-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Be careful what you post on the internet and social media!
Read this 16 page motion in its entirety. You will see what the defendants are facing.
Teresa Brookshire shared a link.
17 hrs
Out of all of the legal documents that have been filed, this is one of the most important to read in its entirety. You will see how the government has taken moments in time and created unbelievable, almost surreal, scenarios designed to elicit a terror within the court. I would venture to say the court will most certainly grant the motion to conceal the agents identity, based on this motion. This, my friends, is what our men will be up against at trial. And if you haven't figured it out yet, posturing on Facebook is a really bad idea.
Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1440 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 – 16
Page 1 / 16
Zoom 100%
2:16-CR-00046-GMN-PAL
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING UNDERCOVER EMPLOYEE
Share this:
Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1440 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 – 16
Page 16 / 16
Zoom 100%
2:16-CR-00046-GMN-PAL
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING UNDERCOVER EMPLOYEE
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Ryan Bundy goes on attack in pre-trial release hearing
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...ring-las-vegas
Ryan Bundy goes on the attack during hearing in Las Vegas
Ryan Bundy, charged as a ringleader of the 2014 standoff at his family’s Bunkerville ranch, declared in sworn testimony Tuesday that Bureau of Land Management agents who tried to impound his father’s cattle were prepared to conduct battle on a group of peaceful American citizens.
Dressed in a blue prison jumpsuit, Bundy, who is representing himself, delivered a 90-minute statement before the court during which he invoked religion, compared himself to the Founding Fathers, and referenced nearly every Amendment in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The statement, which at times resembled more of a sermon, included repeated claims that the federal government did not have the authority to seize his father’s cattle in a court-ordered operation that resulted from decades of unpaid grazing fees.
“We are America, a union of soverign states. We are not an empire of provinces under the control of a totalitarian government,” Bundy declared during a detention hearing Tuesday morning in federal court in Las Vegas.
The hearing represents an opportunity for Bundy to challenge his incarceration pending trial on extortion, conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, and other charges in the 16-count indictment. He used it to repeat claims that the authority of the county sheriff supersedes that of the federal government when it comes to land and water rights in Nevada. The standoff, he argued, represented an attack on a group of peaceful protesters whose actions were protected under the First and Second Amendments.
“This was a spontaneous public protest, a peaceful protest,” he said, mentioning that his family has been ranching on the land since 1877. “There was no assault, no threats on federal officers. … I did not refuse to obey orders.”
Bundy opened his statement with a prayer, followed by an “oath of truth” he took voluntarily. He later was formally sworn in by the court’s clerk after he agreed to testify under oath — which subjects him to cross-examination by Assistant United States Attorney Steven Myhre. The judge warned Bundy of the risks of testifying, to which Bundy replied:
“Everything I’m saying is already being used against me.”
Bundy repeatedly accused prosecutors of lying and cherry-picking evidence to portray him as dangerous. He charged that the BLM agents were the aggressors, and said his actions were defensible “to prevent the bloodshed that the BLM was about to pour down upon these people.”
He referenced one piece of video evidence that prosecutors say depicts him reaching into his coat for a gun, and said: “Perhaps I was reaching in for my cellphone, or a piece of jerky.”
Bundy resisted the judge’s instructions to be more expeditious in his testimony, saying sharply in response that he had been incarcerated for 370 days and that this was his one opportunity to argue his case for release on bail.
In cross-examination, Myhre questioned Bundy extensively about whether he thought the BLM had authority under the 2014 court order to seize the cattle. The line of questioning represented an attempt to prove to the court that Bundy does not respect court orders and thus should not be released on bail. The exchange became heated, and Bundy did little to hide his disdain for federal prosecutors as he rocked back in his chair and gave lengthy responses to yes or no questions.
“You’re telling me there’s some constitutional issues — I’m just trying to get you to answer the questions,” Myhre said at one point. Bundy replied that are many constitutional issues in a case that he, and others charged, maintain is about the overreach of federal power.
“I’m gonna have to object to this line of questioning,” he said at one point during cross-examination, which had not concluded when the court broke for lunch recess.
Prior to the break, Bundy told the judge it didn’t matter when the court took its recess.
“I am fasting, and I know that many of the folks here are fasting … we are not going to eat,” Bundy said in front of dozens of family members and other supporters who packed the small third-floor courtroom in the Lloyd George courthouse.
Many members of the audience, which included Bundy’s eight children, wore cowboy boots, flannel shirts and cowboy hats. Some had pamphlets sticking out of their pockets that bore images of the Founding Fathers. The group knelt in prayer outside the courtroom prior to entering the hearing.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Hopefully the Judge finally lets this guy off, my God going on almost a year now!
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The government's star witness in the Bundy Ranch case is the subject of an IG ethics and misconduct investigation stemming from the 2015 Burning Man.
Special Agent Danile P. Love subject of Inspector General misconduct and ethics violations report
Full report at the Reno Gazette-Journal:
http://www.rgj.com/story/life/arts/b...-man/97306046/
Las Vegas Review-Journal touches breifly:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/na...s-report-finds
31 19 0 Share0
Posted January 31, 2017 - 11:17amUpdated January 31, 2017 - 3:38pmBLM agent at Burning Man violated federal ethics rules, report finds
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...an_7888160.jpgAttendees and art cars gather before the Man burns during Burning Man at the Black Rock Desert north of Reno on Saturday, Sept. 3, 2016. (Chase Stevens/Las Vegas Review-Journal) @csstevensphoto
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SALT LAKE CITY — Government investigators say they’ve found evidence a Salt Lake City-based Bureau of Land Management agent used his position to get sold-out Burning Man tickets and had agents drive his family around during the event in the Nevada desert.
A BLM spokesman said Tuesday the misconduct report on an unidentified supervisory agent is under review. The Department of Interior’s Office of Inspector General paper will be forwarded to supervisors for possible discipline.
Investigators found the supervisory agent broke federal ethics rules when he bought three tickets and special passes to Burning Man in 2015 after it was sold out, though he paid his own money, and let his girlfriend stay in agency housing.
The investigators also found evidence he manipulated a hiring process so a friend could get a BLM job.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The Reno Gazette-Journal has a video on their facebook page about Dan P. "Ice Cream Man" Love.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...d=108555442934
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
If you support the Bundy issue, please consider sending the following letter to President Trump or compose your own letter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu4MvVeUdDs&t=603s
0:02 / 0:30
Call To Action For Ryan Bundy Release: Letter to Trump.
Off Grid Nation
Off Grid Nation
12,519
507 views
Streamed live 18 hours ago
Link to send letter to Donald Trump: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact#page
Mr President,
Yesterday, Mr. Ryan Bundy went before a federal judge in Nevada seeking pretrial release after being unlawfully held for over 300 days. The hearing went great and we found the prosecution has no evidence to show Ryan is a threat to the public. Even the officer who was present for the 2014 Bunkerville Standup testified today stating on the day of the confrontation he was with the Bundys and NEVER felt his life was harms way. The ONLY ones pointing guns were the militarized BLM agents who were pointing them at the protesters. In the end the cows were returned and no one was harmed. Please, Mr. President, contact this Federal Judge and let him know you stand by the release of Ryan Bundy and also ALL THE OTHERS sitting in jail being denied bail for the Bunkerville Stand up.
Also, we seek a full pardon from you, since their actions were all protected by the US Constitution. If someone shows up and steals your cattle and points guns at your family and friends you have a RIGHT and a DUTY to stand. Especially when it's an unconstitutional agency like the abusive BLM. That's what makes this nation different than any other.
You said we would never be ignored again, and today I ask you to uphold that promise and hear my voice. Set the Bundy's free. Set the Hammonds free. Set Joe Robertson free. Bring Justice for LaVoy Finicum and give us back our lands that the federal government has stolen from We The People.
Sincerely,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact#page
Then choose Participate tab
Then choose Contact the White House
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Deb Jordan report attorney Chris Rasmussen has filed a motion for review of BLM personell records . . . . .
http://thepetesantillishow.com/blm-a...of-misconduct/
BLM Agent Daniel P. Love Under Fire By Bundy Case Attorney After Inspector General Probe Finds Him Guilty Of Misconduct
petesantillishow 02/02/2017 News
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...0661151294.gif
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...1.10.50-AM.png
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...35-300x199.jpg
Las Vegas Nevada: On Wednesday Attorney Chris Rasmussen filed a Motion For Review of BLM Personnel Records after a scathing report released by the Office Of The Inspector General, said a Special Agent In Charge of the BLM was found to have committed Ethical Violations and Misconduct during an event in 2015 called “Burning Man” held in Black Rock Desert, Nevada.
The report contained points of interest for attorneys fighting an uphill battle in the Bundy Ranch case, especially the part about the Special Agent trying to intimidate and influence witnesses in his ethics investigation.
Daniel P. Love, who is believed to be the Special Agent in Charge the report is referring to, was also the Special Agent In Charge of the Bundy Ranch Cattle Impoundment of 2014. Complaint after complaint was filed against Dan Love before, during, and after the protest, but failed to catch the eye of the Inspector Generals Office. This time the complaints came from within the BLM staff itself, and it looks as though the “Super-Agent” will finally be held accountable.
This revelation came as no surprise to the people who live in States in which the BLM has taken on the role of Law Enforcement under the direction of Special Agent Daniel P. Love. Locals say they can attest that misconduct is an almost daily routine for the agency.
Chris Rasmussen, the Attorney of record for Pete Santilli, the journalist being held without bond after being swept up in a series of arrest stemming from the 2014 protest, wasted no time in demanding the court release the unredacted document filed by the Inspector Generals office on January 30th, because he believes Dan Love is the agent and the Governments star witness in their case against Cliven Bundy and co-defendants.
Mr. Rasmussen says that if it proves to be Daniel P. Love is the agent being charged in the Inspector General’s report, his client and other co-defendants have a right to know and be allowed to impeach him if he takes the stand.
Just last week Prosecutor Steven Myhre filed a motion begging Judge Gloria Navarro the presiding Judge on the case, to not allow questioning that involves past misconduct by the BLM in other operations, or any questioning of any of the agents that are set to testify in the trial that would make them look bad; And now we know why.
The Defense’s case is centered around the conduct of Special Agent in Charge Daniel P. Love – and it is paramount the Jury hear what kind of person Mr. Love is and just how far he would go to cover-up his misconduct while conducting official business as a Bureau Of Land Management employee.
It has been long argued, Bundy Ranch was a spontaneous protest that happened because of misconduct by BLM agents under the direction of Daniel P. Love during the early days of the impoundment operation to round up rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle. Free speech areas were erected, protestors and Bundy Family members were beaten, tazered, violently arrested, and snipers were used to keep everyone in line.
According to sources, the FBI pulled out of the impoundment early on, as did the Clarke County Sheriffs Department, and Las Vegas Metro Police who all warned Daniel P. Love he was going too far and that the operation should be stopped.
Instead, he threatened journalist Pete Santilli, who tried in vain to help mediate a peaceful outcome, with arrest and prosecution. Pete Santilli along with every other person who used common sense during the protest tried to reason with the overly aggressive agent who moved forward with the impoundment.
Other protestors felt their lives were in danger as they approached the site where BLM agents stood ready to kill them.
There was never ever any talk of invading the 1 million dollar compound Daniel P. Love erected on the Gold Butte or forcefully taking back any cattle; it was always the plan to protest until the release occurred naturally, said one witness who has asked to remain anonymous. We went down into the wash under the assumption the BLM had left the area and that is where we were met by 200 armed agents who said they were ready to use lethal force. It was very frightening and confusing, we said a prayer and moved forward to face a BLM, we thought had left hours before.
When I reached out for a comment from former Nevada Assembly Woman Michele Fiore, who was present at the protest in 2014 and is now running for a vacant seat on the Las Vegas City Counsel, I was not expecting the explosive raw response I got from her;
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...ng-300x164.jpg
Michele Fiore with Ammon Bundy and other State officials who protested at Bundy Ranch
You know what? I am just pissed off that this dirtySOB has been protected from being prosecuted for his outrageous behavior at Bundy Ranch –
Scoring a few tickets and having sex with his girlfriend in a BLM trailer at “Burning Man” is the least of his offensives.
This man is the same guy who threatened to use lethal force against American Citizens and Elected Officials – myself included – during the protest at Bundy Ranch. How the hell did he ever get by with that?
And now it’s just disgusting that the Nevada BLM has the audacity to speak poorly of our elected, President Donald Trump while never saying one thing about this mad-man being permitted to threaten protestors without any repercussion?
This guy actually disobeyed the direct order of our State Attorney General and beat people up and arrested them when he had no authority to do so.
In the wash that day the BLM made fun of our Metro Las Vegas Police and County Sheriff Tom Roberts instead of obeying a direct order to put away their Long Guns.
I’m telling you all right now, Daniel P. Love disrespected the authority of our Nevada State Attorney General and Local Law Enforcement, and almost caused a terrible tragedy.
There was no damn conspiracy – We all went down into that wash to set cattle free because the Sheriff said the “operation” had ceased and the BLM was leaving – We were almost killed by that raging lunatic; It’s just that simple.
At this point I think the right thing to do in this situation is, to let our men who have been wrongfully accused of threatening the BLM, out of jail and put Daniel P. Love, the real criminal, in jail for a very, very long time.
While they’re at it I think they should also look into the allegations of misconduct during the 2012 Winter Olympics when an on duty Dan Love was presumably observed by his men in a dark corner of a bar getting up close and personal with a woman he had had drinks with instead of providing security for the diplomats he was charged to protect.
Maybe they should take another look at the operation Dan Love conducted in Utah that lead to the suicide of three people including Dr. James Redd in Blanding, Utah.
I think it’s about damn time we start hearing the truth about this jerk instead of Prosecutors here in Nevada actively participating in a cover-up to hide the abuses this Bastard has been almost encouraged to commit.
I think it’s high-time somebody say enough is enough and tell us the truth; That Daniel P. Love was demoted – not promoted this year – because he can’t handle the overwhelming responsibility of picking up the trash on our Public Lands without threatening to kill someone, and has finally been relegated to a desk job where he can’t hurt people.
Ms Fiore is not the only one who questions Daniel P. Love’s disrespect for local officials; In a January 6th article published by High Country News in 2016, a retired BLM agent had this to say;
In 2012, Steve Martin sat in a briefing room at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, listening to the details of a clandestine operation his agency was planning in the Nevada desert. The goal seemed commendable — to round up rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle, which had been grazing illegally on public land for decades — but the means seemed off to the Arizona-based special agent for the federal Bureau of Land Management. It was full of optimistic bravado, he recalls, and it was missing a key ingredient: cooperation with the county sheriff. Says Martin: “I remember thinking, ‘Is this still the BLM?’
Defendants in the Bundy case are 100% convinced, that when a Jury of their peers hear the details of how Daniel P. Love conducted himself during the protest at Bundy Ranch, they will be acquitted – But a dismissal of this case is what’s really warranted here — “The Government has aligned with the wrong side on this one.“
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...-1-300x200.jpg
During his pre-trial release hearing on Tuesday, Ryan Bundy revealed that at least 200 gunmen (BLM Agents and or Parks and Services) were involved in the April 12th protest, and that many of them could be heard laughing while choosing the protestors they wanted to kill, including horses and dogs.
Ryan Bundy also stated for the record, an agreement had been made between the Sheriff’s Department and the Bureau Of Land Management on April 11th, 2014 – that said the impoundment operation would cease immediately – a full day before the final protest on April 12th. Mr. Bundy quickly pointed out the flaw in the indictment by asking the question, “If there were no operation on the 12th, and if the cattle were already being released — how is that impeding?”
In an amazing testimony of support, retired Las Vegas Metro Police Officer Mark McEwen who was at Bundy Ranch and assigned to assist Mr. Bundy the day of the protest said, Mr. Bundy was with him most of that day and never acted aggressively or did anything that warranted him believing he was a danger to anyone. The former officer also said he never felt his life was in danger by gunmen while doing his job to help Mr. Bundy promote a peaceful resolution.
Ryan Bundy’s wife also gave an emotional testimony saying she has done her best to pick-up the pieces but that her husband was missed and needed at home. They exchanged a heartfelt “I Love You” before she exited the stand.
Ryan Bundy is now awaiting Magistrate Judge George Foley’s decision on his pre-trial release.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Judge Gloria Navarro issues order sealing jurors identites
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/cour...ties/#more-374
Court Protects Jurors Identities Because of Defendant’s Supporters
Chief Judge Gloria Navarro issued a ruling today effectively putting the jury in the upcoming Tier 3 trial under the same protective order as all of the discovery evidence. The order comes as no surprise since the case historically garners much media attention. However, it wasn’t the act of putting juror identities under protective order that gave rise to notice; it was the reason for the order that stands out as peculiar.
Vocal supporters…
From the ruling…The Court also notes there have been several occasions during the pendency of this case when (1) pro-Defendant demonstrators have congregated at the public entrance in front of the Courthouse where the trial will take place, often on days when court was in session on this matter and (2) telephone, email, and U.S. Mail messages have been received by the Court protesting Defendants’ prosecution and at times threatening presiding judicial officers and those involved in the court process.
Translation: the exercise of First Amendment rights is an existential threat to the Government’s excessive prosecution of the alleged crimes of these defendants.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...se-protest.jpg
Not the first time…
The decision to deny the jury access to the Tuquop Wash had similar reasoning. The Court ruled that it could not reasonably assure that supporters would not show up at the wash while the jury was there. Both the Court and the Government recognize that supporters can mobilize both quickly and efficiently. These supporters typically wave flags, hold signs, and speak their mind. They dialogue with the general public. They are vocal, but act within the rule of law.
Court Protects Jurors Identities
With an anonymous jury, no one will know any of the details about the jury that the public typically knows. It should not impede the due administration of justice. The jury will hear the same evidence (that the court allows). It is the Court’s reasoning that is suspect.
Supporters gather quickly and are vocal. They exercise First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble. Even if the Court’s claim can be substantiated, the actions of one or two should not reflect negatively on the overwhelmingly positive nature of these supporters demonstrations.
The Bundy Ranch trials are an assault to push back the boundaries of the First and Second Amendments. Ascribing blame for an anonymous jury to the lawful First Amendment activities of a group of supporters is a continuation of this assault. Media attention alone would suffice for an anonymous jury order; leave it to the District of Nevada to leave no stone unturned.
Three page court order on Scribd Sroll to bottom of page
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Another report on the tyranical behavior of Special Agent Dan Love from BundyRanchStandoff.info
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/bundy-ranch-tyrant/
Bundy Ranch Tyrant Surfaces At Burning Man
BLM Agent Daniel P. Love’s ethics violations…
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...MN-207x300.jpg
BLM SAC Daniel P. Love
The Salt Lake Tribune published an article detailing serious ethics violations on the part of BLM Agent Daniel P. Love. The violations occurred during the Burning Man festival, summer 2015.
Daniel P. Love (the Bundy Ranch Tyrant) was the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) at Bundy Ranch. Discovery evidence in the Bundy Ranch Protest trial is under protective order. Consequently, until the trial unfolds, any wrongdoing of SAC Love is subject to speculation.
Rewind to 2006: Dan Love, Jim Redd, and a $40.00 Bird-shaped Artifact
The LA Times published an article detailing a years-long investigation by Agent Love in Utah. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) targeted artifact collectors by luring them into illegal deals with an undercover employee. Dr. James Redd, widely revered in his small rural community, enjoyed collecting artifacts. He had one criminal charge related to the hobby when he collected from an area incorrectly marked as private property on a map.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...ct-150x150.jpg
When leads on other collectors dried up, Agent Love focused on Redd and his family. Redd was not on the BLM’s radar; Love persisted nonetheless. Going off of a verbal description from the UCE, investigators estimated the value of a small fish-shaped shell at $1,000.00… enough for a felony charge. The item later appraised for just $40.00 to $100.00.
During the raid on Dr. Redd’s home, neighbors reported snipers positioned on roofs of adjacent houses. Agents taunted Redd and told him he would lose his medical license. Redd, his wife, and his children faced lengthy prison sentences as a result of their dealings with the UCE. Redd, knowing his wife faced decades in prison, and fearing he might lose his medical license, committed suicide in June 2009.
The UCE, overcome with guilt, committed suicide as well. When the dust settled, no one went to prison, and Love got a promotion to Special Agent in Charge for Utah & Nevada.
Bundy Ranch – 2014
Discovery remains under protective order, so the details of how the Bundy Ranch Protest unfolded is a matter of speculation. Still, some elements are evident. SAC Daniel P. Love was the individual responsible for the actions of the BLM and the US Park Police. When protesters arrived at the Tuquop Wash, believing that the BLM was either about to release Bundy’s cattle, or altogether gone, things went terribly sour.
Protesters, comprising lawfully armed as well as unarmed men, women and minor children, entered the Tuquop Wash under I-15. They had signs, they were angry, and they were there to protest. Lawfully armed citizens provided self-policing oversight as they had at the rally earlier in the morning. Horseback riders trickled in, ready to guide Bundy’s cattle back to the ranch. Observers on the Northbound I-15 bridge congregated for the purpose of watching the event unfold. A fence erected by BLM under the Southbound I-15 bridge, where the cattle would have to exit, presented a natural place to convene the protest.
The Government describes a violent armed assault. It’s true. The BLM and US Park Police deployed tactically (poorly, but tactically nonetheless), pointing weapons at unarmed civilians, glassing observers on the bridge with sniper rifle scopes, and ultimately expressing their intention to exact lethal force. Rogue, lawless federal agents assaulted the position of a crowd of protesters. The senseless, reckless, and needless escalation, if not the result of the Bundy Ranch Tyrant’s leadership, certainly was his responsibility.
Burning Man – 2015 & the Hiring Scandal
The report from the Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General details a series of questionable-at-best (but likely illegal) ethics decisions from SAC Daniel P. Love. In 2015 Love used his position in the BLM to secure tickets to the popular sold-out event. He obtained passes and favors for family members and utilized BLM-owned vehicle for personal use. In a separate incident, Love circumvented BLM hiring policies to bring a friend into a position within the agency for which the friend was not qualified.
Those ethical decisions, questionable in their own right, pale in comparison to how he handled interviews of his colleagues during the OIG’s investigation. Refered to here as “Supervisory Agent”:The next day, the Contracting Officer asked the Supervisory Agent why he had driven his girlfriend in his Government vehicle. He responded to her, “You will forget that you saw that.”
One employee reported that Love insinuated that she would be subjected to physical harm with a grenade.
The BLM OLES Budget Analyst further stated that a few weeks after the Supervisory Agent’s removal from his position in the office, he sensed that she no longer wanted to interact with him. She said he had called her into his office. The Supervisory Agent said, “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”
Love also encouraged an employee to answer “I don’t recall” to all questions regarding Love in the hiring inquiry.The BLM State Ranger said that the Supervisory Agent told him that saying “I don’t recall” was a valid answer when responding to OIG’s questions. The BLM State Ranger said that the Supervisory Agent contacted him after his interview. The Supervisory Agent asked him, “So do I still have a job or did you get me fired?” He said the Supervisory Agent’s comments made him uncomfortable and were an attempt to influence his testimony.
His behavior is tantamount to tampering with a witness.
The Bundy Ranch Tyrant…
This is how tyranny becomes law. Out of control bureaucracies hire megalomaniac agents, promote them to supervisory positions, and then leave them unchecked. Daniel P. Love mercilessly, relentlessly, and needlessly pursued Dr. James Redd over an artifact no one had ever seen. He deployed federal agents into a tactically inferior position at the Tuquop Wash in order to elicit an unlawful response from lawfully armed protesters. He subjected his own subordinates to harassment and threats when they were obligated to tell the truth in an investigation into is questionable conduct.
Sixteen Page OIG report on Scribd Scroll to bottom of page
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b...?s=49&d=mm&r=gAuthor anthony-dephue Posted on February 2, 2017 Catagories Trial Updates
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Neuro
One of Dan Loves demands to the Burning Man producers was they were to have ice cream availabe for his men 24 hours a day.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
MrsB Stacy exposes Review Journal reporting of Ryan Bundy's release hearing
http://youtu.be/Oi_v5wkWfPs
watch in jewtube
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Chief Judge Gloria Navarro orders count three dissmissed
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/count-three-dismissed/
Count Three Dismissed
District of Nevada rules against 924(c)’s Residual Clause…
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...sh-150x150.jpg
Chief Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed Count Three of the Superseding Indictment. Her decision overruled Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen’s recommendation that the charge stay on the indictment. Count Three, known as a 924(c) “enhancement”, provides additional stiff penalties for defendants who use or carry a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The underlying charge, Count Two, (Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer 18 USC § 372), falls into an evolving legal standard regarding “crimes of violence”. The portion of § 924(c) that applies to § 372 is void for vagueness due to recent Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings.
Impact of dismissal mitigated by avalanche of charges…
The proposed jury verdict form requires the jury to determine:
- did the defendant use or carry a weapon according to § 924(c), and
- did the defendant brandish the weapon
The difference is two years. The minimum sentence for carrying a weapon is 5 years, it jumps to 7 years if the weapon is found to have been brandished. However, because of sentencing guidelines, a conviction for more than a single § 924(c) will result in each one after the first jumping up to 25 years. Consequently, the odds of an effective life sentence are still staggeringly high.
The statutory minimums now look like this:
- one § 924(c) conviction: 5-7 years, + sentence for predicate (underlying) offense and other charges – this could turn in to a life sentence depending on what other charges result in conviction and the application of sentences
- two § 924(c) convictions: 30-32 years, + sentence for predicate (underlying) offense and other charges – this is still an effective automatic life sentence.
- three § 924(c) convictions: 55-57 years, + sentence for predicate (underlying) offense and other charges
Removal of one of the § 924(c) charges is a small victory, but not substantial enough for breathing room. A single § 924(c) conviction could still result in an effective life sentence depending on how many other charges result in conviction.
Count Three Dismissed
Defendants in the Malheur Refuge Trial also initially faced a § 924(c) charge. It also enhanced a § 372 charge. In that case, the judge removed the § 924 charge. In Nevada, defendants face a multitude of charges, allowing the Government to hedge it’s bet on conviction. It was never the goal for these men to go to trial. The Government stated early on that they expected defendants to plead out.
Everyone is rolling the dice here. The Government didn’t expect to go to trial. Defendants have everything on the line. With only four days to trial, it doesn’t seem like anyone is going to flinch.
16 page court order Scribd Scroll down to read
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The Invisible Witness - Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom
The Bundy Affair #20 – The Invisible Witness
February 2, 2017, 1:05 pm
The Bundy Affair #20
The Invisible Witness
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...-2-229x300.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2017
I have been so busy writing about the goings on in Oregon that I haven’t had much opportunity to consider the situation in Nevada. As I have told those that I been working with regarding the Group 1 trial in Oregon, who have all started concentrating their efforts in Nevada. I told those who I had been working with in Oregon, “You all get to work down where it is warm and sunny, while I’m still stuck up here where there is snow on the ground, and it is cold.” Seriously, however, I am in Northern California, about halfway between the two. But, I was spending my time primarily on the Oregon, Ammon Bundy, et al, case.
Then, the government filed a Motion. Upon reading the Motion, I found that the US Attorney has decided to invite me down to Nevada, an offer I couldn’t refuse.
On January 27, 2017, the government filed “Government’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Undercover Employee“. It is their effort to hide from the defense the identification of an Undercover Employee (UCE).
The invitation is found, beginning on page 9 of that Motion, to wit:
Events subsequently in the courtroom and in the United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al. case in Oregon have shown that the danger to the lone UCE witness in the government’s case is particularly great. Although the discovery information in United States v. Bundy was restricted due to a protective order, an associate of the defendants (including some of the seven common defendants in the Nevada case), Gary Hunt, posted discovery material to “out” confidential human sources to his webpage. Litigation is ongoing in the District of Oregon to remove the information from the web. See, e.g., Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, United States v. Bundy, Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2017).
Now, some might think that this doesn’t look like an invitation, but, after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see that the United States Government Railroad (USGRR) is in full operation, and flying down the tracks at breakneck speed.
So, getting started in catching up with the USGRR, you will note that they imply a threat when they state that the events in Oregon “have shown that the danger to the lone UCE witness in the government’s case is particularly great.” On the contrary, they have shown that there is no risk, at all, to the informants in the Oregon occupation — unless you consider that most of the informants have abandoned their old phone numbers, and are not accessible by phone, anymore.
Let’s look at some facts about this alleged “danger”. On September 21, 2016, AUSA Gabriel, in questioning OSP officer Jeremiah Beckert, asked, “And did you have information about whether the driver [Mark McConnell] was cooperating with the Government?” Beckert answered in the affirmative, and of its own volition, the government hung one of its informants out to face, what, serious bodily harm? Death? Well, that did not happen. And, the government put this informant at risk. That very act disputes the government’s entire argument regarding the potential threat to any of the informants..
Next, in early October, Terri Linnell, who, according to the government’s professed position regarding risk to informants, voluntarily came forward, at great risk to life and limb, to testify for the Defendants. Then, on the last day of the trial, we have Fabio Minoggio, who managed to buy himself some body armor, for his “own protection in a dangerous situation“. Minoggio, because of his role as an informant, would be equally at risk with the previously exposed McConnell and Linnell, yet none has had a hair on their head harmed.
Outside of the courtroom, however, there was a different story going on. On October 15, 2016, yours truly exposed Allen Varner as an informant. The next day, October 16, Dennis Dickenson was exposed as an informant. Two months later, in December, Robert “Rob” Seaver, Thomas “Tom” S. Dyman, and Will Kullman, were exposed. And, since the first exposure by the government and the remainder by me. Not one hair, on one head, has been harmed. (See Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”).
However, as the government contends, the exposure of the informants “[has] shown that the danger to the lone UCE witness in the government’s case is particularly great.” Not quite sure how such evidence of no harm to the informants would be any different for a real, honest to goodness, agent. It doesn’t matter whom you are working for; it is what you do. The supposition that the patriot community will retaliate is only consistent with what the government knows that they would do in a similar situation. However, we retain the moral high ground, and they are a part of the swamp that has garnered so much attention, lately.
Now, however, we see the truth peeking out. As we continue through the Motion, we find:
PROTECTIVE MEASURES SOUGHT Based on the need to prevent disclosure of the UCE’s identity, to protect the UCE, and to avoid compromising other investigations, the government respectfully requests the adoption of certain security measures for the testimony of the UCE at trial. The proposed measures, based on similar ones endorsed by other courts, are narrowly tailored:
they assure that the identity of the UCE and the integrity of other undercover investigations will not be compromised without impairing the defendants’ confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, the government requests the Court implement the following measures Don’t worry, we will get to the six concerns, but, first, an observation. Has the truth come out? It is obvious that the risk factor is just an excuse, it has no merit in reality, only in the dreams of the US Attorneys. Well, probably not even there, more likely, just to give the judge something to justify granting the requested Protective Order. Here is what they are seeking in that Order:
1. The UCE may testify at trial using an undercover pseudonym without publically disclosing his true identity, specifically, the government requests that the UCE testify as “Charles Johnson,” his cover identity;
2. The defense shall be prohibited from asking any questions seeking personal identifying information (to include name, contact information, or date or place of birth) from the UCE;
3. The defense shall be prohibited from asking any questions about other investigations in which the UCE may be involved, including any ongoing investigations;
4. No public disclosure of any audio recording, or similar reproduction of the voices or visual images of the UCE while testifying, shall be permitted;
5. The UCE shall be permitted to use a non-public entrance/exit to the courthouse and the courtroom (outside the presence of the jury); and
6. All non-official recording devices shall be prohibited from being in the courtroom in which the UCE testifies, including personal cellular phones.Well, Mr. “X”, aka “Charles Johnson”, how about we just call you “Charlie”? Many years ago, that is exactly what we called our enemy. And, you, being a spy on the people that you are supposed to serve is certainly worse. However, you have to live with that on your conscience. We simply want justice, as opposed to enforcement of stupid, poorly written, and overreaching federal laws. Isn’t it a shame that you have to cower, under any excuse, to avoid the ignominy that you so deserve?
Finally, at least for this portion of the Motion, the Prosecution gives us their Argument.
ARGUMENT
Protedtingnan undercover’s safety and the integrity of other ongoing investigations are compelling interests that courts have long recognized in crafting security measures for witness testimony. Courts, for example, have allowed witnesses to testify under a pseudonym and behind a screen or while otherwise concealed, concluding that those measures do not interfere with the defendants’ right to a fair and public trial. That precedent readily justifies the reasonable security measures proposed here.
Now, they state that this has been “long recognized“, though they fail to provide citations to back up this shallow statement. However, we can simply look to the Sixth Amendment and begin to understand just how perverse this twisted reasoning is. The Sixth Amendment protects the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him“. The Founders didn’t hide the identity of witnesses, nor did they prohibit investigation into the character of the witness. Of course, they would have been appalled at the idea of having agents of our own government spying on its own people. I would suppose that those agents, and their superiors, would be more likely to be on trial than the person they accused.
One might think that since the “witness”, the UCE, being put on the stand would be sufficient to satisfy the Amendment. However, the government wants to hide his appearance and to allow him to use a pseudonym. However, if you or I were called to the stand, where we live, what we do for a living, education, experience, it would all be on the table. Even an FBI Affidavit, supporting a warrant or motion, has the training and experience of the agent preparing it.
What they want to do is to protect the UCE so that he will continue to be useful by infiltrating other patriot groups, though in so doing, they will deny the defense the ability to look into the background, the character, and even any criminal past of the UCE.
Before we go into more detail on the government’s Motion, I think a bit of perspective might be placed on the subject with some of my own experiences.
Back in 1994 and ’95, we established a Central Florida Committee of Safety. Over the months that it was being established and became operational, there was a man who went by the name of “Robert Chapman”. “Chapman” was very cooperative, always offering a ride to the meetings, visiting my office, asking questions that someone new to the patriot community might ask. He drove an old beat up Corvette.
I left Florida, shortly after the Committee was established, though in 1997, I was subpoenaed as a witness for one of the defendants in what became known as the Florida Common Law Court Trial. When I arrived, I found that “Chapman” had testified, though he did so as Robert Quigley, his real name. Otherwise, he would have lied on the stand. He was an IRS undercover agent, and taught his craft to other agents in an IRS school. Until then, I never dreamed that the IRS would need undercover agents. More about this in “Let me tell you about a man named Quigley”. Needless to say, he was exposed, and would no longer be useful, at least in certain circles, as an undercover agent. Sort of like a bullet, once fired, it has served its useful purpose.
More recently, I have had the opportunity to expose a number of informants (Confidential Human Source – CHS) involved both inside and outside of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in Burns, Oregon. Of course, the government did not like my doing so. However, in reviewing the October 17, 2017, trial transcript rough draft, I ran across something rather interesting. Government Prosecutor Geoffrey Barrow, with the jury absent, spoke regarding the identification of an informant, Fabio Minoggio, aka John Killman, said:
What has happened now is that the defense believes that its identified an informant and believes that somehow that triggers some obligation for the government to confirm his status and his identity and we simply don’t think that that is the way the law works. We’re intending to preclude the defense from calling anyone. We don’t believe we have that ability, but requiring the government to somehow confirm defendants’ suspicions would similarly be a way around the Roviaro [decision] is the informant’s privilege.
Actually, “Roviaro” was a speech to text message in the rough draft transcript [Note: around the Roe v. R.O. (ph) in the informant’s privilege], but I was able to decipher it, and went looking. I found the decision referred to; it is Roviaro v United States 353 US 53 (1957).
From that decision:
Before trial, petitioner moved for a bill of particulars requesting, among other things, the name, address and occupation of “John Doe.” The Government objected on the ground that John Doe was an informer and that his identity was privileged. The motion was denied.
However, with “Doe” being the informant, the Supreme Court held that:
The circumstances of this case demonstrate that John Doe’s possible testimony was highly relevant and might have been helpful to the defense. So far as petitioner knew, he and John Doe were alone and unobserved during the crucial occurrence for which he was indicted. Unless petitioner waived his constitutional right not to take the stand in his own defense, John Doe was his one material witness. Petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine Police Officer Bryson and Federal Narcotics Agent Durham was hardly a substitute for an opportunity to examine the man who had been nearest to him and took part in the transaction. Doe had helped to set up the criminal occurrence and had played a prominent part in it. His testimony might have disclosed an entrapment.
Then they explained the intention of the “informer’s privilege”:
What is usually referred to as the informer’s privilege is in reality the Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law. Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 254; In re Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532; Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 316. The purpose of the privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation.
Therefore, it has to do with normal citizens that observe criminal activity. It does not include someone who voluntarily goes in to “observe” by becoming a player, whether a CHS or a UCE.
Finally,The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is clear that the United States Supreme Court understands, since the “testimony was highly relevant and might have been helpful to the defense” the argument had merit. How can a defendant know if the UCE is telling the truth if he does not know who he is? If the defendant does not know who the UCE is, then how can he know that anything that is testified is hearsay, or even whether he “had helped “to set up the criminal occurrence and had played a prominent part in it”?Of course, the Supreme Court was dealing with an informant (CHS), not a UCE. As was explained in the matter of “Chapman”, that Court recognized the rights of the defendants over the identity of the UCE. “Chapman” was the UCE. The principle of the rights of the defendants is absolute, regardless of whether the witness is a CHS or a UCE does not change the rights of the defendant. If the UCE is going to testify, or if any evidence was obtained by the UCE, the defendants have every right to cross-examine, and the UCE has none. That is a part of his job. Like the bullet, he is now spent — no matter how much more he could have serve the government, had his identity been kept secret. Once fired, his value is spent. The prosecutor wants to deny the Defendants’ rights, so that he could play his role, once again.
The Roviaro decision, however, was based upon the afforded protection by the Constitution, though no mention is made of that sacred document.Let’s look at what possible protections might be violated:
- Fourth Amendment: Were any arrest or search warrants obtained as a result of his “Oath or affirmation”? If so, that “Oath or affirmation” should bear his name so that the validity of his statement might be challenged.
- Sixth Amendment: The defendant has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”, and, “to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor”. How can they confront a concealed identity? You cannot investigate the witness, his background, or anything else, prior to trial, if you know not who he is.
Now, let’s look at what the government is asking, not in Court, rather as we should see it in the Court of Public Opinion.
First, they start with a “Sealed” exhibit, being a declaration. Presumably, the defense attorneys do have access to that declaration, though surely, the name in question will not be included.
Authorities and a supporting declaration from a FBI undercover coordinator setting out the basis for the needed protection. See Declaration filed separately under Seal at Exhibit 1.
We can probably safely say that the Declaration is full of contrived potential risks to the UCE. Rather ironically, the government exposed the first informant in Oregon, intentionally. Since then, nine more informants have been exposed, and still not one hair on one head of any informant has been harmed.
Then, they will explain that the UCE needs to be protected because he is continuing to spy on the American people, and that his work is so invaluable in bringing to justice those who would break the laws of the federal government. However, the government wants to break our rights.
I’m sure that the declaration will be much more verbose; however, it will not address the fact that a spy in a foreign country might be executed, if exposed — or, maybe it will, though we are not, yet, a foreign country. Though, when we look at the absence of justice in our judicial system, we might suppose that it is, at least, no longer our country.
At trial the government intends to call as a witness a UCE who was involved in the investigation that led to the arrest and prosecution of the defendants. As part of that testimony, the government may also play recordings of conversations between the defendants and the UCE.
Public disclosure of the UCE’s true identity or physical images would jeopardize other investigations in which the UCE is active and may pose a risk of danger to the UCE.
Well, that was predictable.Then, we have:
As such, in order to protect the UCE’s true identity and appearance, the government requests certain security measures, consistent with measures approved in other cases. Further, the government moves to prevent any cross-examination as to the UCE’s true identity or other operations.
Note that there is no test of constitutionality. Instead, it is based upon other cases. I just completed an article (Is a Misdemeanor a Crime? or, Is the Court a Crime?) that addresses “substantive law” and the “case law method”; the latter, having been developed in 1872. This is the means by which the courts can effectively “legislate” away the Constitution. As is apparent that “other cases” is an effort to achieve that end.
To demonstrate the severity of risk to the government employees, they have provided an example of the great danger to those employees, this from the subject Motion:
One such example is an April 13, 2014, post on the “Stand with the Bundys” Facebook page. There, a supporter posted an image of a BLM Ranger involved in impoundment operations together with his home telephone number and the message:
“A participant in this week’s Bundy escapade . . . BLM Ranger [name redacted] Home [address redacted].”
ECF No 357, Exhibit 2, Example # 5. Thereafter, others posted the following to the same page:[poster name redacted]: Call him from a land line[name redacted/different poster]: Do a reverse look up of his number you will be surprised[name redacted/different poster]: St. George UT is where this number is from.[name redacted/different poster]: I know my people in St. George won’t be happy about that. I will definitely share this!!!!
They refer to “ECF No 357, Exhibit 2, Example # 5“. That “Motion for Protective Order” has 20 pages of suggestive threats to the various employees. I mean, these are serious! I wonder if I could get the FBI to protect me when I receive such “threats”. Geez, these people must have very thin skin, or they are desperate for an excuse, regardless of how meager, to justify punishing people that would dare to disagree with them.
Along with that line, they bring up a situation that occurred a few months after the events that are the subject of the Indictment and upcoming trials. This, in a further effort to demonize the patriots, while upholding the government employees, with the possible exception of the subject UCE, as near to sainthood as possible. I exclude the UCE because, though he may testify, he is immune to the cross-examination that might truly protect the rights of the defendants.
I wrote about “Vetting the Millers” way back on June 9, 2014. Heck, even local law enforcement knew that there was no tie between the Millers and the people at the Bundy Ranch. However, those Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity people just do not seem to have much going for them, when others realize that there was no such implied relationship between the two. From the subject Motion:
For example, on June 8, 2014, Jared and Amanda Milled[sic] in a supposed lone wolf attack, ambushed, shot, and killed two Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officers while they were innocently eating lunch in a local restaurant. After killing the officers, they draped one of the officer’s bodies in a Gadsen flag and yelled to other restaurant patrons that it was the start of “a revolution.” They fled to a nearby store, where the Millers then shot and killed a good Samaritan attempting to confront them. The Millers held strong anti-government and anti-law enforcement views.
Before committing their murders, the Millers had celebrated with Bundy and his Followers at Bundy Ranch in the aftermath of the lawless assault and extortion of federal officers. Even before the assault, the Millers were present in Bunkerville on April 9, 2014, when defendants Santilli and Ammon Bundy ambushed a BLM convoy using force and violence. Associating themselves even further with Bundy and his Followers, Amanda Miller uploaded to Youtube, video interviews of Margaret Houston and Ryan Bundy that related to the ambush.
After the April 12 assault, Jared and Amanda Miller were present at Bundy Ranch again. Jared Miller gave an interview to a reporter on April 16, 2014, after completing “guard duty” and while wearing full camouflage and carrying his AK-47 and a 9 millimeter Smith and Wesson. See http://america.aljazeera.com/article...vshooters.html. Jared Miller also stated the following while at Bundy Ranch:
“I feel sorry for any federal agents that want to come in here and try to push us around or anything like that. I really don’t want violence toward them, but if they’re going to come bring violence to us, well, if that’s the language they want to speak, we’ll learn it.”
In April and May, 2014, Jared Miller posted numerous postings onto Facebook supporting Bundy Ranch and the April 12 assault.
Now, disregard the fact that they couldn’t even spell Miller (Milled), without error, they “suppose” that it was a lone wolf attack. That is quite telling because this whole Motion is based more on “suppose” (supposition) than on fact.
They are likely correct when they say that, “The Millers held strong anti-government and anti-law enforcement views.” However, that same statement does not describe the events surrounding this whole Cliven Bundy, et al case. There was nothing that was “anti-government”. Everything had to do with the rights of the people of this country. If anything is anti-government, it is the actions of the government, itself, in bringing charges against the defendants, in violation of civil decency. The government, however, appears to be quite “anti-Constitution”.
Then, it is stated, “[T]he Millers had celebrated with Bundy and his Followers.” Who the heck did the FBI talk with to come up with that line of crap? Maybe the US Attorney, so he could make a case, no matter how flimsy and unsubstantiated. It could not have been with anybody that had personal knowledge, as they could never have contrived such a blatant lie. The entire direct communication with the people siding with the Bundys is explained in my article (Vetting the Millers, linked above). If they mean that the Millers were ecstatic that the Unrustling of the Bundy’s cattle had occurred, then they could also name tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people in this country, and many from other parts of the world. That’s like trying to tie me to government employees, perhaps the Russians, and all kinds of people, when we all celebrated the recent Presidential election. There ain’t a whole lot of Integrity in that proposition.
Now, here is a good one. The Motion says that, “the Millers were present in Bunkerville on April 9, 2014, when defendants Santilli and Ammon Bundy ambushed a BLM convoy using force and violence.” When I wrote my article about the Millers, I placed them at arriving between April 12 and 14. That was based on the interviews with those who could allow, or deny, access to the Bundy Property. Now, the government alleges that they were present in Bunkerville on April 9, and that ties them to what the government describes as an ambush of “a BLM convoy using force and violence.”
So, I made some phone calls, and nobody (except maybe the FBI, in their diligence) can place the Millers in the area of Bunkerville (not at the Ranch) before Thursday, April 10, 2014. Even if they were in Bunkerville, those present at the flippantly described “ambush” consisted only of family, friends, and other supporters, such as Pete Santilli, who filmed the event. There is no footage showing the Millers present.
Where does the FBI come up with the quixotic description that they have set forth in the Motion?Further, as far as “force and violence“, let’s review. A number of vehicles, including a dump truck, were coming off the Gold Butte range. The Bundys had reason to believe that some cattle had died because of the government activities. They simply wanted to see if some cattle carcasses were leaving in the truck, so they block the traffic, before it hit the public road, to get a look inside of the truck. The government should have nothing to hide, unless, of course, they did it in the dead of night.
Continued. . . . .
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
. . . .Continued
Well, it is difficult to call it force when you are blocking traffic – quite a stretch of the government’s imagination. The only violence that occurred was a government employee throwing Margaret Bundy Houston to the ground and the tasing of Ammon Bundy. So, just who is calling the kettle black?
Finally, at least for the above-quoted statements included in the Motion, we have, “After the April 12 assault, Jared and Amanda Miller were present at Bundy Ranch again.” They were not “present at the Bundy Ranch“. They were, however, present on a public road near the Bundy Ranch.The government continues, “Jared Miller gave an interview to a reporter on April 16, 2014, after completing ‘guard duty’ and while wearing full camouflage and carrying his AK-47 and a 9 millimeter Smith and Wesson.” Now, I do not want you to take my word for it. I don’t dispute the weapons that Jared Miller had nor does the government dispute his right to have them. Quite often, when you want an excuse (say “lie”), any excuse is good enough.
The government, however, is dumb enough to provide the evidence of their lies. They link an Al Jazerra video to prove their point. What they prove, however, is that they are lying, or, being a bit more generous, grossly misstating, the truth. The video clearly shows that the interview took place on a public road, complete with guardrails.
I have not addressed the entire 16 pages of the Motion, though I think that what we can see here, sufficiently addresses the conflict between justice and persecution. I believe that if you download from the link at the top, you will find more absurdities, as you continue through this masterful piece of bureaucratic deceit.
Share this:
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Mack Sorensen, referring to the photo of SAC Dan Love on Teresa Brookshire's post-
https://s19.postimg.org/ndj8427mr/IMG_1490.png
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
John Lamb with an updatemfrommthe Pahrump, Nevada detention center some of the men were moved back to Henderson to be closer to the courthouse for the upcoming trial.
http://youtu.be/QZ_w47ckCbk
Link to video
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Attorneys suggest BLM agent accusedmof misconduct could be central to Bundy case.
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...to-bundy-case/
Attorneys suggest BLM agent accused of misconduct could be central to Bundy case
Posted on February 3, 2017 by Doug Knowles
February 2, 2017 - 10:29pm
By JENNY WILSON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Defense attorneys representing men charged as co-conspirators of rancher Cliven Bundy have raised concerns that a Bureau of Land Management supervisor recently acccused of ethics violations is the same person who oversaw agency officials during the armed standoff in Bunkerville in April 2014.In a scathing report released this week, the Office of the Inspector General accuses an unnamed BLM supervisory agent of using his position to obtain sold-out Burning Man tickets in 2015. The report includes allegations that the agent intimidated employees who may have reported his wrongdoing, and it accuses him of threatening to ruin subordinates’ careers by saying things like, “If you’re not on my ship, you’re going to sink … so I suggest you get on my ship.”
The defense attorneys filed motions in federal court Wednesday seeking personnel files of all the BLM agents involved in the case. But the language in the filings reveals that lawyers are focused specifically on the identification of the unnamed supervisory agent targeted in the OIG report, whom they apparently suspect to be the same agent in charge of the cattle impoundment operation at Bundy’s ranch.
“Curiously, the report never actually names the Special Agent in Command who is the subject of the report,” defense attorney Todd Leventhal, representing defendant Scott Drexler, wrote in his filing. “This narcissistic and cavalier attitude towards the legal process calls into question at what lengths this Special Agent in Command may go to and whether or not future witnesses in the case at bar may be tainted with their testimony at trial for fear of ‘ruining their career’ as well.”
Drexler’s trial is scheduled to open next week, and Leventhal filed the motion as he is preparing to cross-examine federal agents who are included on the government’s witness list for the upcoming trial. He included a list of those agents in his court filing, and only one on the list is identified as a supervisor: BLM Supervisory Special Agent Daniel Love.
Defense attorney Chris Rasmussen, who represents defendant Pete Santilli, filed an identical request but did not identify by name any of the BLM agents. He did, however, use his filing to attack the behavior of federal officials — especially the special agent in charge.
“BLM had told officials in Washington D.C. that they were ceasing the cattle operation. However, when the cowboys came to recover the cattle, the BLM was still positioned in a confrontational manner in which they pointed firearms at protestors,” Rasmussen wrote in the filing. “The BLM agent in charge testified to the grand jury about facts that are disputed by our local law enforcement officials.”
The defense strategy involves portraying federal officials as excessively militant or aggressive against a peaceful group of protesters. If the lawyers’ suspicions are confirmed, some of the allegations detailed in the Inspector General’s report could bolster defense arguments at trial, provided the judge allows the jury to hear testimony on that topic.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
source
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
yes wouldn't it be interesting if the UCE informant was that guy. Probably the real reason they want to keep his identity secret.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Bridge photos might be inadmissable becuase they are prejudicial. The court gives the govt. 3 days to respond.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/brid...ling-imminent/
Bridge Photos Ruling Imminent
Court Gives Government 3 Days To Respond
On 27 January 2017, Parker, Drexler, and Stewart motioned to exclude from trial photos taken showing them on the NB I-15 bridge on Saturday, 12 April 2014. Their counsel argues that the opening in the jersey barrier is only 1.5 inches wide. Subsequently, no agent under the SB I-15 bridge would have been able to perceive an imminent threat from any of the three. In addition, Stewart didn’t surface in any agency reports until after photographs of the trio circulated widely in the media. The Court ruled that the Government will have until 07 February 2017 to respond making a bridge photos ruling imminent
.
Photos are likely prejudicial…
The motion argues that court precedent requires someone to perceive threat in order to be a victim of assault. Parker and Drexler’s defensive posture do not meet the standard for what the Court defines as assault. Further, jury instructions historically require that an alleged victim perceive threat or imminent harm. From the filing:Mr. Drexler, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stewart seek to prevent the United States from entering any photographs depicting them aiming their rifles at any persons and because none of these persons (and consequently, none of the witnesses) were aware of the defendants doing so. If one is unaware of being in a position of harm, that person cannot be the victim of assault, threats, obstruction, extortion, impeding or the alleged brandishing of a firearm in furtherance thereof.
The chess match for evidence…
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...ss-150x150.png
The Government seeks to preclude defendants from introducing critical elements of their defense. Specifically, the Government motioned to preclude any mention of militarized police presence. Similarly, The Government wishes to preclude any mention of Federal Agent misconduct. These points are integral to the establishment of the defendant’s state of mind. Simply stated, it explains why they took a defensive posture.
Discovery evidence doesn’t support the notion that any Federal Agents knew that Parker and Drexler took a defensive posture. The Government would like to use the single snapshot of these men prone on the bridge to proffer (propose) that they did so in furtherance of the embellished criminal indictment levied against them. Consequently, inclusion of these photos could be prejudicial if introduced as evidence.
Bridge Photos Ruling Imminent
Motions to dismiss because of SAC Dan Love’s behaviorhave not yet received a ruling. Outright dismissal seems unlikely.
With jury selection beginning in just two days, the Court requests an expedited response from the Government.
The case will rise and fall on what the jury sees. This will be a watershed ruling.
Court document on Scribd Scroll down
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Free Range Report - Will Dan Love misconduct cripple federal prosecutors in Bundy trial?
http://freerangereport.com/index.php...n-bundy-trial/
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=601%2C194
Will BLM agent Dan Love misconduct cripple federal prosecutors in Bundy trial?
February 4, 2017 editor Leave a comment
Whipple represents ranch owner and Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy, 70, whose years-long feud with the federal government over cattle grazing rights on federal land culminated in the 2014 standoffWhipple said the report paints a picture of an agent with a personal agenda and no regard for the rule of law. He said his client long has maintained that Love dangerously orchestrated events during the Bundy standoff to “enhance and enrich” his personal profile and “to make a name for himself.”Love did not respond to repeated phone calls left at his Utah office and on his cellphone.
Jenny Kane
Robert Anglen
USA Today Network
Agent in charge at Bunkerville, Nev., standoff is implicated in Burning Man investigation
An investigation accusing a federal agent of misconduct and ethics violations could derail one of the most high-profile land-use trials in modern Western history.
Jury selection is scheduled to start in a Las Vegas federal courtroom Monday for a series of trials in which 17 cattle ranchers and self-styled militia members face charges for their roles in the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff against Bureau of Land Management officials.
But a Jan. 30 report by the Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General appears to raise serious questions about the BLM special agent in charge of operations during the standoff, who is expected to be a key witness for the government in the case.
The report, which does not identify the agent by name, cites ethical violations that occurred in 2015 at the annual Burning Man event in Northern Nevada’s Black Rock Desert.
Federal investigators said the agent wrongly used his influence to obtain benefits for himself and his family members at Burning Man, abused federal law-enforcement resources and intimidated other BLM staff to keep quiet about his conduct. They also accused the agent of manipulating BLM hiring practices to help a friend get hired.
Lawyers representing Bundy Ranch defendants say the report offers enough details to positively identify the agent as Dan Love, the BLM special agent in charge of Utah and Nevada between 2012 and 2015.
“I’m sure it is him. If it is Dan Love, first of all we will file a motion to dismiss. … He is the primary figure in the government’s case. He put together the plan. He negotiated with (the Bundys).”
Bret Whipple, Las Vegas attorney representing Cliven Bundy
Already, they are filing motions to confirm it. A defense lawyer said Thursday they are asking a federal judge to force the government to reveal the name of the agent in the inspector general’s report. If it is Love, they will ask for charges to be dismissed against the Bundy Ranch defendants before the trials begin.
“I’m sure it is him,” Las Vegas attorney Bret Whipple said Thursday. “If it is Dan Love, first of all we will file a motion to dismiss. … He is the primary figure in the government’s case. He put together the plan. He negotiated with (the Bundys).”
Whipple represents ranch owner and Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy, 70, whose years-long feud with the federal government over cattle grazing rights on federal land culminated in the 2014 standoff
Whipple said the report paints a picture of an agent with a personal agenda and no regard for the rule of law. He said his client long has maintained that Love dangerously orchestrated events during the Bundy standoff to “enhance and enrich” his personal profile and “to make a name for himself.”
Love did not respond to repeated phone calls left at his Utah office and on his cellphone.
BLM officials in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the inspector general’s report and would not confirm if Love is the unnamed agent. BLM spokesman Michael Richardson called the report a personnel matter. He said the unnamed agent is still employed with the BLM, but Richardson said he would not discuss the agent’s status or current assignment.
“The Bureau of Land Management takes allegations of misconduct seriously,” Richardson said in a statement. “These types of allegations do not align with our mission or the professionalism and dedication of our 10,000 employees doing essential work for America’s public lands each and every day.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas also declined comment. Spokeswoman Trisha Young said Friday the witness list in the Bundy Ranch trials has been sealed and is not open to the public, and she declined to speak about Love’s role in the case.
Individual federal prosecutors assigned to the cases did not return calls.
A potential credibility issue, law professor says
The inspector general’s report could damage the credibility of the government’s case if Love is identified as the agent, said Sara Gordon, associate professor of law at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
“It’s in an ethics report. I think everything is up for grabs — misuse of the vehicles, using intimidation,” Gordon said. “This stuff, it suggests that he’s willing to cheat and lie for his job.”
She said defense attorneys involved in the Bundy Ranch trials might not be able to show juries the inspector general’s report but could question Love about specific incidents raised in it.
“I wouldn’t be happy if this was my star witness, but I don’t think this will kill the case.”
Sara Gordon, associate professor of law at the Boyd School of Law at UNLV
“Anytime a witness is on the stand, you can cross-examine them and … try to impeach him,” she said. “They can ask him about things that (could) show that he’s dishonest.”
Gordon said any damage defense lawyers could inflict upon Love’s credibility would not affect the credibility of other witnesses testifying for the prosecution.
“They don’t have anything to show that he (Love) did any of this at the Bundy standoff,” she said. “I wouldn’t be happy if this was my star witness, but I don’t think this will kill the case.”
The 17 defendants are charged with conspiracy, assault on a federal officer, using a firearm in a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, interference of commerce by extortion and aiding and abetting a crime. If convicted, they could spend the rest of their lives in a federal prison.
Trials could go on for months. The defendants will be prosecuted in groups before three different juries based on their alleged levels of culpability.
The first trial, beginning Monday, primarily involves militia members. The second trial includes Cliven Bundy, two of his sons and two key figures in the standoff. The third includes two Bundy relatives and four others.
Report details special privileges for agent
Federal officials said the BLM agent’s name was withheld from the Burning Man report because he is not a top official within the agency.
But an analysis by the Reno Gazette-Journal and The Arizona Republic found many details in the report coincide with Love’s career, including the agent’s former title, his base of operation, his past assignments and his on-site supervisor. In addition, the report cited a June 2015 Gazette-Journal story about complaints against Love over his conduct before Burning Man began.
The Inspector General’s Office adopted language in its report identical to the Gazette-Journal article naming Love as a person behind a series of official requests that would have required Burning Man organizers to build a $1 million luxury compound for BLM officials at the event.
Burning Man takes place during Labor Day weekend when as many as 70,000 people erect a temporary city on a remote desert playa miles away from any kind of services. The event culminates with the burning of a giant wooden effigy of a man.
Among Love’s requests were flushing toilets, laundry facilities and 24-hour access to ice cream, documents show.
The inspector general’s report said the unnamed agent used his official position to buy three sold-out tickets to Burning Man; had five on-duty BLM officers escorting his father, family friend and girlfriend during the event; and also changed the hiring process so an unqualified applicant, a personal friend of his, would be hired.
During the burning of the effigy, the agent was on duty and he claimed 24 hours of official work time. He also claimed 24 hours of work time the next day, and the day after that.
Investigators said when they began looking into the complaints, the agent called other employees and encouraged them not to cooperate. He told them “I don’t recall” was a valid answer to investigators’ questions, the report said.
Investigators said the agent used intimidation to discourage his co-workers from speaking with investigators, telling one: “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”
A history of conflict, controversy
Love’s conduct was being called into question years before the Bundy Ranch standoff.
Love, formerly with the Federal Air Marshal Service, became the BLM’s Nevada and Utah special agent in charge in 2012 and has often captured headlines for actions that exacerbated an already strained relationship between the federal agency and landowners.
Utah Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox called for Love’s ouster from the state in 2014, saying the agent had so many conflicts with local officials that it was becoming a barrier to law enforcement, according to reports published in The Salt Lake Tribune.
Four Utah counties passed resolutions alleging the BLM posed a threat to public safety.
“This is untenable,” Cox told The Tribune. “There comes a time when personalities get in the way of productivity.”
Cox said he and other state officials were unable to negotiate with Love, and he publicly told a state commission that he didn’t want Love “instigating a war,” according to The Tribune.
Cox could not be reached for comment Friday. A spokeswoman for Utah Gov. Gary Herbert confirmed the statements made by Cox in 2014 and said they accurately reflected the state’s position.
In 2009, Love was one of the agents in charge of a massive raid of the home of Utah doctor James Redd, who had been busted for trading Native American artifacts out of the Four Corners region.
Redd, 60, committed suicide the day after his arrest, and the artifacts dealer committed suicide thereafter. Four others connected to the case, including the undercover artifacts dealer who got Redd arrested, also committed suicide.
Redd’s widow, Jeanne Redd, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against two of the BLM agents, including Love. A federal judge dismissed the suit but questioned the agents’ tactics.
On websites and social-media posts dedicated to the Bundy Ranch standoff, Love is accused of ratcheting up the conflict.
Recorded exchanges purportedly between Love and right-wing internet radio host Peter Santilli during the standoff show just how quickly events escalated as each man threatened the other with arrest.
Love maintained he had the federal courts on his side and wanted to end the standoff peacefully. Then he told Santilli that the protesters didn’t have enough people to hold off law enforcement, saying, “You better hope that 10,000 show up,” according to one website.
Santilli is one of the 17 facing charges.
Bundy’s fight with the federal government dates back to the early 1990s, when he refused to pay the BLM for allowing his cattle to graze on public lands near his ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., about 80 miles north of Las Vegas on Interstate 15.
For two decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 the agency obtained a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle as payment for more than $1 million in back fees. In April, the BLM, led by Love, implemented a roundup of 1,000 head of Bundy’s cattle ranging on public land.
Bundy fought back, issuing a social-media battle cry to help defend his land rights against federal agents. Supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana. They showed up with rifles and handguns, determined to keep government agents at bay.
Pictures of prone figures on overpasses sighting long rifles at BLM agents in a dusty wash below galvanized the public and brought international awareness to the feud over public lands and the potential consequences.
For six days, tension escalated as the standoff played out with demonstrations, speeches and attempted negotiations before the BLM abandoned the round-up and withdrew from the area without a single arrest. Cliven Bundy went back to grazing his cattle on the disputed public land.
The standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Cliven Bundy’s sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, cited their success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. They said they could make the federal government stand down.
Federal authorities answered the siege at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which ended in the shooting death of Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum and with other arrests and indictments. But the Oregon case ended in embarrassment for federal prosecutors last year when a federal jury acquitted Ryan and Ammon Bundy and five other defendants.
Cliven Bundy was not directly involved in the Oregon siege. He was arrested last year in connection with his role in the 2014 Nevada standoff, which is referred to in militia circles as the Battle of Bunkerville. His sons and 14 others also were charged. All are being held without bail at a detention facility in Nevada.
Cliven Bundy’s attorney said Thursday it “will be very interesting” to see how the case plays out with Dan Love as the government’s key witness.
“Between you and me,” Whipple said, “We’re lucky we’re at trial and not at a memorial service.”
Free Range Report
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Vickey Gray makes a good point
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/
Vickey Gray
I do wish when these reporters would stop omitting the facts about the "grazing fees".
In 1993 Theban managed 1.7 million acres and these were ruled by law called The Taylor Grazing act which divided the property allotments and sold these rights to grazing "appropriated land".
Then congress set up FLMPA this also had strict laws that protected the property owner.
Then came Bill Clinton the fool and Bruce Babbitt the sociopath, who explained that congress would never change the law so he went through the Courts he set up his own nonprofit called "Public Lands Council" to bring lawsuits against the department of interior when ever he wanted a change to the law.
This worked so great that the U. S. Forest Service Michael Dowbeck did the same he set up "friends of the Clearwater" and the legacy of corruption and moral turpitude and years of nightmares for the citizens of the 11 Western states, sadly our elected officials took over for Bruce Babbitt in 2002 House Hearing Serial No. 107-124. Possibly treason.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...roperty-owners
TNA: Some of the reports circulated by your opposition after the court ruled in its Final Opinion and Finding of Fact in 2002 for Hage v. United States suggested that the only forage the court found you owned on these lands was a strip 50 feet on each side of your irrigation ditches. Can you explain that?
Hage: Yes. The government agencies started that rumor shortly after they realized they had lost their claim to water and forage on Pine Creek Ranch. Unfortunately, several erstwhile lawyers in the West parroted that same disinformation.
TNA: But, how did that disinformation, as you call it, develop?
Hage: At a hearing held in the court, June 30, 1993, the U.S. stipulated on the record that we do own the range and water rights we claimed under Nevada law. The United States wanted to argue that there was some federal law which superseded our rights. The court, in that same hearing, confirmed that Nevada law controlled and there was no federal law of property which could supersede the state law. Since June 30, 1993, the issue of whether I owned the range and water rights I claimed was not an issue before the court. It was no longer a point in contention. Both sides stipulated, on the record, that I did own those rights and the court affirmed the issue of law.
TNA: Where did the issue of the forage on 50 feet on each side of an irrigation ditch come from?
Hage: About four months after I had first filed my taking claim with the court, the United States brought criminal charges against me for cleaning vegetation out of my irrigation ditches. In June of 1993, the issue of whether I owned the vegetation on my ditch right-of-ways had been appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which eventually ruled in my favor. The issue of who owned the forage on the ditch right-of-ways was then not covered by the 1993 stipulation. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims devoted considerable dicta in the Final Opinion holding that I also owned the forage on the ditch right of ways. Some reviewers who have never read all three published opinions of the court and who have relied on the Final Opinion and Finding of Fact only fail to realize that the issue of forage on the ranch as a whole was settled in my favor in 1993.
TNA: Why are ranchers required to have a grazing permit if, as you say, they already own the water and forage on these lands?
Hage: The truth is that a rancher is not required to have a grazing permit. The grazing permit should more accurately be called a grazing management permit. It is a cooperative permit whereby the rancher permits the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management to manage his private range rights in return for the rancher being permitted to participate in the range improvement fund for capital expenditures. When the federal agency cancels a grazing permit, as they did in my case, they cancelled my ability to participate in the range improvement fund, but they also cancelled any authority to manage my private range and water rights.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Defendants denied access to attorneys before trial
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/atto...-before-trial/
Attorneys Denied Access Before Trial
Prison refuses to grant group meeting…
Tier 3 defendants now reside at the Henderson Detention Center in Henderson, NV. Henderson is closer to the Courthouse which makes for a substantially reduced commute to and from trial. Henderson also has individual cells, (as opposed to Pahrump’s 50 bunk bed per pod layout); the men should get better sleep. There are issues though.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...ed-300x150.jpg
First, and foremost, the prison prevented a group meeting between defendants, attorneys, and private investigators. Two attorneys and four private investigators waited for hours until the prison informed them that only visits permitted would be one-on-one. Six defendants in Tier 3 each face (now) 15 criminal counts capable of amounting to more than 100 years in prison. Three of the four defendants from Idaho traveled to and from the Bundy Ranch Protest together. Their cases are inseparably relevant one to the other ; they need to have as pre-trial meeting.
Stewart’s attorney motioned for this accommodation. The Court, so far, fails to acknowledge the request. Defendants and attorneys will try again Sunday for a meeting.
No access to discovery either…
Further, nearly all of the evidence in discovery is in electronic format. The prison does not have a PC accessible to prisoners that can review the material. Late developments related to the Bundy Ranch Tyrant and motions to preclude certain evidence mandate a need for access to technology.
Parker’s attorney notified the US Marshals the day defendants transferred in to Pahrump. The US Marshals, thus far, refuse to accommodate the request.
Shoes or Soda?
Finally, commissary is the only connection defendants have to normality. Funds on commissary are good for anything from “comfort food” to essentials. In this case, prisoners had to leave their shoes at Pahrump. Ordering shoes through commissary uses most of the weekly allowable limit.
Parker’s spouse, Andrea, had to go shopping for shoes in order to allow defendants to be able to spend commissary on other items. the prison did allow the items in.
Attorneys Denied Access Before Trial
With just one day to go before trial, much is up in the air. The Court has not yet ruled on:
- Ethics violations of SAC D. Love (The Bundy Ranch Tyrant)
- Motions to preclude evidence (from both sides)
These outstanding items will greatly impact what the jury hears and sees. Defendants need to be prepared for any possible outcome; this doesn’t seem to be a priority for the “justice” system.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b...?s=49&d=mm&r=g
Author anthony-dephue Posted on February 4, 2017 Catagoties Uncategorized
Leave a Reply
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Since the passage of the unconstitutional "Patriot" Act Americans can be held indefinitely without trial or bail . . .
Or is it because of the unconstitutional enforecement of the "Patriot" Act against Americans?
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...9f&oe=590F0561
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Sexual abuse in Nevada detention centers, John Lamb, Orange Hat Man Kenny, Lazaro and Joshua Martinez - Nevada Updates
http://youtu.be/Uexkg_jfRaU
https://youtu.be/Uexkg_jfRaU
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Mel Bundy's wife and daughters were denied a visit after she drove 2 hours so they could see their dad after on year of being jailed
Videos won't embed
Mel Bundy’s Wife Updates us on Reactions and responses from CCA Nevada Southern Detention Center
Posted on February 4, 2017 by Doug Knowles
Briana Bundy updates us on the follow-up from CCA Privately Operated Nevada Southern Detention Center.In yesterday's article, she explained her bad experience she had when she tried to visit her Husband Mel Bundy with here children. They had driven over two hours to the facility and because of her children which are permitted and have never been an issue in the past.
She shares a lot. She touches on the response of staff to our calls and complaints share by her husband Mel Bundy in a phone conversation Today. She also elaborates on many of the abusive issues in this and other facilities and why they occur.
The federal government prosecutors, actively intimidate and scare the detainees without pre-trial release in and effort to obtain plea agreements from the detainees, that they would not otherwise make. The US Marshals and CCA are active participants in the process.
Video Player
00:00
20:08
Video Player
00:00
07:45
Share this:
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Jury selection for first six in Bundy Ranch trial has begun.
These reporters want to ignore or are ignorant of the fact that many of these old ranches have forage and water rights that predate the Taylor Grazing Act. The ownership of the land is mute. If the jury were made aware of that fact the Bureau of Land Management is guilty of cattle rustling.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/art...y-10911941.php
Jury selection begins for trial of 6 in Bundy ranch standoff
Ken Ritter, Associated Press
Updated 1:14 pm, Monday, February 6, 2017
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Jury selection has begun in federal court in Nevada for trial of the first six defendants accused of taking up arms against federal agents herding cattle off public land near cattleman Cliven Bundy's ranch in April 2014.
About 10 flag-waving protesters marked the start of proceedings Monday outside the courthouse in Las Vegas, showing support for the jailed rancher and his philosophy that states own the land, not the federal government.
A similar number of counter-protesters organized by a conservation advocacy group brought a bullhorn and signs declaring public lands should stay public.
In the courtroom, openings are expected later this week for a trial that's expected to take weeks or months.
The six facing the jury first are characterized as the least culpable "followers and gunmen" among the 19 defendants the case.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
BLM misconduct will be admissible, but court granted most of govt. motion
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/evid...bility-ruling/
Evidence Admissibility Ruling
Government Misconduct Admissible…
Chief Judge Gloria Navarro ruled on the Government’s motion to preclude certain evidence. The Government raised concern that certain arguments could lead to jury nullification. The Court granted most of the Government’s motion but did deny one element critical to the defendant’s strategy. Namely, defendant’s can introduce Government misconduct into their arguments according to the evidence admissibility ruling.
No mention of Malheur Occupation permitted…
Drexler argued in favor of allowing references to the Malheur Occupation trial, but did not (according to the Court) present substantive reasons for why such arguments would be relevant. Consequently, the Court ruled that references to the Malheur trial are irrelevant and inadmissible.
Third party opinions inadmissible…
Defendants will not be able to introduce the opinions of third-party individuals as evidence. Subsequently, statements made by individuals such as Governor Brian Sandoval or then Senator Harry Reid will not be admissible. Sandoval publicly referred to the operation and First Amendment areas as “offensive”. Reid publicly labeled defendants as “domestic terrorists”. The Government argued that these opinions could confuse the jury, especially if a juror happened to respect the opinion of the individual.
Opinions on legality precluded…
Defendants will not be able to present as evidence personal opinions about the validity (or lack thereof) with regard to existing laws. Consequently, any personally-held beliefs about the BLM, Federal land “ownership”, or anything of the like are not admissible. The Court uses the example of taxes. The Court says that a citizen cannot present a belief that taxes are illegal as a good faith defense for why they stop paying them.
Evidence Admissibility Ruling
The Government sought far-reaching limits of what evidence should be admissible. The Court ruled mostly in favor of the Government, but did open the door for defendants to present evidence and argument related to Government misconduct. This will be key in helping jurors understand the defendant’s state of mind on Saturday, 12 April 2014.
State of mind is a key element in understanding why defendants postured defensively. Excessively militarized land management agents deployed tactically an evinced a posture indicating that they might exact lethal force on unarmed protesters. Consequently, many thought they were going to observe a release of cattle. Instead, the Bundy Ranch Tyrant (SAC Daniel P. Love) senselessly escalated a peaceful protest into a potentially deadly standoff. The evidence admissibility ruling by the Court will allow defendants to present these arguments as long as they can reasonably articulate it’s relevance.
Scribd, 7 page court ruling on bottom ov page
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b...?s=49&d=mm&r=g
Author anthony-dephuePosted on February 6, 2017Categories Trial UpdatesLeave a Reply
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
John Lamb with first 1/2 day report on jury selection for Bundy Ranch trial Feb. 6, 2017
http://youtu.be/5l3C2c5FsDE
Youtube link
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
John Lamb end of first day of jury selection for first Bundy trial
http://youtu.be/hAJDAkAuFDw
https://youtu.be/hAJDAkAuFDw
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
This is a very good video.
There is no doubt that these people are speaking truth from the facts and from the heart.
I feel just sick about the evil and corruption happening within the legal and law enforcement system.
I hope Trump does something about this hideous situation.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dachsie
This is a very good video.
There is no doubt that these people are speaking truth from the facts and from the heart.
I feel just sick about the evil and corruption happening within the legal and law enforcement system.
I hope Trump does something about this hideous situation.
It really bothers me that these prosecutors and judges proceed against these people when they must know they are prosecuting innocent people. This bunch in Las Las Vegas were all hand picked by Harry Reid. They all seem to defy the law with the exception of the magistrate judge George Foley. He appears to be a little bit honest.
-
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
