bunkerville in 2014. To say that the BLM and Dan Love are all just victims is simply not true. Click here to view the video.

There has also been an unexplained number of plea deals connected to this case, and at least three men are now trying to back out of their deals after seeing the discovery.

Jerry Delemus who recently took a plea deal on the case has since changed his mind about that decision saying that he was forced into the deal by the FBI. Delemus, who is married to State Rep Susan Delemus of New Hampshire, now says he buckled under extreme pressure after the FBI threatened that they would go after the men who accompanied him to Nevada if he refused to take the deal. One of those men was his Son.

When Delemus asked Judge Gloria Navarro if he would be committing perjury when he lied under oath to say he was guilty, her response was, “Not necessarily.” So the Judge presiding over this case encouraged a defendant to lie under oath? So much for the dignity of the Nevada Bench.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...ndyCattle2.jpg

Much time has passed since the 2014 protest and public memory may have faded, but the fact still remains; Sheriff Doug Gillespi told Cliven Bundy and the American People on the day of the protest that the BLM was leaving and the cattle would now be freed. When the Bundy Family, and the American People, accompanied by the media came to get the cattle, they were met with the threat of being shot by Daniel P. Love and his BLM. Was Daniel P. Love once again defying the orders of the County Sheriff when the people approached that gate? We think that’s exactly what the “discovery” will show.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...sset_11500.jpg

Special Agent In Charge Daniel P. LoveAccording to an official statement by a BLM spokesperson in a report documented by E&E LLC the BLM narrative is very clear;

“In a highly volatile situation with heavily armed antagonists, Love negotiated a peaceful resolution,” said Celia Boddington, who was serving as BLM’s assistant director for communications at the time and is now retired. “When all is said and done, he was the person most responsible for ensuring that nobody got killed that day. While many are eager to play Monday morning quarterback, history will judge him kindly.”

In reality Daniel P. Love was forced to leave the premises by a Deputy Sheriff at the gate after refusing a direct order to do so several times. Daniel P. Love said he was not leaving and that Ammon Bundy was not taking those cattle. He said all of this after Sheriff Douglas Gillespie had already told a cheering crowd that he had ordered the BLM to vacate the premises and the Bundy’s naturally went to get their cattle, or at least what was left of them. Revised history may very well remember Daniel P. Love kindly, but those who stared down the barrel of his gun that day and know the truth, will certainly not.


End Article
PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO GMN AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE — STAY CONNECTED TO GMN FOR MORE BREAKING STORIES LIKE THIS ONE THAT YOU WILL NEVER GET FROM MSM.

Donald Trump seems to have reversed his position on public land policy.

Quote:

---

"You cannot let people take over federal property," Trump told the Times.
Now, Trump says Americans shouldn't let the government turn the West into a federally-owned frontier.

---

Donald Trump

Quote:

---

When I am elected president, I will bring the executive branch back inside the Constitution and will work with Congress to put America first.

---

Donald Trump takes on federal land control

http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/ca...bccbfdb96f.jpg

Forget China, guns or immigration. Donald Trump is taking on a new issue: federal land ownership.
In a new op-ed for the Reno Gazette-Journal, the Republican presidential front-runner rails against the "draconian rule" of the Bureau of Land Management and the Obama administration's "land grab" in the western United States.

"The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada," Trump explains. "In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development are forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians."

On Thursday, Trump told the New York Times he would end an ongoing dispute between Oregon ranchers and federal officials, that's culminated with a group of armed protesters staging an ongoing occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, with a "phone call."

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

"You cannot let people take over federal property," Trump told the Times.
Now, Trump says Americans shouldn't let the government turn the West into a federally-owned frontier.

"Honest, hardworking citizens who seek freedom and economic independence must beg for deference from a federal government that is more intent on power and control than it is in serving the citizens of the nation," Trump writes in his RGJ op-ed.

Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, pushes the conservative argument that because the government owns millions of acres of land, specifically in Nevada, "the cost of land has skyrocketed and the cost of living has become an impediment to growth."

"Where are the city and county to get the land for schools, roads, parks and other public use areas if they have to beg Washington for the land and then pay a premium price for it? How are people who see a future in Nevada to find housing and employment if the federal government is inhibiting economic development?" he writes.

http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/ca...7cc1b425bc.jpg
Also from the Washington Examiner

According to Trump, who's second in the Washington Examiner's presidential power rankings, the only way to solve the issues sparked by federal land ownership "is to bring to Washington a president who will rein in the federal government and get Congress to do its job."

"What is needed in Washington is a president who has the will, strength and courage to lead," he writes, adding, "When I am elected president, I will bring the executive branch back inside the Constitution and will work with Congress to put America first."

Top Story


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/do...rticle/2579978

Why America hates the Bureau of Land Management.

http://reagangirl.com/why-america-hates-the-blm/

Why America hates the BLM
By: ReaganGirl
September 19, 2016
Share the love!http://reagangirl.com/wp-content/plu...ro/twitter.pnghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/plu...o/facebook.pnghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/plu...tro/tumblr.pnghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/plu...tro/google.pnghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/plu...o/linkedin.pnghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/plu.../pinterest.pnghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/plu...etro/email.png
September 19, 2015

If you want to understand what’s behind the Bundy Ranch Bunkerville standoff, the imprisonment of the Hammonds, the Oregon standoff, and the growing hatred of the federal Bureau of Land Management in the West, this is a must watch.

http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8

These are BLM agents on the Bundy Ranch–is something amiss here?

http://reagangirl.com/wp-content/upl...11-300x200.jpghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/upl...ht-300x240.jpghttp://reagangirl.com/wp-content/upl...MN-300x200.jpg

Reposted by Reagangirl.com

Share the love!



Comments(0)Categories(3)Tags(1)
Add new comment

This conduct from these monsters is beyond unbelievable, Brianna Bundy's experience in federal court. She doesn't say which judge, Gloria Navarro or one of the others,


Briana Bundy

4 hrs ·

Mel was denied reopen of his detention hearing. I had the baby with me because I couldn't find a sitter. We walked in, he saw us and instantly fell apart. The US Marshall's got after him for looking at us. He said, "please, I haven't seen my baby since she was..." They cut him off from finishing his sentence. His attorney did great. He provided more than sufficient cause to reopen.

The prosecution made claim that he did not have to be the person participating, but the mere fact that he is a Bundy should be cause enough to deny him. The said he was a monster, they brought up Oregon, of which his attorney brought up was irrelevant to this case, the judge ignored this but went on to repeat things, lies, that other defendants made. Stated that the fact he stands by these men with "horrible character" made him just as bad.

She belittled and degraded him even making claim that if released he would retaliate and federal officers would be in danger. It was absolutely UNJUST! This "court" of "liberty and justice for all?"

What a corrupt and evil system we have! Where the innocent are guilty until proven innocent and then they are still ignored and ruled to be guilty!

You know, I used to believe in justice. I used to believe that all men and women carried the light of Christ. I used to believe in mercy. But today my friends, I starred evil in the eyes. In the eyes of evil prosecutors, evil judge and heartless US Marshall's.

I know I should pray for them, try to show them compassion. I have done that for far too long. Today, I became indifferent. I have no care at all what becomes of these people committing these evil acts towards my family, friends and children. The Lord can do what he wishes with them. I will not plea for their mercy because today, I saw evil.

18


https://www.facebook.com/briana.bundy.3/posts/857655867703717

Quote:

---

I know I should pray for them, try to show them compassion. I have done that for far too long.

---

This ignorance of Christian dogma is why men will turn the other cheek, to be subservient to their human masters.

Do not pray for them, some situations call for retaliation and vengeance.

You know, I used to believe in justice. I used to believe that all men and women carried the light of Christ. I used to believe in mercy. But today my friends, I starred evil in the eyes. In the eyes of evil prosecutors, evil judge and heartless US Marshall's.

I know I should pray for them, try to show them compassion. I have done that for far too long. Today, I became indifferent. I have no care at all what becomes of these people committing these evil acts towards my family, friends and children. The Lord can do what he wishes with them. I will not plea for their mercy because today, I saw evil.


It's about time you woke up. Jesus isn't going to save them all. Only when the head is cut off the snake will things change for the better

Feds pile more charges on Peter Santilli in Nevada

https://americanfreepress.net/feds-c...ed-up-charges/

Feds Continue to Harass Patriot-Journalist with Trumped-Up Charges

https://americanfreepress.net/wp-con...S_Santilli.jpg
Federal prosecutors, citing a lack of evidence, dropped the charges against Internet radio personality Peter “Pete” T. Santilli Jr., stemming from his presence at the early-2016 demonstration at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, but they slapped new even more absurd charges on him related to his coverage of the protest at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in 2014.

By Mark Anderson
Pete Santilli’s dismissal came on the eve of his Oregon trial, AFP has since learned that he was transferred Sept. 13 from a holding cell in Portland, Ore. to Nevada, where he’s facing much more serious federal charges for his allegedly confrontational role in the April 2014 standoff between elder rancher Cliven Bundy and federal land-regulators.

A Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department official confirmed that Santilli had been jailed there in Portland, under federal custody, since May 19. The Oregon Federal Marshals Service office then confirmed his transfer by marshals to Nevada.

The approximately week-long Nevada standoff did not result in a shoot-out and saw federal officials back off—prompting many to believe that the Oregon crackdown nearly two years later was payback for the event in Nevada. Citizens from across the nation, some of them armed, had trekked to Bunkerville, Nev. to stand with the Bundy family.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The family is known for taking strong issue with the manner in which grazing lands and other federal properties are micro-managed—some say woefully mismanaged—by a distant bureaucracy, often to the detriment of local ranchers and other property owners.

The federal government, which contends that the elder Bundy had for years refused to pay the required fees when his cattle grazed on federal lands, claims its action was limited to impounding and transferring Bundy’s cattle since those fees remained unpaid. When Cliven and company refused to allow that removal to happen, the standoff ensued.

According to The Oregonian newspaper, Santilli, an Ohio native who most recently lived in California, reportedly opposed, beforehand, the Bundy siblings’ idea to occupy the Malheur refuge’s building as a platform for protesting the re-sentencing of Oregon ranchers Steve Hammond and his father, Dwight Hammond The two Hammonds had been charged with arson, though the Hammonds maintain they simply set “backfires” to try and subdue a larger fire on federal lands.

The apparent reason that Santilli kept a live camera-feed running at the Oregon site nonstop was to broadcast the plight of the ranchers to the world and hopefully generate more public support for their situation. While some feel his presence probably helped prevent a massacre from taking place, there’s been speculation that the authorities may have exploited his broadcasts to get “intel” on the Oregon occupiers.
So while federal prosecutors eventually deemed Santilli’s Oregon actions to be basically journalistic in nature, and therefore not in league with those the government is trying in court for the events in Oregon, the authorities claim that Santilli stepped well outside journalistic bounds in Nevada.

The 16-count federal indictment regarding Nevada smacks of legal overkill. Santilli, a non-rancher who maintains he visited the Nevada standoff only as a journalistic observer (starting a couple days after the standoff began), is accused of the very same crimes that Cliven E. Bundy, Ryan C. Bundy, Ammon E. Bundy, and Ryan W. Payne allegedly committed there.

The counts against these five men (the indictment repeats some counts separately, bringing the total to 16) are: “Conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S.,” “conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer,” “use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence,” “assault on a federal officer,” “threatening a federal law enforcement officer,” “obstruction of the due administration of justice,” “interference with interstate commerce by extortion,” and “interstate travel in aid of extortion.”

The government even goes so far as to allege that Santilli drove an ATV to physically block BLM vehicles and recruited gunmen to the ranch via his Internet broadcasts, amid a litany of other allegations. The 51-page indictment uses the words “conspiracy” and “conspirators” umpteen times, in a world where we’re told that real conspiracies are all but non-existent.

One key thing to watch for, as Nevada legal proceedings against Santilli and the others advance, is whether any legal precedents are set that would encumber the work of independent journalists in the future, especially those covering controversial or potentially volatile events.

The federal Oregon trial, in which brothers Ryan and Ammon Bundy and five of their followers are defendants, is underway in Portland.

http://www.clixtrac.com/banner/156365.jpg

Santilli and the other four named in the 16-count Nevada indictment, along with 12 others who’ve been indicted, reportedly will face trial in Las Vegas in February.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

https://americanfreepress.net/wp-con...ages/print.gif

Eric Parker video made just days before his arrest

http://youtu.be/4JJ_gSFxawM

https://youtu.be/4JJ_gSFxawM

Territorial jurisdiction -- 62 Statutes Chapter 645 Section 7(3)
"Any lands reserved or acquired for THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES." does not include PUBLIC LAND.

http://s19.postimg.org/er7yfge03/image.png

From the Pete Santilli Show's Guerilla Media Network

http://thepetesantillishow.com/bundy...ing-discovery/

Bundy Defendants Accuse Nevada Courts Of “Political Lynching” After Viewing Discovery

Home › News › Bundy Defendants Accuse Nevada Courts Of “Political Lynching” After Viewing Discovery

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...M-1024x568.png

Published by Guerrilla Media Network LLC — GMN has been a strong advocate for activist since 2012

IN NEVADA: Men arrested for being present at the 2014 Bundy Protest in Bunkerville, Nevada, are accusing the United States Government of purposefully withholding discovery from the media because they don’t want the public to see who pushed for the arrests, and just how weak the Government’s case against them really is. Judge Gloria Navarro, who refused to give any of the prisoners being held in Nevada a fair pre-trial release, is suspected of basing her opinion on a completely bogus narrative conceived by the Government, without even looking at the facts in the case. The defendants in this case feel she has a political agenda that aligns her decision with the man who helped her attain the bench, Harry Reid.

“It serves her political masters to have the discovery shrouded in secrecy, a source has told me; ” You would be hard pressed to find anyone close to this case that will tell you it wasn’t just by chance that Navarro was chosen to preside over this trial.”

The fact Judge Gloria Navarro was recommended by SEN. Harry Reid and appointed to the Bench by President Barrack Obama, moved Attorneys for Cliven Bundy to ask Navarro to recuse herself this past Spring.

After receiving and viewing a good portion of the “discovery” these men now say they finally understand why the Government wants to keep it all a big secret, and believe the information, once made public, will raise many questions about just why they are being held without chance of being released before their trial.

According to one prisoner, the discovery proves their ongoing incarceration is nothing short of a “political lynching” designed specifically to create the perception they are all guilty of committing a violent act so the Judge can claim justification for keeping them behind bars.

While they cannot divulge any portion of what they are seeing in the discovery they certainly have no court ordered “gag” preventing them from voicing their reaction to it.

The public needs to remember why Bundy Ranch happened in the first place, said one prisoner. We didn’t all just show up in Bunkerville one day because we were mad about a cattle round-up. The facts are the same as they were in April of 2014. The BLM was acting aggressively toward the Bundy family. They had snipers trained on them, they reacted violently and beat a man for taking photos of them, they set up an illegal free speech area, they were killing cattle and burying them on “so called” public lands; and despite numerous warnings to “back off” by Clarke County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Governor Brian Sanddoval, and plenty of other State and Federal Officials, Daniel P Love escalated his militarized response and refused to to use diplomacy over violence.

This accusation by the prisoner is backed by numerous statements made by both Gillespie and Governor Sandoval, during and after the time of the protest. In a statement made to the Las Vegas Sun, Gillespie said he warned BLM Special Agent In Charge Daniel P Love, that he had lost control of the situation and would only escalate it to violence if he did not stop the round-up. Love refused the advise of both the Sheriff of Clarke County and Governor of the State of Nevada. Many people who know Daniel P. Love say his over inflated ego would not allow him to heed that warning.

“I think if anybody would look at how they handled the protesting with the use of Tasers and police dogs, anyone who had been in policing would question those tactics,” he said. “And I believe that led to the heightened interest and escalating the situation.” ~ Douglas Gillespie

“Federal Prosecutor Steven Myhre would now like the court and the public to believe that Dan Love and fellow BLM Agents are all victims of propaganda, and that the BLM did nothing to provoke a visit from an outraged Bundy Family which resulted in a video release exposing their aggression” said one attorney working on the case;

When the family approached the BLM that day, Ammon Bundy was tazed three times, a recovering cancer patient and grandmother, was violently thrown to the ground, and a pregnant girl was threatened by the release of a dog. That video is far from propaganda, it’s the truth, and it speaks volumes about the mindset of the BLM. Evidence will clearly show that the Bundy’s were right about the BLM killing cattle and burying them on public lands; and that, coupled with numerous other violent incidents perpetrated by the BLM, is what caused the escalation in Bunkerville in 2014. To say that the BLM and Dan Love are all just victims is simply not true. Click here to view the video.

There has also been an unexplained number of plea deals connected to this case, and at least three men are now trying to back out of their deals after seeing the discovery.

Jerry Delemus who recently took a plea deal on the case has since changed his mind about that decision saying that he was forced into the deal by the FBI. Delemus, who is married to State Rep Susan Delemus of New Hampshire, now says he buckled under extreme pressure after the FBI threatened that they would go after the men who accompanied him to Nevada if he refused to take the deal. One of those men was his Son.

When Delemus asked Judge Gloria Navarro if he would be committing perjury when he lied under oath to say he was guilty, her response was, “Not necessarily.” So the Judge presiding over this case encouraged a defendant to lie under oath? So much for the dignity of the Nevada Bench.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...ndyCattle2.jpg

Much time has passed since the 2014 protest and public memory may have faded, but the fact still remains; Sheriff Doug Gillespi told Cliven Bundy and the American People on the day of the protest that the BLM was leaving and the cattle would now be freed. When the Bundy Family, and the American People, accompanied by the media came to get the cattle, they were met with the threat of being shot by Daniel P. Love and his BLM. Was Daniel P. Love once again defying the orders of the County Sheriff when the people approached that gate? We think that’s exactly what the “discovery” will show.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...sset_11500.jpg
Special Agent In Charge Daniel P. Love

According to an official statement by a BLM spokesperson in a report documented by E&E LLC the BLM narrative is very clear;

“In a highly volatile situation with heavily armed antagonists, Love negotiated a peaceful resolution,” said Celia Boddington, who was serving as BLM’s assistant director for communications at the time and is now retired. “When all is said and done, he was the person most responsible for ensuring that nobody got killed that day. While many are eager to play Monday morning quarterback, history will judge him kindly.”

In reality Daniel P. Love was forced to leave the premises by a Deputy Sheriff at the gate after refusing a direct order to do so several times. Daniel P. Love said he was not leaving and that Ammon Bundy was not taking those cattle. He said all of this after Sheriff Douglas Gillespie had already told a cheering crowd that he had ordered the BLM to vacate the premises and the Bundy’s naturally went to get their cattle, or at least what was left of them. Revised history may very well remember Daniel P. Love kindly, but those who stared down the barrel of his gun that day and know the truth, will certainly not.

End Article

PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO GMN AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE — STAY CONNECTED TO GMN FOR MORE BREAKING STORIES LIKE THIS ONE THAT YOU WILL NEVER GET FROM MSM.

Lawyer claims FBI posed as a film crew in the Bundy Standoff investigation.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...-investigation


Posted September 30, 2016 - 6:46pm

Lawyer says FBI agents posed as film crew in Bunkerville standoff investigation




http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...eb_7118957.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy displays a bouquet of desert foliage that his cattle grazes on during a news conference at an event near his ranch in Bunkerville on Saturday, April 11, 2015. (David Becker/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...03_7118957.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy carries a bouquet of desert foliage that his cattle grazes on during an event near the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville on Saturday, April 11, 2015. (David Becker/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...05_7118957.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy speaks during a news conference at an event near his ranch in Bunkerville on Saturday, April 11, 2015. (David Becker/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...z3_7118957.jpgEric Parker from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge as protesters gather by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) base camp, where cattle that were seized from rancher Cliven Bundy are being held, near Bunkerville, Nevada in this April 12, 2014 file photo. (Jim Urquhart/Reut
http://mm.reviewjournal.com/media/vi.../Bundy_thb.jpg
Previous coverage
See a timeline of events leading up Cliven Bundy's conflict with the Bureau of Land Management in 2014. Also, see the most recent reports involving Bundy and his family.


By JEFF GERMAN
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL


FBI agents posed as a documentary film crew to gather evidence during their investigation into the April 2014 standoff near the Bundy family ranch in Bunkerville, a defense lawyer disclosed in court papers Friday.
Attorney Chris Rasmussen said undercover agents conducted video interviews of several defendants to “extract admissions” from them before they were charged.

He identified the company as Longbow Productions, which does not appear in online Nevada licensing records.
Attorney Dan Hill, who is defending Ammon Bundy, said his client was interviewed for several hours in Phoenix by Longbow Productions months before he was charged in the Bunkerville standoff with his father, Cliven Bundy, and other defendants.

“I believe that the FBI was pretending to be members of the news media in order to have lengthy conversations with Ammon and others,” Hill said. “Ammon has nothing to hide, but I still find it troublesome that the FBI would sink to that tactic.”

Another defense lawyer, Jess Marchese, said his client Eric Parker gave the company a 90-minute interview in Idaho, where he lives.

“From everything that I’ve seen, it’s my belief that Longbow Productions was the FBI,” Marchese said. “I know that there were interviews with some of the other defendants. It was definitely unique, but I don’t think it’s overly harmful to my client because his recitation of the facts has always been the same.”

Parker posted on Facebook in August 2014 that a member of Longbow Productions told him the company was making a documentary about the standoff and wanted his opinion about it.

“I was told that the Bundys were working with them and have given interviews for it,” Parker said in the post. “If I could have that confirmed, I would feel better about talking to them.”

Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman for the Nevada U.S. attorney’s office, would not comment Friday on Longbow Productions.

“We cannot comment on pending litigation,” she said.

FBI spokesman Huston Pullen also declined to comment.

The revelation came in court papers Rasmussen filed seeking to narrow a protective order that vastly restricts public disclosure of evidence in the high-profile case.

Rasmussen, who represents radio talk show host Peter Santilli, said he and other defense lawyers want to cite government evidence about Longbow Productions and other activity by federal agents during the standoff investigation in public motions challenging the government’s case.

Other government evidence expected to be the subject of defense motions includes Nevada Highway Patrol dashcam videos showing the standoff scene, bodycam videos from Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents capturing the events leading up to the protests, and aerial surveillance of the Bunkerville area conducted by federal agents, according to Rasmussen’s court papers.

A total of 19 defendants were charged in March with conspiring to assault BLM agents on April 12, 2014, and take back the impounded Bundy cattle that had been grazing on federal land. Two later pleaded guilty, and the rest are to stand trial Feb. 6 before Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro.

In his court papers, Rasmussen said defense lawyers should be able to remove personal identifiers from government documents and then file them publicly with their upcoming motions.

“Counsel should be allowed to make professional judgments and redact the personal information of any person outlined in police or FBI reports like counsel in this district has done in every case prior to this one,” he said.
Attorney Maggie McLetchie — who represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Battle Born Media and The Associated Press — has lodged objections in court papers to the protective order, calling it too broad and a blow to transparency.

Because of concerns about threats to witnesses and law enforcement officers, the order prohibits defense teams for all 17 defendants from publicly disclosing grand jury transcripts, FBI and police reports, witness statements and other documents the government collected during its two-year investigation.

McLetchie on Friday hailed Rasmussen’s bid to narrow the scope of the order, which was signed earlier this year by U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen.

“In short, the protective order in place is excessively broad,” she said. “It cloaks information that the public has a right to know about in total secrecy.”

McLetchie said there are First Amendment concerns and questions about the actions of law enforcement in the case.

“The public has a right to assess for itself whether the government engaged in problematic law enforcement practices and whether this prosecution is retaliation for criticizing the government,” she said. “The courts belong to the people, and law enforcement works for the people, too.”

Contact Jeff German at jgerman@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-8135. Follow @JGermanRJ on Twitter.

The Bundy Affair; The Shotgun approach from the justice department

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1689

Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom



Outpost of Freedom

when the government is pointing their guns in the wrong direction

• Home
• About Gary Hunt
• Copyright Notice
• Article Series Listings

« Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer? What Officer?
Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads »

The Bundy Affair – #16 * The Legal Shotgun

September 28, 2016, 6:57 am
The Bundy Affair – #16
The Legal Shotgun

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ll-300x300.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 28, 2016

In a related article, “Burns Chronicles N^o 30 – Officer? What Officer?“, I addressed a common element to the Indictments from Oregon and Nevada. You may also want to refer back to that article to see how the federal government has, over the years, expanded its authority (jurisdiction) well beyond what the Constitution granted to that government. The article covered the extent of the Oregon Indictment, but only the common charge of violation of 18 US Code § 372. The Nevada Indictment goes a bit further. It charges the accused with violation of 18 US Code § 371 and endeavors to provide some substance to the charge, which was not done in Oregon.


We will start with the charge of violation of 18 US Code § 371, which reads, in the Indictment:

COUNT ONE

Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)

Paragraphs 1 through 153 are incorporated herein in full…


So, what does US Code § 371 say?
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
It is interesting that this really overlaps 18 US Code § 372, the statute addressed in the previous article in that it says, “to commit any offense against the United States”. Now, § 372 is an offense against the United States, so why is there a charge that is already incorporated in another charge?

My guess is that it is what I refer to as a “legal shotgun”. In the Branch Davidian trial, Sarah Bain explained there were so many charges against the Davidians that the jury felt they had to find the Davidians guilty of something. So they took the charge with the lowest punishment, and found them guilty of that Count. So, if you throw enough peanut butter at a wall, some of it will stick. Not a very good concept of justice, but the government knows how human nature works. You could call it a “chicanery conviction”.

.So, here are some more shotgun pellets:

• 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b) – (Assault on a Federal Officer
• 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) – Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer
• 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) – Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence
• 18 U.S.C. § 2 – Aiding and Abetting
• 18 U/S.C. § 1952 – Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion

We will begin with:
18 U.S.C. § 111: Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees
(a) In General. – Whoever –
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;
(b) Enhanced Penalty. – Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Now, for the legal maze. The reference in (a)(1) of § 111 refers us to:
18 U.S.C. § 1114: Protection of officers and employees of the United States
Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished –

When these two statutes are coupled, it creates a rather impressive monster, in the eyes of the jury. The referenced statute, § 1114, begins with “Whoever kills or attempts to kill” and then includes any employee of any agency of the government. It goes on to say that if the person “is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties…”
Then, we refer back to § 111 and find that what falls into this characterization of kill or attempt to kill, some lesser acts. Those lesser acts, “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person”, should be of serious concern to all Americans.

There is a saying from the past, “The King can do no wrong!” And, § 1114 makes clear that if you find someone in government doing something wrong, and you attempt to stop them, you are guilty of a crime. Then, by reference (guilt by association), you are associated with killers.

Now, let’s jump back to § 371. When we do this, we can pull in anyone who you have even discussed your objection to some government person’s action, because, “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States”, then you are an accomplice. So, those who might believe that the King has done wrong, well, you have just become a criminal. It does not even contemplate whether the “government employee” was doing something wrong, or you were fully within the right.

Next pellet in the legal shotgun:

18 U.S.C. § 115: Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member
(a)(1) Whoever –
(B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

So, here we see the use of “official duties”, without regard to the lawfulness of those duties. If it is not private duties, you are snared in the trap.

So, let’s continue and see what other pellets exist in the legal shotgun. This is an “enhancement statute”, intended to make a crime more criminal if you commit the crime. However, understand that you must first commit the crime that is to be enhanced by the statute. However, it is another “Count” in the jurors’ minds. Here is the statute, with pertinent parts, only:
18 U.S.C. § 924: Penalties
(c) (1) (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime –

(3) For purposes of this subsection the term “crime of violence” means an offense that is a felony and –

(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.

Now, let’s see if we have this right. We do have a Second Amendment that allows us to “keep and bear Arms”. Then, of course, Nevada is an “open carry” state, so the right to carry weapons is protected under the State laws, as well.

It would seem the first necessity in evaluating this from a criminal standpoint would be to determine if the carrying or possession of the weapons was a factor in the crime, if there truly was a crime, or if it was simply an exercise of rights.

You will note that the statute defines brandish in such a way that it excludes any other form of possession. However, if we look at the English definition of brandish, we find that it does separate the display of the firearm from mere possession, associating the word with how it was displayed.

From Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1970):
brandish. v.t. 1. to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly. 2. to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.
So, the government, by a form of verbicide, has made a common English word, by redefining it to an all-inclusive word, with the sole exception of the qualifier, “in order to intimidate that person.” Darn, that qualifier is almost lost at the end of the statute.

Now, probably the prime example that we can expect the government to take would be the case of Eric Parker. Eric Parker is the object of a well known photograph of a man on the Highway Overpass with his rifle sticking through the wall of the overpass. They will suggest that he was “brandishing” his rifle, and they will prove it with pictures. However, those “officers and employees” down in the Wash could not have even seen that he was holding a rifle, so how the heck could he have been “intimidating” them? So, what Parker did could, in no way, be considered brandishing. Instead, he was there to protect those in the Wash, should the government “officers and employees” escalate beyond the violence and intimidation that they had demonstrated, long before the Unrustling at the Wash. Surely, we retain the right to protect ourselves and others from enemies, both foreign and domestic. And, equally surely, absent actually brandishing the weapon in close proximity, where the “officers and employees” could readily see, and readily understand that the weapon was there to intimidate them, such as described by Webster’s, then there can be no merit to the application of this enhancement statute.

Now, here is a rather interesting pellet in the legal shotgun, as it presumes something that did not happen.

18 U.S.C. § 1951: Interference with commerce by threats or violence
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) As used in this section –
(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
.
First, let’s deal with “commits or threatens physical violence“. The only insinuation of violence was addressed when we looked at 18 US Code § 924(c). So, that leaves us with “robbery” or “extortion”, both of which are defined in the statute. And, since nothing was stolen, that leaves us with “extortion”. However, extortion requires the “use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear“. And, so far, we have seen no demonstration of either.

Finally, we must look at the definition of commerce, as used therein. Now we have to look at both pieces of this puzzle to get a proper perspective of what it says, so, we will start with “all commerce between any point in a State… and any point outside thereof.” Well, that would suggest that if the cattle were to be taken to another state, it just might apply. However, when we take the next part, “all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State”, we see that if there are intermediate points (within the same State), they are dependent upon going “through any place outside of the State.”

So, it appears that until the “commerce” is at a point wherein it will exit the State, it is not yet in interstate commerce, and won’t be until it reaches that point.
Now, as explained in “The Bundy Affair #10 – Again?“, the cattle could not leave the state before at least one more “point” was necessary before the “commerce” could leave the State, as defined in the statute. The Brand and Health Inspections had not been performed, and it would have been illegal for the cattle to leave the State, absent a stop at another “point” to inspect and obtain such certifications.

Now, we come to the final “pellet” in this legal shotgun. It is found in 18 US Code § 2:
18 U.S.C. § 2: Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
So, let’s look closely at the two sub-sections, (a) and (b). In (a), we have “Whoever commits… or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures [the] commission” of “an offense against the United States… is punishable as a principal.”

Now, let’s look at (b), “Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”

I’ll be darned if they don’t say the same thing. Perhaps there is some undecipherable distinction between the two, but for the life of me, I really can’t figure it out. What I can figure out is that if you, in any way, maybe even loaning somebody some money, aid and abet, or by loaning, participate in both inducement and procurement, or perhaps, even give some words of encouragement, you may be found to have willfully caused, the act — then you are as guilty as the “guy that pulled the trigger”.

What we are seeing in a Nevada Courtroom is a far more heinous “political crime”, God forbid that Free Americans have any right to question the actions of the government.



Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

Like this:

In the eye of much of the public the right amount of grazing on public lands is "No Grazing". http://rangefire.us/2016/10/03/why-a...r-on-the-west/

WHY? — a Perpetual Question in the War on the West

October 3, 2016 - Government/Politics, Public Lands, Ranching - Tagged: Clark County, grazing, Local Economy, public lands, Range, RANGEfire, wilderness - no comments


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x230.jpgBecause, in the minds of many, the right amount of public lands grazing is NO GRAZING, the Federal Government seeks to put the last rancher in Clark County (Cliven Bundy) out of business. WHY? The real idea in Southeast Nevada is to turn hundreds of square miles into another federal conservation area, if not an outright wilderness. WHY? In a country with a $20 trillion dollar federal deficit, where’s the economic benefit in that?


Excerpt reposted from the Las Vegas Review Journal — by Vin Suprynowicz


The Las Vegas Review-Journal regularly receives letters to the editor which are essentially form letters, though they bear different signatures. Typical was one received this month above the signature of Terri Rylander, a member of Friends of Gold Butte, in which she identifies herself as “a business owner living in Mesquite.” (Her business is marketing and web page design.) She further asserts: “People may visit special places like Red Rock Canyon and Gold Butte for different reasons – camping, hunting, hiking, bird watching – but all visitors spend money in our communities at restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and retail stores. Protecting Gold Butte as a national conservation area with wilderness will put this unique area on the map, drawing visitors … and ensure a steady stream of revenue to local communities like Mesquite.”


‘Not good for local economies’
A June 2011 study conducted by researchers at the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, holds otherwise.

“We find that when controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions,” wrote USU researchers Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk and Randy Simmons. “Specifically, we find a significant negative relationship between the presence of Wilderness and county total payroll, county tax receipts, and county average household income.”

WHY?
“Wilderness … is the most restrictive of all federal land-use designations,” the Utah researchers point out. “To preserve wild characteristics, the Wilderness designation prohibits roads, road construction, mechanized travel, and the use of mechanized equipment. Wilderness also impacts extractive industries such as mining, logging, and grazing.”
In a footnote, the researchers explain: “Grazing is expressly allowed in Wilderness Areas, but administrators may make ‘reasonable regulations’ including the reduction of grazing to improve range conditions.”

Ask Cliven Bundy about those “reasonable regulations.”

“Environmentalists claim that Wilderness contributes to a healthy tourism industry,” the Utah researchers continue. But that argument “is simply not supported by the data.”

Nor is it clear that cattle damage the range. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that ranchers, with their drip lines and water tanks – supporting quail and deer and other populations as well as cattle – and the ungulates themselves, cropping the graze close enough to the ground to allow new green shoots accessible to the tortoise while reducing the fuel buildup that fosters wildfires, are a net benefit to the country, before we even consider the benefits of local, organic beef.

A ‘state’ in name only
Citizens of any state east of the Rockies would likely riot at a proposal that the federal government take over 86 percent of their state’s land area. How did Nevada get into precisely that bind?

In his 1999 profile of Bundy for Reno-based Range magazine, Findley reported Bundy in the 1970s was willing to embrace the “multiple use” of the rangelands then being promoted. “He was patient and tried to cooperate with advice from those he considered his friends in the BLM,” Findley wrote.

“But everything we tried to do – every time we tried some compromise – they wanted more,” Bundy told Findley. “It was like talking to a greedy landlord. Everything became lockout or lockup.”

Findley introduces former Nevada District Court judge and rancher Clel Georgetta, author of the 1972 book “Golden Fleece in Nevada.” He presented the then “almost subversive” legal doctrine that claims by the federal government to more than 86 percent of the land of Nevada “amounted not only to a violation of the intention of Lincoln’s administration in promoting Nevada’s statehood in 1864, but of previous constitutional findings on the ‘equal footing’ of states admitted to the union.”

Thus was born the Sagebrush Rebellion. Legislation introduced in 1979 by then-state Sen. Dean Rhoads, directing the state attorney general to sue the federal government for control of all federal lands not specifically set aside for federal forts, post offices or Indian reservations, “is still a part of Nevada law,” Findley reported, “backed even more by a statewide referendum in 1996 in which voters overwhelmingly supported the idea of state control of public lands.”

So why hasn’t it happened?

“The Nevada attorney general has never taken the argument to federal courts,” Findley explained.

‘Public lands are a myth’
In his 1989 book “Storm Over Rangelands,” the late Nevada rancher Wayne Hage detailed how ranchers, miners, and others possess split title to the Western lands. Here in the arid West, no rancher could likely make a living off a mere 160 acres of deeded land.

So it’s not unusual for different parties to own, say, the grazing and water rights versus the mineral rights to overlapping parcels, while neither claims to “own” all that land, outright. Federal attempts to regulate those long-established rights out of existence violate basic constitutional rights, Hage successfully argued.

The BLM confiscated Hage’s cattle, up Tonopah way. He fought them through the courts for years – and won. But he died soon after. His children continue the struggle.

The federal government controls at least 86 percent of Nevada’s land area. But the federal government can show no bills of sale for these lands, approved by the legislature of the “state” in which they lie – the only method provided by the Constitution for the central government to gain title to, or wield plenary authority over, any lands within the several states.

Ironically enough, Nevada ranchers themselves have resisted reform in the past. Findley’s piece for Range magazine has President Ronald Reagan asking his interior secretary, James Watt, why the federal government couldn’t end its dominion over nearly one-third of the nation’s lands by selling them off or transferring them back to the states.

Watt had to explain to the president that wasn’t really what the ranchers wanted.

Years later, addressing a 1994 cattleman’s meeting, “Watt said Nevada sabotaged the Sagebrush Rebellion,” related Demar Dahl, former head of the state cattleman’s association. “When it came down to it, a lot of the big ranchers were afraid of losing their (federal) allotments.”

Local politicians, as well, find it “hard to turn down that $5 million or whatever,” that Uncle Sam routinely showers on local municipalities, Bundy acknowledges. “My side don’t have much cash. But the other side has put us, what is it, $60 trillion in debt.”

Indeed they have. Yet one of these days they will descend again, with helicopters and contract cowboys, to try and drive the last cattle rancher in Clark County out of business.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/VS-1.jpg

Why?

Excerpt reposted from the Las Vegas Review Journal — by Vin Suprynowicz, who at the time was an assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel “The Black Arrow” and “Send in the Waco Killers.” See www.vinsuprynowicz.com. TM


RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback

Feds alter dash cam and body cam video in Bundy Ranch case

http://thepetesantillishow.com/nevad...en-bundy-case/

Nevada Defendants Accuse The Government Of Tampering With BLM Video Evidence In Cliven Bundy Case

Home › News › Nevada Defendants Accuse The Government Of Tampering With BLM Video Evidence In Cliven Bundy Case
http://youtu.be/oC-YIyWBYmQ

Guerilla Media Network LLC – Powerful – Advocacy Journalism since 2011

Las Vegas Nevada: Defendants in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al .. are accusing the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the FBI of altering dashboard and body-cam video in an attempt to cover-up their aggressiveness during the 2014 protest that led to the arrest of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and 18 others.

Defendants are also accusing the FBI “infiltration team” who posed as a documentary film crew called Long Bow, of editing video at crucial moments to make defendants who gave interviews look guilty of crimes they did not commit.

On at least 5 different occasions the defendants in the case say that video used to gain their indictments and create the Governments narrative that has kept them all in jail pending trial, was clearly altered at crucial moments to hide what they believe would expose the BLM as the aggressors and not the “victims” as Prosecutor Steven Myhre contends.

We have found at least 5 different clear cases of evidence tampering and have only viewed 1/4 of the discovery that was recently released to us by the Prosecutors office say defendants, who have begun the process of creating a power point demonstration that will be viewed by defense attorney’s on October 7, 2016.

On April 9th, 2014 a video was released by Guerrilla Media Network [Pete Santilli] that showed the brutal tazing of Cliven Bundy’s Son, Ammon Bundy. During that protest there was also a vicious attack by a BLM agent on Margaret Houston, a 57 year old cancer survivor and Cliven Bundy’s sister. It was not until Fox News picked up the video and aired it live the following morning on the program Fox and Friends, that people from across the Nation felt compelled to pack up and come to Bundy Ranch in protest of the aggressive attack on the family. While the defendants are not allowed to disclose what was said by BLM agents leading up to the attack on protestors, they allege that at least 5 seconds of audio recorded during the protest on April 9th, was altered by the BLM to cover-up what BLM agents actually said.

Defendants also stated, that BLM video shot during the protest on April 12th, 2014 – of protestors that accompanied Ammon Bundy to retrieve cattle Sheriff Douglas Gillespi said could be released, was again altered to omit some of what Daniel P. Love and other agents were communicating back and forth to one another.

If people could actually hear what the BLM was saying to one another and how eager they were to have a confrontation, Prosecutor Steven Myhre’s fairytale about BLM Agent Daniel P. Love and his underlings being fearful for their lives would be seen for exactly what it is — a lie.

Protestors and media who accompanied Ammon Bundy to the wash, were in far more danger than even they knew, says one defendant;

“I can’t tell you what was said, but I can say – generally speaking, the killing of those protestors was nothing but a game to them. The audio will prove that they were eager to kill and were never fearful for their lives being outnumbered, or being out-gunned, as Prosecutor Mhyre says. We believe the evidence shows exactly the opposite and that once the press and public are allowed to see it they will come to the same conclusion.

Being bound by a protective order that effectively hides vital information of what the BLM was doing and saying during the Bundy Ranch protest, defendants say they are unable to gain public support needed to force the discovery into public record where it can be scrutinized by the press and potential witnesses who were present during the protest. Not being able to convey the governments case to the public stifles our legal council’s ability to get the attention of those people who were there and may have vital information that would counter the BLM ’s accusations say the defendants, and it gives the government unfair advantage over we the people and also gives the Judge the leverage she needs to deny us pretrial release.

We believe if the public could hear and see what the BLM was saying and doing for the duration of the protest, before and leading up to the BLM confronting the protestors by threatening lethal force, the narrative would go back to what it was initially about and that is that a Government agency was violating the civil rights of a rancher and his family and those of the people who came to protest the brutality of it.

Magistrate Peggy Leen enforces an order that tells the public, you may scrutinize and repeat all of the bad stuff the defendants said on social media but you are not allowed to see and repeat all the bad stuff the BLM was doing and saying behind the scenes that led up to such a passionate protest by the defendants and other protestors.

Attorney Maggie McLetchie represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Battle Born Media and The Associated Press in a lawsuit against the United States Government in order to gain access to discovery for the Press and Public.

Please contact Nevada officials and demand transparency for this case:

Please consider donating to Guerrilla Media Network. Your donations are vital to our ability to keep the news real and current during the Bundy Ranch trial. See the link at the top of the page and thank you in advance for your contribution.

Sarah Redd-Buck seeking a copy of Pete Santilli video from 2014 Bundy Standoff where Dan Loge tells Santilli he can shoot Bundy cattle if he wants to. I don't recall ever seeing that video.

Sarah Redd Buck

1 hr ·
URGENT PLEASE SHARE!!!
We Need help finding the video and/or audio of Pete Santilli at the Bunkerville standoff. The one we are looking for is the one where BLM agent Dan Love says he can kill the Bundy cows if he wants to. This is extremely urgent. Need within the next few hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Sarah Redd-Buck seeking a copy of Pete Santilli video from 2014 Bundy Standoff where Dan Loge tells Santilli he can shoot Bundy cattle if he wants to. I don't recall ever seeing that video.

Sarah Redd Buck

1 hr ·
URGENT PLEASE SHARE!!!
We Need help finding the video and/or audio of Pete Santilli at the Bunkerville standoff. The one we are looking for is the one where BLM agent Dan Love says he can kill the Bundy cows if he wants to. This is extremely urgent. Need within the next few hours.

---

Maybe this is the video they are looking for. I tried to listen to it but don't hear well.

http://youtu.be/fTQSJV_stE8

^ I thought there might be something in that video too but I listened to it and didn't hear anything about him shooting cattle. Love did say he had enough people with him to take care of how ever many people showed up to take the cattle back.

I think I remember something about them shooting cattle out of a helicopter when they were rounding them up but I don't recall whether it was a video or something that was written.