David Knight talks about the Mistrial, seems to be blowing his own horn, ~ J Grady
Printable View
David Knight talks about the Mistrial, seems to be blowing his own horn, ~ J Grady
Now we know the reason the persecution didn’t want to allow any discussion of water rights into evidence. Another BLM supervisor caught commiting perjury on the witness stand.
I remember Wayne Hage telling my brother and me that a rancher actually owns the forage rights in a 2 mile radius of his deeded water rights. Wayne found this doing research for his takings case in the Court of Federal Claims.
Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case
HOW MANY MORE VIOLATIONS WILL BE UNCOVERED BEFORE THIS CASE IS COMPLETELY FINISHED?
December 21, 2017 BLM, Federal Courts 2
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...lm-598x381.jpg
Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case
by Shari Dovale
A mistrial was declared in the Bunkerville Trial on December 20th with the prosecution, headed by Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, criticized by Judge Navarro for blatant violations of the law.
The violations go to BRADY v. MARYLAND in which the Supreme Court held that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence that is exculpatory to the defense.
We have heard about numerous violations, yet it does not end there. Ryan Bundy filed another motion to dismiss the case on December 19th based on yet another violation by the prosecution.
The government called witness Mary Jo Rugwell, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District Manager for Southern Nevada from April 2008 through August 2012, to the stand in November. The cross examination revealed several points:
First by Cliven Bundy’s attorney, Bret Whipple:
Whipple: You had a meeting with Mr. Tom Collins and others?
Rugwell: Yes.
Whipple: Do you recall what Mr. Collins said about water rights?
Rugwell: He said he believed Mr. Bundy should have access to water rights.
Whipple: Who owns the water rights on Gold Butte?
Rugwell: I do not know.
Whipple : There were range improvements on each and every spring?
Rugwell: I don’t know. I can’t say that there are range improvements on every spring.
Then, Ammon Bundy attorney, Morgan Philpot followed up with:
Philpot: Did you do any research into stock watering rights.
Rugwell: I did not.
Philpot: Are you aware that Mr. Bundy had stock watering rights?
Rugwell: I’d heard that, but it was not relevant. This was a trespass issue. I never looked into any stock watering rights myself.
And there was redirect testimony by Prosecutor Daniel Schiess:
Schiess: You have been asked about stock watering rights. Do you have any information on who owns water rights?
Rugwell: No, I don’t.
Rugwell was very clear and concise in her testimony:
- She knew absolutely nothing about water rights
- She never investigated Bundy’s water rights
- She did not know who owned the water rights.
-
However, a man from Arizona happen to request some documents from the Nevada State Water Resources Board that proved Rugwell’s testimony to be false.
Included on these documents was correspondence with Mary Jo Rugwell in 2008. These letters show that not only did Rugwell, in her capacity as head of the BLM in the District, not only investigated Cliven Bundy’s water rights on Gold Butte, but attempted to eliminate them, as well.
Rugwell tried to have Bundy’s water rights canceled simply because he was not a current grazing-permit holder, as recognized by the BLM.
Rugwell’s testimony was clearly intended to convince the jury that Bundy had no rights to use the public lands in question, yet his rights predated the BLM. She knew this as is shown by her prior investigation, of which she denied on the witness stand under oath.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...-4-236x300.jpg
Read Motion here
The court orders that are continuously referenced by the prosecution do not authorize the destruction of the water infrastructure and improvements.
These letters prove that the BLM recognized the fact that Cliven Bundy owned vested property rights! He had legal right to use these lands, even though the government does not want the public to understand this.
These letters are exculpatory evidence. By not turning them over to the defense, the prosecution AGAIN violated the Brady rule.
This evidence could have easily been used to impeach the testimony of Mary Jo Rugwell and shown her to be untruthful.
What will Judge Gloria Navarro do now? Will she hold Rugwell up on perjury charges? What about Steven Myhre and Daniel Schiess? They knew her testimony was false when they put her on the stand and elicited these answers. Will they be held accountable?
How many more violations will be uncovered before this case is completely finished?
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Larry Klayman’s letter published in WND.com adds further proof of the intentional ineffectiveness of AG Jeff Sessions whose priorities are anti marijuana pro asset forfeiture.
AG Sessions: End Bundy prosecution now!
Exclusive: Larry Klayman's open letter to DOJ chief results in plan to review case
Larry Klayman About | Email | Archive
Published: 13 hours ago
LAW OF THE LAND
Via Hand Delivery, Email and Federal Express
Dec. 21, 2017
URGENT | FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Gross Prosecutorial Misconduct and Non-Meritorious Charges Against Cliven Bundy Which Now Require Dismissal of All Criminal Charges, An Ethics Investigation, And The Termination and Prosecution of Department Prosecutors.
Dear Jeff:
As you know, shortly after your confirmation as attorney general early this year, we spoke by phone. During our conversation, I requested that you review the criminal prosecution of my client Cliven Bundy and by extension his sons Ryan, Ammon, Dave and Mel, as well as the other defendants. I explained that this prosecution was unwarranted, it apparently having been forced on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch by former President Barack Obama and then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The latter had defamed the Bundy family as “domestic terrorists” after they and their supporters waged a successful peaceful armed protest, as a result of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents, many of whom were paid mercenaries and snipers, invaded Bunkerville with the intent and purpose of seizing their cattle, denying them their grazing and water rights, and thus forcing the Bundys off the land they had ranched for around 150 years.
I added that it appeared to me and many others that the prosecution was political in nature, since it had been reported that Harry Reid and his son Rory, a Las Vegas lawyer, were attempting to arrange an “under the table deal” to sell the land to Chinese environmental interests. In addition, after the successful standoff, provoked by BLM armed agents who had threatened the lives of the Bundy family, violently assaulted Cliven’s sister, Margaret, tased and attacked two of his sons, viciously kicked and harmed the family dog and killed dozens of the bulls in the ranch’s herd, it became apparent that President Obama, as he revealed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner a few weeks later, was offended when Cliven had equated his family’s treatment to the “Negro in the old South.” See Obama video at www.clivenbundydefensefund.org.
I thus asked that you undertake a neutral, unbiased review of the case to determine if it warranted continued prosecution. You promised to me that you would undertake this review, but would of course have to consult with the Acting U.S. Attorney in Las Vegas, Steven Myhre, and well as me. I responded that this was understood.
However, after you made this commitment to me, and had agreed that we could meet at some later time, you reneged on your commitment. Despite my many attempts to schedule a meeting with you through your “scheduler,” Erical, you avoided me. Instead, at a press conference concerning your sanctuary cities policies, while you were at the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Las Vegas, you praised the courage of the acting U.S. attorney and the assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to the case, and then added, incredulously, that nevertheless “I am not taking sides.”
Your inaction and acquiescence to this prosecution has now come back to tarnish not just the reputation Steven Myhre and his staff, but your office. As you may know – and I am not confident that all of the facts have been provided to you by Steven Myhre – after the trial began last October, testimony forced from BLM and FBI agents on the witness stand revealed that crucial exculpatory evidence, called by criminal defense lawyers “Brady material” – evidence which would go to show Cliven’s and the other defendants innocence – had been shredded, hidden and secreted. It was later learned that Myhre and his prosecutors in particular intentionally suppressed this Brady material.
In the last week, through an ethically troubled BLM whistleblower who came forward as a matter of conscience, Larry “Clint” Wooten, it was also disclosed that BLM and the FBI had put the Bundys on a “kill list,” mocked and disparaged their Mormon faith, and bragged about assaulting and waging a violent invasion of their land, as well as harming them. To make matters ethically and legally worse, Myhre and his staff also suppressed this whistleblower report documenting BLM and FBI gross misconduct and indeed criminal behavior.
In short, your prosecutors in Nevada not just condoned the hiding and destruction of evidence that could lead to my client’s acquittal, but they themselves engaged in obstruction of justice through a cover-up. Importantly, Myhre and his staff committed crimes in furtherance of attempting to falsely convict Cliven Bundy. Incredibly, if convicted on all counts, Cliven and his sons would be sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.
This gross prosecutorial conduct prompted me to file complaints with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the Inspector General (IG), which are encharged to investigate and remedy unethical and otherwise illegal conduct by your employees. When OPR and IG refused to even acknowledge the receipt of my complaint, I was forced to file suit in federal court. To try to settle the case, I suggested to the Department lawyer, Daniel Schaefer, defending the complaint, that we agree that OPR and IG simply agree to investigate this unethical and illegal conduct. However, AUSA Schaefer refused, and the judge, an Obama appointee, then refused to order the investigation. The transcript of my hearing last Tuesday before this judge, Rudolph Contreras, can be found, along with the full sordid history of this flawed and criminally tainted political prosecution, at www.clivenbundydefensefund.org.
Last Thursday, the federal judge, Gloria Navarro, in Las Vegas presiding over the trial, also an Obama appointee (who had been recommended by Harry Reid to Obama), was forced to declare a mistrial because of this unethical and gross prosecutorial misconduct by Myhre and his staff, as well as involved BLM and FBI agents. Given her partisanship, Judge Navarro, who had been sarcastically described by the neutral Las Vegas Review Journal as being a “friend of the prosecution,” since she previously had shown great bias in favor of Myhre and his staff during previous related cases, refused to dismiss the indictment but instead predictably decided to retry Cliven, his sons, and the other defendants. Importantly, she did, however, find that the prosecutorial misconduct of Myhre and his staff was “willful.”
As you know and should appreciate as a former U.S. attorney in Mobile, Alabama, the level of unethical gross prosecutorial conduct revealed in the last weeks should have warranted an outright dismissal, with prejudice, of the indictments. The only reason, in my opinion, that Judge Navarro did not so rule, is because as a Harry Reid and Obama “protégé,” her political bias and allegiance to them could not bring her to take this required action.
Cliven and his sons, who have been and were unjustly imprisoned for over two years by this judge, were also denied their speedy trial rights. And to make matters considerably worse, Cliven was also denied his right to counsel, meaning me, as Navarro had denied my pro hac vice application to enter the case on his behalf as an out of state counsel. Outrageously, “your” Justice Department opposed my entry pro hac vice as well. While I have been active in other important capacities, I am still appealing this decision to exclude me as counsel of record. This violation of Sixth Amendment rights, coupled with the manifest other constitutional violations of due process and equal protection under the law, urgently require that you now conduct the review which you committed to do and order Myhre to withdraw the charges.
In addition, it is incumbent that you also direct the Department’s OPR and the IG to now conduct an ethics investigation and mete out appropriate strong disciplinary sanctions against Myhre and his staff, as well as the involved complicit FBI agents. It is hoped that after a thorough investigation, that you will fire and thus prevent them from doing further harm to not just the Bundys, but also the public at large. They also should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, as they are not above the law.
Jeff, in the interests of justice, much less fundamental fairness, it is now incumbent that you do your job. To put it bluntly, the time has come to “take sides.” This travesty must end now. And, you have a duty to restore the integrity of the Department, of which I, like you, am a proud alumnus.
I look forward to your finally taking this “corrupt bull of an unjust prosecution by the horns” (no pun intended), before further deprivation of constitutional rights and more severe damage damage is done to my client, Cliven Bundy, his sons, as well as the other defendants.
Sincerely,
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Counsel for Cliven Bundy
cc: Counselor to the Attorney General Brian Morrissey
NOTE: Hours after this letter was delivered, Attorney General Sessions issued a statement that he would finally conduct a review of the Bundy prosecution!
Go to www.clivenbundydefensefund.org to support Bundy defense.
Myhre has a history of witholding evidence. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..." John Dahlberg-Acton
BOMBSHELL: Myhre Has A History of Brady Violations
WITH A HISTORY OF HIDING EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENSE, ISN'T IT TIME TO PROSECUTE THE PROSECUTORS?
December 23, 2017 BLM, FBI, Featured, Federal Courts 6
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u.../2017/12/X.jpg
BOMBSHELL: Myhre Has A History of Brady Violations
by Shari Dovale
In the recent mistrial of the Bunkerville Standoff case in Las Vegas, Judge Gloria Navarro harshly rebuked Acting US attorney Steven Myhre for his blatant Brady violations and refusal to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Exculpatory evidence is information that is critical to the defense case. It could change the way the attorneys present their cases, change the theory of the case, impact jury selection, and even exonerate the defendants completely.
Prosecutors are well aware of the legal requirements to turn over this evidence, though they know that by doing so they could be crushing their own case in the process.
This brings up the question of whether they are “Finders of Fact” as they should be, or if they are only interested in gaining a conviction. The current Federal conviction rate is above 97% overall, with the majority being plea agreements. Defendants are overcharged with crimes so they will be more amenable to taking plea agreements.
In the case of the current Bunkerville Trial, Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, as well as Ryan Payne, have been held for nearly 2 years in pretrial detention, and Cliven is still there.
The case was declared a mistrial on December 20th, with Judge Navarro finding that the prosecution “willfully” suppressed potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information from the defense.
This are serious allegations that could lead to a multitude of punishments. Something that should be considered when they are looking at sanctions, etc. would be the prosecution’s history of Brady abuses.
In the case of US v. Chapman, Steven Myhre was, again, the Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada. He was in charge of the case and controlled all aspects of the case.
The case centered around securities fraud. On August 8, 2003, a grand jury in the District of Nevada returned a sixty-four-count indictment charging that Defendants allegedly created multiple shell corporations, back-dated corporate records to make their activities appear lawful, and named dummy directors and officers who had no actual control over the corporations and in some cases did not even know of their existence.
But, as in the Bunkerville Standoff trial, this case lead to a mistrial due to the prosecution ~ headed by Steven Myhre ~ not disclosing vital exculpatory evidence.
During the mistrial hearing, Chapman’s attorney alerted the court to hundreds of pages of documents that the government had delivered that morning and the previous evening. They totaled some 650 pages and consisted of rap sheets, plea agreements, cooperation agreements, and other information related to numerous government witnesses, including at least three important witnesses whose testimony was already complete.
This case resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. The government prosecutors ~ headed by Steven Myhre ~ attempted to appeal this decision. The appellate court upheld the ruling and stated clearly:
This is prosecutorial misconduct in its highest form; conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution; and conduct which should be deterred by the strongest sanction available.
Obviously, the powers that be did not heed the advice of the 9th Circuit. Myhre continued on in his current capacity. How many more violations will we find as we search his history?
It seems that the District of Nevada has little to no concern for the Constitutional rights of defendants. With a history of hiding evidence from the defense, isn’t it time to prosecute the prosecutors? Who will hold Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre accountable for his lawlessness?
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Bille Goode opines on the future of public lands, Bundy Ranch, Bureau of Land Management, or “What's at Stake in the Bundy Trial?”
https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f0&oe=5ABD0904
Bill Goode is with Ammon Bundy.
Yesterday at 11:04am
WHATS AT STAKE IN THE BUNDY TRIAL?
To be sure no lawyer wants to lose a case, so certainly the prosecution does not want to lose in Las Vegas. However, the stakes are much broader than that for both sides. The very survival of the BLM itself is at stake.
The BLM was established in 1946, merging the US Grazing Service (est 1934) and the General Land Office (est 1812) into a single agency, presumably to manage public lands, as its name would suggest. It did that for a while, but it does very little land management today - Ask any rancher. Instead the BLM today manages other federal agencies that manage public lands, ie National Park Service, National Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service.
At a public hearing I attended about a year & a half ago, National Park and National Forest representatives acknowledged that all land improvements under their jurisdiction must be cleared through the BLM. The Fish & Wildlife Service was not represented at the hearing, but I would presume, based on experience and observations at the Malheur Refuge standoff, that the Fish & Wildlife Service would fall in line with these other agencies under the BLM.
What is commonly called BLM land are public lands outside those agencies and has not been allocated specifically for conservation and / or recreational purposes by the President or Congress. These are the primary lands that ranchers graze their cattle on, though the Forest Service and Park Service lands also have grazing allotments on their lands.
National Monuments come under the jurisdiction of any of these agencies. Thus the BLM creates its own National Monuments, including Gold Butte and Bears Ears. Additionally the the BLM has designated (on its own without Presidential or Congressional approval) some 749 BLM land areas as "Wilderness Study Areas" and "Wilderness Areas". These areas have presumably been dedicated for conservation purposes as the category names would suggest. However mineral studies are done in those areas for potential mining activity, but the BLM disallows ranch grazing to take place on these areas.
When the Bundys are finally declared innocent in the Las Vegas trial, that will only conclude the legal status of individuals involved in the Bunkerville standoff. Then there is Cliven's suit and the suits of other standoff defendants against the DOJ that must be decided in court.
However, the most significant issue after the current Las Vegas trial will be the legal status of the Bundy Ranch itself. The legal status of the Bundy Ranch is now held in abeyance, despite the return of the Bundy cattle. The Bunkerville grazing allotment was officially closed by the BLM after the standoff, though the Bundy cattle do still graze on that land. So that's a conflict that must be resolved.
The BLM could restore the Bunkerville grazing allotment for which Cliven was declining to pay grazing fees to the BLM. So such a restoration would not resolve anything. We would simply be back at the point in 1993 when Cliven stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM and sent the fees to Clark County instead, which has declined to cash Cliven's check.
Of course we know the area lawfully belongs to the State of Nevada per the state's Enabling Act of 1864. But will the BLM give up control of this area easily? Not likely.
If the BLM were ordered to surrender that land to either Clark County or Nevada, just think of the precedent that would set. Just think of all the millions of acres of BLM public lands being grazed.by ranchers. If grazing lands were turned over to states and / or counties, the BLM would lose control of those 155 million acres, an area almost as big as Texas. This is what the feds are fighting to keep - control over public lands and the very existence of the BLM itself.
https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...33&oe=5AFDDD91
48 Likes6 Comments86 Shares
New motions unsealed in Bundy Trial detail persecutions violations. The Oregonion. Maxine Bernstein
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
In a July 5 email, Ryan Payne's lawyers asked prosecutors for copies of all threat assessments prepared before the April 2014 standoff between Cliven Bundy's supporters and federal officers trying to impound Bundy's cattle for years of failing to pay grazing fees and fines.
Prosecutors characterized the defendants' continued push for the assessments as another in their "long list of frivolous and vexatious pleadings.''
Prosecutors didn't turn over the assessments to Payne, Bundy and Bundy's two sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, until the four were in the midst of a trial last month and a government witness under cross-examination acknowledged familiarity with one of the reports.
The threat assessments by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, the Southern Nevada Counterterrorism Task Force, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and Gold Butte Cattle Impound Risk Assessment found the Bundys weren't likely to use violence.
They were just one example of the prosecution team's callous disregard of its constitutional obligations to share with the defense any potentially favorable evidence, according to Payne's lawyers, assistant federal public defenders Brenda Weksler and Ryan Norwood.
The date of the defense attorneys' initial request for the crucial threat reports and their late disclosure is among the information revealed in newly unsealed motions by Payne's lawyers to dismiss the case.
The motions contain redactions throughout as the trial judge had requested.
The paperwork discloses that prosecutors had sought to continue the trial, once U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro on Dec. 11 signaled she was concerned about more than a handful of potential evidence violations by the government attorneys.
Prosecutors argued that much of the material turned over late to the defense was "irrelevant'' and that the defense theories that the Bundys recruited militia to the Bunkerville area in 2014 because they feared federal snipers or federal surveillance weren't valid legal arguments.
Instead, Navarro on Dec. 20 declared a mistrial, finding at least six types of Brady discovery violations and that prosecutors "willfully'' withheld the evidence, resulting in due process violations. She set a hearing for Jan. 8 to determine if the case should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be retried. The government and defendants have until Friday to file their written arguments.
The unsealed motions filed by Payne's lawyers also signal what his lawyers are likely to argue in Friday's legal brief: that prosecutors repeatedly failed to abide by deadlines set to share favorable evidence with the defense, were dismissive of specific requests for evidence, engaged in a "pattern to ridicule and disparage the defense'' requests and then made "brazen proffers'' to the court that specific information sought didn't exist, only to find out later they were mistaken.
Further, the government has continually failed to take responsibility for its misconduct, Weksler argued in a December motion.
"Here the government cannot seem to recognize what constitutes Brady material, maintains it has done nothing wrong, blames the defense for improper and 'late demands,' and for 'filing serial motions to dismiss based on proclaimed discovery violations,' '' Payne's lawyers wrote. "This Court should be 'troubled' by the government's actions and its 'failure to grasp the severity of the prosecutorial misconduct' involved here, as well as the importance of its constitutionally imposed discovery obligations.''
Beyond the threat assessments, other evidence that defendants obtained "piecemeal'' during the trial included information about an FBI surveillance camera on a hill overlooking the Bundy home with a live-feed image viewed in a command center and snipers positioned outside the Bundy ranch.
Those would have bolstered the defense argument that Payne summoned militia members and supporters to Nevada because he feared the Bundys were surrounded by federal officers and isolated before the April 12, 2014, standoff.
The information also directly refutes the federal indictment, which alleges the Bundys and Payne used deceit to draw supporters, by falsely claiming snipers were surrounding the Bundy home.
The threat assessments, as well as evidence on a surveillance camera and federal snipers, also wasn't shared with the defendants prosecuted in two earlier Nevada trials this year, Payne's attorneys pointed out.
"It bears reminding that this Court sentenced one of these defendants in the Trial 1 group to 68 years and another one is pending sentencing,'' Weksler and Norwood wrote.
The government's delay in turning over the evidence prejudiced Payne and his co-defendants, his lawyers argued. The material would have been helpful for Payne's opening statement to jurors and to impeach the government's first witness, Mary Jo Rugwell, former head of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management office in southern Nevada, who referenced one of the threat assessments. She was cross-examined and excused as a government witness before the defense got the report.
The Bundys and Payne are charged with federal conspiracy to impede federal land managers through intimidation, threat or force, assault on a federal officer and extortion stemming from the standoff.
Here's some other details from the motions:
-- Prosecutors dismissed a defense request for an Office of Inspector General's report on fired Bureau of Land Management agent Dan Love as something of an "urban legend.'' In early December, though, prosecutors turned over nearly 500 pages of internal affairs reports on Love.
-- After Rugwell, the Bureau of Land Management manager, testified in November, prosecutors sent defense lawyers an email on Dec. 1, saying they inadvertently had forgotten to share notes the FBI had taken prior to Rugwell's testimony when she was being prepped as a witness. In those notes, Rugwell referenced a 2012 FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit Threat Assessment. Rugwell also referenced it during testimony. Defense lawyers demanded a copy of the assessment after Rugwell testified, yet prosecutors questioned its relevance before they were ordered to share it with the defense.
"The defense is anxious to learn how, even based on that discussion alone, it did not occur to the government to turn over information it knew the witness was relying on,'' Payne's lawyers wrote in their motion.
-- By late November, the defense had asked the court at least twice to appoint a "discovery monitor'' to make sure defendants were receiving all the evidence they were entitled to receive. None was appointed.
However, a day after the judge declared a mistrial, the U.S. Department of Justice released a statement saying Attorney General Jeff Sessions took "this issue very seriously and has personally directed that an expert in the Department's discovery obligations'' be sent to Las Vegas to examine the case and provide advice as to next steps.
-- Payne's lawyers briefly suggest that a Nov. 29 whistleblower memo from a Bureau of Land Management agent, complaining that the U.S. Attorney's Office didn't want to hear about potential evidence being withheld by his agency, should disqualify the prosecutors from future work on this case, if it's allowed to be retried.
-- The U.S. Attorney's guidelines on sharing evidence in criminal trials state prosecutors' obligations clearly: "It is the obligation of federal prosecutors, in preparing for trial, to seek all exculpatory and impeachment information from all members of the prosecution team. Members of the prosecution team include federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and other government officials participating in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against the defendant.''
DOCUMENTS UNSEALED WEDNESDAY:
- Ryan Payne motion to dismiss based on discovery provided Nov. 17, 2017
- Ryan Payne motion to dismiss based on discovery provided Nov. 21, 2017
- Ryan Payne motion to dismiss based on continuing pattern of evidence violations
- Ryan Payne reply to a government response to motion to dismiss
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
“A fair trial at this point is impossible - Sessions orders examination of Bundy case ~ Real Liberty Media
Advance to 1:30:00 to listen to Sessions orders examination . . .
Power hungry Myhre appeals to Judge Navarro to retry Bundys, says evidence violations were ‘inadvertent’. ~ Maxine Bernstein @ Oregonlive
NV prosecutors seek new trial against Bundys, say evidence violations were 'inadvertent'
By Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
The Oregonian/OregonLive
Updated 11:46 AM; Posted 12:13 AM
Prosecutors on Friday urged a federal judge to allow them to retry Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a fourth man, arguing that any failure to provide evidence to the defense in the last trial was simply "inadvertent'' or because they reasonably believed the law didn't require them to share the material.
"The Brady violations found by the court are regrettable and benefit no one,'' Nevada's Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre wrote in a 55-page legal brief. "But because the government neither flagrantly violated nor recklessly disregarded its obligations, the appropriate remedy for such violations is a new trial.''
The prosecutors claim they couldn't simply turn over all the material, citing "harassment and threats'' made to witnesses, victims and officers in the case who would be in jeopardy if personal information got out, especially on social media.
They also cited the massive volume of documents, videos and emails from two federal agencies and Las Vegas and Nevada law enforcement agencies that they needed to cull, and the constraints of the U.S. attorney's "low-tech'' database.
The 1.5 terabytes of information shared with defense was "by far the largest review and disclosure operation'' in the history of the Nevada's U.S. Attorney's Office, Myhre wrote.
Prosecutors argued that the six Brady violations found by the judge encompass "one small portion of the discovery'' and that the defendants can proceed with a new trial and "all the information they're entitled to."
The legal brief represents the prosecution team's first significant comments since U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro declared a mistrial last week in the case brought by the government against Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy and Ryan Payne in the April 2014 armed standoff with federal officers.
Prosecutors are undertaking a substantial review of all their evidence and will share any further reports it may discover, they noted. The Brady law, named for the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to turn over all evidence that may prove favorable to defendants.
"The government takes its discovery obligations seriously,'' Myhre wrote. "The government seeks justice on the merits of a case, not through dodging discovery rules and technicalities, or by obscuring violations if and when they may occur.''
Defense lawyers said the harm caused by the violations and the prosecution's continued failure to accept responsibility demand a dismissal of all the charges against the four men. They were indicted last year on conspiracy and other allegations, accused of rallying militia members and armed supporters to stop federal agents from impounding Bundy cattle. Officers were acting on a court order filed after Cliven Bundy failed to pay grazing fees and fines for two decades.
"The government's irresponsible and, at times, false proffers to this court as well as its dismissiveness toward the defense inspires no confidence in the prospect of fairness," Brenda Weksler, an assistant federal public defender representing Payne, wrote on behalf of all the defendants. "Anything short of a dismissal is tantamount of condoning the government's behavior in this case. ... Dismissal is the only way to ensure such conduct will not happen again.''
The judge found the prosecutors' violations were "willful,'' and led to due process violations. She said they waited too long to provide FBI and other agency reports and maps on surveillance, including a camera and snipers, outside the Bundy ranch, threat assessments that indicated the Bundys weren't violent and nearly 500 pages of internal affairs documents involving U.S. Bureau of Land Management special agent Dan Love, who led the cattle roundup. He has since been fired from the agency for unrelated misconduct.
Both sides are expected to return before Navarro on Jan. 8 for a hearing to determine whether the government will be allowed to retry the case.
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
Mistrial declared in Cliven Bundy standoff case
"The court does regrettably believe a mistrial in this case is the most suitable and only remedy,'' U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro declared.
Myhre wrote that the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office began working in October 2014 to collect investigative documents from the Bureau of Land Management and FBI, as well as historical documents related to Cliven Bundy's long-running grazing dispute. The combined database contained more than 30,000 documents or 250,000 pages.
In addition to that database, there were 45 search warrants that generated more than 500,000 pages of affidavits and evidence lists, more than 82,000 emails and 75 videos, including bodycam and dashcam videos from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Highway Patrol.
The prosecution team looked through all the information with witness protection in mind, their legal motion said.
"The prosecution team went 'low tech,' spending hundreds of hours conducting word searches for documents, reviewing documents one at a time for relevant information and tagging documents individually for relevancy and future production," Myhre wrote.
Prosecutors also believed the court's restrictions barring self-defense arguments during earlier standoff trials this year meant they didn't have to share information about certain aspects of the law enforcement response.
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
Rebuke of U.S. attorneys in Cliven Bundy case: 'Every prosecutor's nightmare'
If ever there was a time when federal prosecutors needed to make sure they acted with complete integrity it was in the high-stakes Bundy case, legal observers say. The defendants already held a deep distrust of the government and had successfully rallied followers to their cause.
The prosecutors said, for instance, they didn't become aware until Nov. 10 of a Tactical Operations Center log that referred to a surveillance camera outside the Bundy home - it was found on a thumb drive left in a federal vehicle -- and still don't consider it relevant to the Bundys' defense. It contained four notations from observations on April 5 and April 6, 2014, largely noting the type of vehicles arriving and that a Bundy was seen outside on the phone.
"The government argued in good faith that the information was not material, and this court concluded that it was. That may make the government wrong, but being wrong does not equate to bad faith, nor does it show a flagrant disregard of the government's discovery obligations," Myhre wrote.
As for documents referencing snipers or maps of officers' positions, some of the information was contained in earlier reports that had been shared on time, showing the prosecution's actions weren't done for "tactical advantage," Myhre wrote.
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...53.03%20PM.png
A footnote from the prosecutors' legal brief, regarding what they say they shared in the first two trials about the existence of federal snipers.
The judge, in her ruling, was concerned that the government had denied the snipers' presence near the Bundy Ranch in the first two trials, and at the start of the third trial.
The prosecution also didn't think the threat assessments would be helpful to the defense, the memo said. Some were done as early as 2012 and considered "stale" and irrelevant, he wrote.
The threat assessments have proven a source of significant arguments between the prosecution and defense. A 2012 FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit assessment concluded there was a "low to moderate risk of violence" by Cliven Bundy at that time and that the Bureau of Land Management was "trying to provoke a conflict." A separate FBI operations order described Cliven Bundy "as not being violent based on past history, but if backed into a corner could be" and that Ryan Bundy "could be violent." A BLM law enforcement assessment said the Bundys "will probably get in your face'' but not engage in a shootout. A Gold Butte Risk report referenced media talking points for the BLM to stay ahead of negative publicity that apparently were not used.
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
Unsealed motions in NV Bundy case detail prosecution's violations
Late Wednesday, defendant Ryan Payne's defense lawyers effectively unsealed three motions to dismiss that they had filed under seal in late November and early December in U.S. District Court in Nevada.
The prosecution also sought to explain its dismissive response to Ryan Bundy's pretrial motion, which sought any information on "mysterious devices" outside the Bundy ranch, as a "fantastical fishing expedition."
The words referred to Ryan Bundy's request for the make and model of every piece of equipment and his "speculat[ion]" that the camera was being used to "paint" the Bundy home "for artillery or [aerial] target acquisition," Myhre wrote. He added that his team never suggested "the Court's request'' for information about the camera was a "fantastical fishing expedition.''
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...34.37%20PM.png
Excerpt of government's legal brief, explaining why prosecutors characterized the defense's request for an Office of Inspector General report as an "urban legend.''
They said the report was not identified as such, but instead as an internal report by the Bureau of Land Management. That's why they couldn't locate it until this month, they said.
In the weeks leading up to the April 12, 2014, standoff, more than 100 law enforcement officers were involved in providing security, prosecutors said. They acknowledged they "inadvertently" didn't share federal reports on Bureau of Land Management officers, dressed in tactical gear and armed with AR-15 rifles, on observation posts near the Bundy ranch before trial, but noted that some of the information was contained in another Bureau of Land Management operation report shared in May. It described as many as five officers on listening/observation posts around the Bundy ranch.
They said it was "simply an oversight'' they didn't share a 2015 report on a BLM agent who was on watch in tactical gear east of the Bundy ranch in early April 2014 with a rifle and using a "seismic sensor,'' to alert him and another of cars traveling on Old Gold Butte Road, or the report about another land agent on "roving assignment'' near the impound center during that time.
Myhre wrote that "it was not apparent'' that these reports were helpful to the defense in challenging their federal conspiracy, assault or other charges, which resulted from actions that occurred several miles from the Bundy ranch.
The defense, however, said the prosecution's behavior "was instrinsically wrong and has defeated the ends of justice."
Defense lawyers pointed out that the judge already found that the FBI knew of the evidence that was withheld and that there were federal prosecutors present during interviews of officers whose reports were not disclosed.
"The government's untimely disclosures came almost four years after the government began its investigation, and almost two years after the government secured its indictment. Based on the indictment, the defendants lost almost two years of their lives in custody,'' Weksler wrote.
The prosecution's failure to recognize what material needed to be shared with the defense, she wrote, "affects cases beyond the one in question and is emblematic of a much larger problem.''
The government shouldn't be allowed a "do-over'' with a different jury, now that it's more familiar with the Bundys' and Payne's defense theories and how the defense worked to eliminate potential jurors, she wrote. Based on questions some jurors posed to witnesses during the trial that was halted, Weksler wrote that it appeared the government's case was "faltering.''
"The government cannot be fairly given another bite at the apple as a result of its own flagrant misconduct,'' Weksler wrote.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
DOCUMENTS FILED FRIDAY:
PROSECUTION -
--Prosecution's opposition to dismissal
Prosecution's exhibits filed with motion opposing dismissal:
--Exhibit on Tactical Operations Center log
--Exhibit on maps
--Another exhibit on maps
--Exhibit on back-and-forth defense/prosecution emails regarding threat assessments
--Exhibit on email to Cliven Bundy's defense lawyer Bret Whipple
--Exhibit including partial transcript from Nov. 21 court hearing on snipers/threat assessments
--Exhibit on 'Mission 18- Bundy residence,' Gold Butte communications information
--Exhibit on BLM letter explaining why no Office of Inspector General case number for what became BLM investigation into 2009 complaint about agency not taking action to protect desert tortoise
--Notice of the Nevada U.S. attorney's chief appellate lawyer, assistant U.S. attorney Elizabeth White, being added to the prosecution team
DEFENSE
--Ryan Payne's defense motion for dismissal
--Ryan Bundy's motion for dismissal of indictment
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...12.48%20AM.png
Map provided late to defense in Nevada trial that shows drop posts (DP) where federal law enforcement officers were placed for 2014 cattle impoundment.
Screenshot of above map http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-s...12.48%20AM.png
Will Judge Navarro dismiss cases against all 19 defendants? Shari Dovale
Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants?
HOW DEEP DOES THIS COVER-UP GO? WAS IT ALL FROM STEVEN MYHRE, OR WAS NAVARRO COMPLICIT?
December 30, 2017 Constitution, Featured, Federal Courts, Opinion 1
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...er-678x381.jpg
Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants?
By Shari Dovale
The recent mistrial in the case of US v CLIVEN D. BUNDY et al. Sets some issues on the table for Judge Gloria Navarro that she has avoided thus far.
The mistrial came on December 20th, weeks into the case that was the third try for the government. Prosecutors, including Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, AUSA Daniel Scheiss, AUSAA Nadia Ahmed, and AUSA Erin Creegan, have had extraordinary difficulty in getting juries to convict any of the 19 defendants.
There have been no convictions on the most serious charges of conspiracy, and the only convictions that have been handed down were admittedly based on the defendants statements after the fact, such as within the entrapment video by the FBI and there phony “Longbow Productions”.
The most significant achievements by the prosecution was the plea agreements that several of the defendants accepted, based on the false narrative the prosecution alleged. The men were told they would face a lifetime in prison, and they already knew that they would not receive a fair trial. They were bullied into accepting the plea agreements.
Yes, the defendants already knew they would not receive a fair trial. They had access to the discovery evidence and knew some of what had been left out They filed motions to get certain evidence placed into the record, yet Judge Gloria Navarro continued to rubber-stamp the prosecutions motions.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...re-150x150.jpg
Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada, Steven Myhre (right)
Navarro never seemed to consider that these men were innocent until proven guilty. The more she validated the prosecutions narrative, the more she denied the defendants their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. This should come as no surprise, however, considering she repeatedly refused to allow the Constitution to be mentioned during the first two trials.
Things did change during the third trial, which brought Cliven Bundy to the defense table. The prosecution seemed to have lost their edge as the new team of defense lawyers, which includes a stellar performanceby Ryan Bundy, challenged the rhetoric that Myhre and company continued ranting.
Evidence was finally allowed into the trial of the misdeeds of the government, and the prosecutions deliberate suppression of this evidence. Judge Navarro made it clear on December 20th that the Court, “does find that it was a willful disclosure/suppression of this potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information”.
Navarro finally came clean and smacked the prosecution for the “willful” Brady violations. This means that she recognizes that the Acting US Attorney for the entire District of Nevada, Steven Myhre, and his crew of miscreants, deliberately broke the law and tried to illegally railroad these men into prison for the rest of their life.
Still, Navarro has shown that she is not quite up to speed on the workings of the judicial system, a hard pill to swallow for a seated Chief Judge. She made a blanket declaration of a mistrial, instructing all parties to submit motions for and against a dismissal with prejudice, or whether the government should be allowed yet another bite at the proverbial apple.
What Navarro should have done is follow Rule 26.3 which states that “Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives.” Navarro bypassed this rule and did it her own way, which is exactly what the prosecutors have done all along, and she has allowed.
However, since the truth has begun to come out, Navarro has been put into a position to make some hard choices.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...en-150x150.jpg
Cliven Bundy
The original indictment was against 19 men. Some of these men have already been sentenced, such as Jerry DeLemus and Greg Burleson. If Navarro dismisses the case against the current defendants, will it include the dismissal for all 19 men?
The general consensus seems to be that this is the only ethical answer to the problem. The previous trials were conducted under the same false premise and Brady violations. The plea agreements were based on the defendants not being allowed a fair trial.
But, how deep does this cover-up go? Did Steven Myhre design this farce on his own? This might seem the obvious response, as the case being cited for Brady violations is US v Chapman, a case that Myhre was intimately involved in.
Still, we must ask the next questions: Was Navarro complicit? Were they taking their orders from a higher entity, possibly from Washington DC?
With the announced investigation by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I am sure these questions will be answered in the coming weeks. For now, the defendants will continue to fight for their freedom.
Defendants that are scheduled for sentencing are requesting delays, so as to see the outcome of the January 8th hearing. This include Pete Santilli and Todd Engel. The remaining defendants are showing patience through this hearing, wherein they will decide their next move.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Myhre Begs Navarro for Another Chance
Myhre Begs Navarro For Another Chance
WHAT WILL MYHRE DO TO SAVE HIMSELF? WHO WILL HE THROW UNDER THE BUS?
December 30, 2017 Constitution, Featured, Federal Courts, Opinion 2
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...er-678x381.jpg
Myhre Begs Navarro For Another Chance
Editorial by Shari Dovale
Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada Steven Myhre filed a brief outlining his reasons that he should be allowed to retry the defendants in the Bunkerville Standoff trial.
This is quite the masterful work of a desperate man. Clearly he believes that overwhelming the court with a brief so large that it requires a table of contents may hide the truth of the words themselves.
Not only does he repeatedly imply that did he not intend to violate the law, but, in his opinion, it really did not have a substantial impact on the defendants.
This sounds suspiciously like Hillary’s infamous response, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Let us not forget that the case that continues to be cited for prosecutorial misconduct, US v Chapman, is a case where Steven Myhre was also the lead prosecutor. This is his history. This is his strategy. Hiding evidence from the defense seems to be his well-established nature as a prosecutor.
To be sure, Myhre does not deny the violations made by him and his team. But, he does downplay them to the point of barely mistakes. Using terms like “simple inadvertence” suggests that the blatant lawlessness of these violations was merely… an oopsie.
“As the government understood its Brady/Giglio obligations, the information was not helpful to the defendants” is almost offensive to these men incarcerated for nearly two years. Does Mr. Myhre really mean to suggest that only he should determine what is relevant to the defense?
The original indictment clearly accuses the defendants of lies and deceit in their internet postings.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...nt-clip-01.jpg
Claiming that the defendants made up tales about snipers and surveillance on their home which now, through the revelations of these Brady violations, prove to be absolutely true, Mr. Myhre still contends that this is not important enough to be sanctioned by the court.
It does make one wonder, if the tables were turned, how should Mr. Myhre’s deceit be judged? By the same standards as he applied to the common man (Cliven Bundy)? Or is he to be held to a different standard (above the law)?
What Myhre has not given much thought to is the fact that Judge Gloria Navarro has already ruled that his actions were “willful”.
The Court also finds that this information was willfully suppressed, despite representations by the Government that this report was an urban legend and a shiny object to distract the Court.Does Mr. Myhre believe that Judge Navarro will backstep her ruling and give him another chance at his exercise in futility? Or is he just hoping that she doesn’t set aside the previous convictions and plea agreements in this case, as they were materially effected by his illegal acts?
After the abuse was made public, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation into the case. This puts another high profile spin to the case that is not so easily swept under the rug.
Myhre is not the only one that will be held liable for this government SNAFU. There will be an onslaught of employees in the prosecutors office that will do anything to save themselves. What will Myhre do to save himself? Who will he throw under the bus?
I am sure that Steven Myhre will do “Whatever It Takes.”
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews