Joshua Martinez with has an update on today at the trial. Feb. 16
http://youtu.be/5Z8mLvHGCzM
https://youtu.be/5Z8mLvHGCzM
Printable View
Joshua Martinez with has an update on today at the trial. Feb. 16
http://youtu.be/5Z8mLvHGCzM
https://youtu.be/5Z8mLvHGCzM
Anthony Dephue and Andrea Olson-Parker end of day report Feb. 16
the audio is better on this video than the previous two for this morning.
http://youtu.be/20yUTNVjKPo
https://youtu.be/20yUTNVjKPo
House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz's (R) Utah letter to deputy inspector general regarding Dan Love's deleting documents
Congressman Jason Chaffetz3 hrs
https://www.facebook.com/Congressman...16831478432133
I invite my constituents in rural Utah to read and share.
This week, Interior Subcommittee Chairman Blake Farenthold and I sent a letter to the Inspector Genera...
See More
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902)]https://external.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...Drijzg7V8A5ODT
oversight.house.gov
OVERSIGHT.HOUSE.GOV
LikeCommentShare
need to read USC 18 Sec 1001 to see where the "Hillary" exception is.
Was Dan Love at the Finicum traffic stop?
No, Dan Love was not involved there. That was Oregon State Police and the FBI.
More on the Jason Chaffetz investigation.
These so called "police" the militarized, armed park rangers and BLM rangers do not have police power or arrest powers in the states. The real problem is the state governments take federal dollars, then allow the federalies to walk all over them rather than enforce the law and keep these animals out of the state. The US Constitution, the state constitutions, federal law, and state laws all give criminal jurisdictions to the states. Since 911 and rhe passage of the (un)Patriot Act and the NADA, National Defence Authorization Act, the feds have usurped jurisdiction in the name of fighting terrorism. The states could stop them, but they won't because they would lose their federal funding.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43217278&nid...e-of-blm-agent
Chaffetz calls for wider probe of BLM agent
SALT LAKE CITY — Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has called for a wider probe of a federal Bureau of Land Management agent who played a key role in the standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy before coming under investigation for his activities at Burning Man.
Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said in a letter that the allegations against Salt Lake City BLM supervisor Daniel Love could undermine trust in the agency and should be probed by Department of Interior inspectors. The department's Office of Inspector General did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter released Friday.
Chaffetz pointed to reports that Love asked employees to "scrub" emails before responding to a congressional records request and delete documents from a shared server. He was also accused of coaching an employee on what to say before an interview with government investigators.
The Office of Inspector General has previously faulted the supervisory agent from Salt Lake City for accepting sold-out Burning Man tickets and having agents drive around his family during the Nevada event in 2015.
The investigators also found evidence he manipulated a hiring process so a friend could get a job at the BLM. The report released Jan. 30 was referred to higher-ups for possible disciplinary action.
The BLM didn't immediately return a call seeking comment on the Chaffetz letter dated Feb. 14. Messages left at publicly listed phone numbers for Love were also not immediately returned Friday.
Love, who oversaw the Bundy cattle roundup in 2014, is expected to be an important witness for the prosecution during a trial unfolding in Las Vegas for six men accused of illegally wielding weapons during the standoff.
Defense attorneys pushing for the case to be dismissed say they should have previously been informed about the allegations against Love.
He was also the target of a federal lawsuit from the family of a southern Utah doctor, James Redd, who killed himself after he was arrested in a 2009 artifact looting investigation that marked an early skirmish in the struggle for control of public lands.
Related
The family said BLM agents led by Love used excessive force when they arrested Redd at gunpoint.
That case was dismissed by an appeals court Monday after judges found the presence of agents in SWAT-like gear wasn't unreasonable given the large volume of evidence and longstanding local opposition to federal control of public lands.
Related Stories
44 Pending Comments
Free Range Report on Dan Love investigation. No information we already have not seen.
http://freerangereport.com/index.php...ully-dan-love/
House Oversight pushes for probe of ethics breaches, possible crimes of BLM bully Dan Love
February 18, 2017 editor One comment
“As a federal law enforcement officer, Love’s actions have the potential to not only taint your investigation, but to seriously undermine the trust in BLM’s law enforcement office and thwart congressional oversight of the Bureau. As such, I request that you investigate the specific allegations raised in your interviews of destruction of federal records, witness tampering, and obstruction of a congressional investigation.”by Marjorie Haun
On Valentines day, the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote a letter responding to the Department of Interior’s Inspector General’s report on the “numerous instances of troubling behavior exhibited by (Dan) Love.”
The investigation of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agent, Dan Love, has been ongoing and complex. With a history of complaints against Love of bullying, overly-aggressive tactics, ethics violations, and now, tampering, lies, and cover-ups, it appears that the most infamous figure in recent BLM history is now under the scrutiny of Congress’ most powerful investigative arm. The House Oversight Committee, headed by Jason Chaffetz, cites extremely serious, potentially-criminal activities, that go beyond Love’s ethics breaches related to the Burning Man controversy of 2015, or his extreme mishandling of the Operation Cerberus and Bundy Ranch cases. Love’s possible criminal activities include; destruction of federal records, witness tampering, and obstruction of a congressional investigation.
The letter from Oversight to Interior Department Deputy Inspector General, Mary L. Kendall, details many of the complaints, and instances of possible criminal activity by Love:I understand your office initiated this investigation in October of 2015 after receiving numerous complaints concerning Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employee Daniel Paul Love. The report documents numerous instances of troubling behavior exhibited by Love (excerpts taken from letter):
The letter (below) is signed by Chairman of the Oversight Committee, Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz, and Blake Farenhold, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment. [PDF]
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=759%2C776
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=742%2C885
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=704%2C643
There is no question that the avalanche of accusations against, and investigations into the activities of BLM agent Dan Love, will prove problematic for the feds’ attempted prosecution of Bundy Ranch defendants in the ongoing Nevada trials. Dan Love is a key prosecution witness in the Nevada trial, but his apparent tampering, lies, and destruction of records may completely derail the feds’ case. As Chaffetz’ fierce committee presses the Love investigation, years of outcry from the Bundys, and others in Nevada and Utah, including the family of Dr. James Redd, who have been victims of the arrogance and aggressive tactics of BLM agent Dan Love, may finally be vindicated.
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C574
Free Range Report
All the coverage Dan Love is receiving in the Nevada press can't be helping Jugde Gloria Navarro and the prosecution's case
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...l-ethics-probe
Letter names BLM agent in charge of Bundy case as target of federal ethics probe
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...eb_8012424.jpg
Dan Love, special agent in charge for the the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada and Utah, gives a radio interview during the Burning Man festival in 2015. Love has been picked to oversee security at BLM facilities nationwide. (BLM Nevada on Flickr) Love, special agent in charge for the the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada and Utah, gives a radio interview during the Burning Man festival in 2015. Love has been picked to oversee security at BLM facilities nationwide. (BLM Nevada on Flickr)
Bureau of Land Management agent Dan Love, a central figure in the government’s case against rancher Cliven Bundy, has been identified as the target of a federal ethics probe in a letter two congressional lawmakers sent to the Office of the Inspector General.
The Feb. 14 letter, sent by U.S. Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, accuses Love of scrubbing emails, influencing witnesses and deleting hundreds of documents the day before a congressional investigative committee issued a records request. Chaffetz and Farenthold sit on the U.S. House Committee for Oversight and Government Reform.
The letter asks the Office of the Inspector General to further investigate Love following its release last month of an investigative report that slammed the agent for numerous ethics violations. The report found Love used his position to obtain tickets to a sold-out Burning Man festival, improperly intervened in the hiring process of a friend and bullied employees who could have reported his wrongdoing.
The latest allegations are likely to fuel defense arguments in the trial against six men charged as Bundy’s co-conspirators in a 2014 armed standoff in Bunkerville. The incident occurred when the BLM, supervised by Love, tried to seize Bundy’s cattle.
Defense lawyers previously have suggested that Love is the target of the inspector general’s report, and have tried to introduce evidence related to the ethics accusations. They argue the standoff occurred because law enforcement officers acted improperly and aggressively.
In the letter, Chaffetz and Farenthold accuse Love of destroying federal records, tampering with witnesses and obstructing a congressional investigation. They cite unreleased records, including interviews with other BLM employees who were questioned during the inspector general’s investigation.
“After receiving a congressional request for documents, the witness heard Dan Love ‘say to (another BLM employee] that [said BLM employee) needed to make sure that he scrubbed the emails before he sent them, you know, flagging anything that looked inappropriate so that (Dan Love) could remove them if he needed,” the letter says.
The letter also accuses Love of trying to influence the investigation’s outcome by giving another employee “talking points” before an interview with investigators.
The letter does not identify the other employees interviewed about Love’s alleged misconduct. But defense attorney Todd Leventhal said last week that the investigative report named as many as five or six BLM employees who are on the government’s witness list in the Bunkerville standoff trial. Leventhal has said the other employees “aided and abetted” Love; First U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre maintains they were simply questioned as part of the investigation.
Myhre’s opening statement to jurors included references to Love’s efforts to de-escalate the standoff. The prosecutor since has said he does not plan to call Love, who was the special agent in charge, as a witness.
Chaffetz and Farenthold did not disclose what prompted them to investigate Love. But Chaffetz, who leads the House Oversight Committee, has introduced legislation to strip the BLM of its law enforcement functions. During the 2014 standoff with the BLM, Bundy called for participants to “disarm the National Park Service.”
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
"... report that slammed the agent for numerous ethics violations. The report found Love used his position to obtain tickets to a sold-out Burning Man festival, improperly intervened in the hiring process of a friend and bullied employees who could have reported his wrongdoing."
"...The incident occurred when the BLM, supervised by Love, tried to seize Bundy’s cattle."
"They argue the standoff occurred because law enforcement officers acted improperly and aggressively."
"Chaffetz and Farenthold accuse Love of destroying federal records, tampering with witnesses and obstructing a congressional investigation."
" the witness heard Dan Love ‘say to (another BLM employee] that [said BLM employee) needed to make sure that he scrubbed the emails before he sent them, you know, flagging anything that looked inappropriate so that (Dan Love) could remove them if he needed,” "
" accuses Love of trying to influence the investigation’s outcome by giving another employee “talking points” before an interview with investigators."
"Leventhal has said the other employees “aided and abetted” Love; First U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre maintains they were simply questioned as part of the investigation."
I wish the defendants had stronger looking claims against Love. I have heard that Love and his girlfriend were in a compromising situation in a BLM vehicle when they were discovered by some law enforcement entity at the Burning Man event. Even that, which does sound more like the whole truth, is not very strong ammunition as it only means Love was misusing government vehicle. These kind of accusations are a routine reality in all state agencies and they look kind of weak to me. But I do believe there is much more real bad acting going on with the BLM. For over a decade it has been playing every dirty trick in the book to grab up people's land in those western states. It has more to do with Agenda 21 and the U N and the banksters and a North American Union than just one little ole rogue federal agency that just sort of went off track only in the Bundy matter.
I just have to observe that there is much much more going on behind the scenes than we know about. I do not know if they are using an Obama Inspector General or a Trump Inspector General but that position is a very political position and it really does not have a record of being objective and honest. Think of Inspector General Ted Olsen, Barbara Olsen's husband, who lied and even changed his lies several times regarding "speaking on the phone on the plane in flight to crash at the Pentagon on 9-11."
The problem is that probably almost all federal and state agencies operate in this same manner and there is the ever present bribery / extortion /blackmail grid operating within government power circles. These disgusting agency power players really "circle the wagons" when there is a high-profile case in the courts and in the news such as the Bundy case in all the news. What has to happen is that someone out there who has "the goods" on someone such as Dan Love or preferably on someone even higher up in the agency will move behind the scenes to threaten to use the goods in a very public effective way if the case is not completely dropped against the Bundy's immediately. "The goods" preferably affects the top people of the BLM and must have the real potential to take down the whole BLM, to totally weaken the whole unlawful, unconstitutional outfit. That is the kind of thing that has to happen because proper conduct within the courts and the lawyers and the judges is way too much to hope for.
Just sayin'.
You have summed the situation up about as accurately as possible.
There were allegations previously that the BLM destroyed documents at the Bundy Ranch fiasco before they left. I have not seen any reference to that in the mainstream press. I am wondering if it will be brought out in the trial.
Quote:
The problem is that probably almost all federal and state agencies operate in this same manner and there is the ever present bribery / extortion /blackmail grid operating with government power circles. These disgusting agency power players really "circle the wagons" when there is a high-profile case in the courts and in the news such as the Bundy case in all the news. What has to happen is that someone out there who has "the goods" on someone such as Dan Love will move behind the scenes to threaten to use the goods in a very public effective way if the case is not completely dropped against the Bundy's immediately. "The goods" preferably affects the top people of the BLM and must have the real potential to take down the whole BLM, to totally weaken the whole unlawful, unconstitutional outfit. That is the kind of thing that has to happen because proper conduct within the courts and the lawyers and the judges is way too much to hope for.
Law Enforcement Didn't Feel Endangered by Bundy Standoff. I will not add to their narative by calling the Bureau of Land Management armed personell "law enforcement". They are not. They are federal employees packing rifles.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/art...bundy-standoff
https://thenevadaindependent.com/app/img/fb.pnghttps://thenevadaindependent.com/app/img/tw.pnghttps://thenevadaindependent.com/app/img/yt.pnghttps://thenevadaindependent.com/app/img/logo.png
OPINION
Not all law enforcement felt endangered during Bundy standoff
https://storage.googleapis.com/tni-s...ith_square.jpgBY JOHN L. SMITH
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 19TH, 2017 - 3:15 A
Bureau of Land Management Special Agent Rand Stover was working on little sleep on the morning of April 12, 2014, when the federal government’s attempt to impound Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle turned extremely tense.
“They’re coming,” Stover’s boss, BLM regional special agent in charge Dan Love said. “Get everyone to the front gate.”
It was shortly before noon. The decision already had been made to discontinue the court-ordered BLM cattle roundup, which was conducted in response to Bundy’s refusal to pay his grazing fees and recognize federal jurisdiction over the public land his animals had used for many years. But when the elder Bundy encouraged his family, friends and followers to cross Interstate 15 in an effort to retrieve nearly 400 of his penned animals, the sparring sides were sent on a collision course that nearly erupted in a shootout.
No shots were fired, but six men are on trial in federal court accused of using the firearms they brought to the protest to threaten and intimidate federal agents.
Testimony revealed the BLM law enforcement agents stationed in Toquop Wash that day were very concerned by the presence of high-powered rifles in the crowd and pointing toward them from superior tactical positions on the northbound I-15 bridge. For his part, Stover during testimony last week in U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro’s courtroom gave a dramatic recounting of events and how they nearly turned deadly.
Stover had already had what he described as “not a cordial conversation” with Ammon Bundy, one of Cliven’s sons and a man the prosecution considers a “leader” of the alleged conspiracy. Stover recalled, “He said, ‘You know what you can do? You can get the hell off our land. You can leave them cows right there.’”
The BLM, Stover said, was receiving intelligence from a variety of sources indicating that more protesters were coming to the standoff, and some of them were sure to be armed. One Facebook post from a site purporting to support the Bundy cause included what Stover described as, “in essence a call to arms.” It read, “Stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
Although neither side of the courtroom battle credited the line, it was first spoken by patriot farmer John Parker prior to the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
History trivia aside, the Internet missives and dramatic YouTube footage of Bundy family members being roughed up by BLM rangers ticked off a lot of people, many of whom already think the federal agency wields too heavy a hand.
But here’s the challenge of waving too many flags and belching too many patriotic bromides: According to the FBI, Stover testified, there was “significant information” that persons identifying themselves as militia members were on their way to Bunkerville. A deputy assistant director of the FBI told BLM and U.S. Forest Service law enforcement personnel on duty that the Bureau “had never seen that number of purported militia groups” rallying at the same time. There was “a significant risk of a violent encounter,” Stover said he learned.
According to the agents’ testimony, they felt plenty of fear at being placed in the crosshairs of armed protesters.
BLM Special Agent Michael Johnson also testified about the fear he felt after being menaced by gunmen, including one using a spotting scope and range finder of the kind used by long-distance shooters. Johnson kept hidden behind a portable light generator.
It was there he said he saw something that gave him pause: Nevada Highway Patrol troopers out of their vehicles on the southbound bridge above him, walking casually through the crowd of protesters. On the other end of the bridge, a Metro vehicle was parked with an officer out of his car. They didn’t appear bothered much by protesters with guns.
“I’m still confused to this day,” Johnson said of the NHP troopers’ comparatively casual presence. “I don’t exactly know what they were doing.”
Nor does it explain the casually professional approach of Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts in a video. He found time to smile and chat with a reporter around the time federal agents felt they were in the crosshairs of the alleged gunmen.
It’s what some courtroom observers might call a little daylight for the defense. If the NHP and Metro personnel weren’t shaking in their boots, was it because the government’s claim of imminent danger was overblown?
Defendant Todd Engel of Idaho, representing himself in the trial, seized the moment. He put Johnson through the agent’s recitation of the timeline and illustrated visually with surveillance video and photographs to raise the issue of whether the emotional response was reflected by the crowd size. The defendant also raised the issue of whether federal agents were conducting themselves in an aggressive manner despite already being informed that the roundup was being discontinued.
“Was that you on the loudspeaker shouting that you would shoot the protesters if they came forward?” Engel asked.
“No it was not,” Johnson replied.
After a week of testimony, a more detailed picture of the standoff that nearly ended in tragedy is beginning to emerge.
This is the third column in a series on the Bundy trial by John L. Smith. You can read his first column here and his second column here. Smith is a longtime Las Vegas journalist and author. Contact him at jlnevadasmith@gmail.com, or on Twitter at @jlnevadasmith
7455 Arroyo Crossing Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89113
The Nevada Independent is a project of: Nevada News Bureau, Inc. | Federal Tax ID 27-3192716
© 2017 THE NEVADA INDEPENDENT
This video was made a year ago after the murder of LaVoy Finicum. FBI & BLM Top Agents Linked to Corruption, Cover-ups . . . .
http://youtu.be/g7kC7DUrUSA
https://youtu.be/g7kC7DUrUSA
Is this delay to give the prosecutors more time to get their ducks back in a row after their star witness has turned sour? They've only had three years to prepare
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...e-delayed-week
Las Vegas trial in Bunkerville standoff case delayed a week
The continuing federal trial against six men accused of conspiring with rancher Cliven Bundy has been put on hold for a week.
Prosecutors are in the midst of presenting their case against six people charged as “gunmen” in the 2014 standoff in Bunkerville, which occurred after federal agents tried to carry out a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle from a federal grazing allotment.
Citing the federal Presidents Day holiday and scheduling issues on other days, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro decided last week to put the case on hold for a week.
Prosecutors are scheduled to resume calling witnesses Feb. 27.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
I really don't care for Gavin Seim's tactics; I will post this video because it is a conversation with Ammon Bundy
http://youtu.be/SoAPlfKklj0
https://youtu.be/SoAPlfKklj0
They are, indeed, "law enforcement."Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
What they are not are peace officers.
"Law enforcement" is used by a fascist Police State.
Peace officers are employed by a free society - to keep the peace.
BLM "law" = malum prohibitum, "illegal" because shysters say it is.
In theory. Hasn't worked out too well
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...80&oe=5930268A
KNPR ~ Gunmen in Bundy Trial Say They Were Afraid of the BLM
https://knpr.org/knpr/2017-02/gunman...ere-afraid-blm
knpr
KNPR's State of Nevada
Gunman in Bundy Trial Say They Were Afraid of the BLM
Tweet Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Email
bundy_ranch_protestor_militia_rtr_img.jpg
https://knpr.org/sites/default/files...?itok=sJyJjH6eAssociated Press
An armed man at the standoff near the Bundy Ranch in 2014.
Feb 21, 2017by
Carrie Kaufman
The trial of six defendants accused of being gunmen for Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy during a tense standoff with federal authorities in April 2014 enters its second week in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas.
KNPR contributor John L. Smith has been monitoring the trial and he joins us as he does each week with his observations on the news.
Last week, we learned of plenty of dramatic photos and video footage of the standoff outside the Bundy ranch on April 12, 2014.
Now, government agents who were there have been testifying. They say they were afraid of the Bundy supporters, who were pointing high-powered rifles at them.
“As the agents describe it, it went from being alarming to being dangerous and potentially deadly because of the presence of the firearms and including the presence of long rifles and high-powered rifles that were pointed in their general direction. They weren’t all pointed in their direction but they testified that they felt in fear of their lives,” Smith said.
But the Bundy supporters who are on trial say they were afraid of the BLM, who - they had heard - had orders to use lethal force if necessary. They point out that Nevada Highway Patrol and Metro Police officers were walking among the crowd and they hadn't drawn their weapons.
Support comes fromThe six people on trial are accused of carrying weapons, but not being the masterminds behind the standoff with BLM agents. Smith told KNPR's State of Nevada he believes there is a reason the accused gunman are being tried first.
“The bottom line is, I think, that it puts a little nuisance in that tense standoff that wasn’t so tense for the NHP and wasn’t so tense for the Metro officers. It’s an interesting dynamic at play right now in court,” Smith said.
“But it’s my observation that this is a very important case for the government because if the alleged gunman are convicted… then you roll into the second trial by being able to call them gunman. If they’re not convicted, then it takes a lot of the feel of danger out of the entire standoff. Then I have to wonder – I mean it was certainly fortuitous for the prosecution to have these defendants up first because if they can show through their photographic evidence and their witness testimony they can show that there was a danger and they get those convictions I think its going to bolster their case going into what’s considered the main event, which is Cliven Bundy and two of his sons – Ammon and Ryan.”
Guests:
John L. Smith, contributor
More from:
Civic Life
, Nevada & the Southwest
, John L. Smith
, bundy trial
, bunkerville standoff
, bundy ranch standoff
, cliven bundy
, KNPR's State of Nevada
It was amended by Lincoln and enforced by the war of Northern Agression.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
An hour long video by Deborah Jordan with attorney Roger Roots who assists Ryan Bundy. I haven't watched this video.
First Week trial update ~ Dirty Dan Love will not be called to testify
http://youtu.be/RF0TGqyrYjQ
https://youtu.be/RF0TGqyrYjQ
A very slanted version of the opening arguments from the Las Vegas Review Journal Feb. 9, 2017
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...standoff-trial
By JENNY WILSON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Cattle rancher Cliven Bundy’s armed stand against the federal government was either an assault on law enforcement by self-described militiamen or a freedom festival led by cowboys at home on the range, depending on who was addressing jurors Thursday in a crowded Las Vegas courtroom.
The April 2014 standoff in Bunkerville followed a five-word order the 70-year-old rancher gave to hundreds of protesters at a morning rally: “Cowboys, go get ‘er done.”
What happened after those remarks was the subject of much contention when the trial of six people charged as Bundy’s co-conspirators opened Thursday in federal court.
In a dramatic opening statement, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre gave the jury a vivid description of how the six people on trial complied with Bundy’s request. He said the gunmen assumed tactical positions — on a highway overpass or the high banks of a dried-up wash — in preparation for battle against Bureau of Land Management agents stationed in the sandy ditch below them.
The terrain acted like a funnel, and federal officers who were executing a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle were at the bottom of it, Myrhe said. He showed jurors pictures of the six defendants, armed and wearing tactical gear.
‘TOO MANY GUNS’
He described the BLM agents as cornered and afraid, with nothing but a flimsy metal gate separating them from an angry mob of hundreds of people, dozens of horses and “too many guns to count.”
Protesters did not listen to verbal instructions, and authorities could not use pepper spray for fear of starting a gunfight, Myhre told jurors. Outgunned and outnumbered, the federal officers had no choice but to release the cattle and head home, he said.
Bundy for decades let his cattle roam on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land. He refused to pay grazing fees or to acknowledge court orders to remove the animals, Myhre said. When BLM agents started cattle impoundment operations, the rancher vowed to stop them at any cost.
“He got what he wanted, and he got it at the end of a rifle barrel,” Myrhe said. “These defendants knowingly and willingly supplied the barrel.”
Defense attorneys countered the government’s description of a planned assault with claims that the standoff resulted from a miscommunication and excessively forceful federal agents.
Bundy’s instructions to protesters — to go retrieve his cattle and “get ‘er done” — came after the local sheriff announced that BLM agents had left town, defense teams argued. They said protesters traveled 5 miles from the rally site to the impoundment site for a ceremonious release of the cattle.
‘FLAGS AND COWBOYS’
“It was festive. It was flags and cowboys,” defendant Todd Engel, an Idaho resident who is representing himself, said in his opening statement. “It doesn’t get more down home than that.”
Jurors’ attention was locked on Engel, who was dressed in a plaid, button-down shirt and spoke in a calm, even tone. Engel said he and others arrived on the Interstate 15 overpass and realized federal authorities were not only still assembled in the ditch, but had their rifles raised and aimed at protesters.
Engel was photographed in a prone position, pointing a rifle through a crack in the jersey barrier. He said he was down in that position for about 10 minutes to rest his back following a recent surgery.
Defense attorney Terrence Jackson, representing Gregory Burleson, said authorities shouted a “mumble jumble” of inaudible instructions at protesters when they arrived. Protesters filled the bridge and also streamed into the low-lying wash near the impoundment site.
“If you ever think of how ants communicated, that’s what happened at this point,” said defense attorney Todd Leventhal, who represents Idaho resident Scott Drexler. “There was no conspiracy. There was no planning. There was no organization at all.”
Defense attorneys showed the jury a photo and two videos that were widely shared online in the days before the standoff. They said online postings, rather than a call from Bundy for militiamen, were the reason their clients traveled to Bunkerville.
The first was a “First Amendment corral in the middle of the desert,” Leventhal said, pointing to a photo of the plastic orange fencing that cordoned off the area limiting where people could protest. Defense attorneys also showed videos of BLM authorities using a stun gun on Bundy’s son and knocking a middle-aged grandmother to the ground.
‘NOTHING TO GAIN’
“At that point, I knew something had to be done,” Engel said. “I had nothing to gain … but I knew somehow I just had to go there.”
Engel said he knew nothing about the Bundy family or the BLM when he and two friends drove 12 hours to Bunkerville.
“I didn’t conspire with anybody because I didn’t know anybody,” he said.
Attorneys for Eric Parker and Richard Lovelin chose not to give opening statements Thursday, but Parker’s lawyer, Jess Marchese, sent a bold statement to jurors by coming to court dressed in a cobalt blue suit with a flashy Uncle Sam tie. Defense attorneys are expected to reference constitutional rights to freely assemble and to bear arms throughout the duration of the trial. The government plans to call its first witness Monday.
Prosecutors characterize the six men standing trial as the “least culpable” among 17 co-conspirators facing trial on extortion, assault, threats and other charges. Engel, Lovelin, Burleson, Parker, Drexler and Steven Stewart have tried to distance themselves from the Bundy family in an effort to convince jurors that they were not part of a conspiracy.
The remaining defendants, including Bundy, will be tried in two subsequent trials.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
The Bill of Rights and the ideals that gave rise to it were trashed as early as the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Dishonest Abe completed the destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
A Buckle, a Button, A Shell and 4 Suicides = Government Abuse
John B Wells ~ Abuse at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management with guest Chris Kortlander. Advance to 35 minutes to hear the BLM discussion
http://youtu.be/juz2IAH-Ny4
https://youtu.be/juz2IAH-Ny4F
^ That was an interesting video about the raid on the museum at GarryOwen, Mt. by the BLM. I seem to recall hearing about a raid there but didn't know any details. I've camped along the Little Big Horn river with the Crows when they were doing a battle reenactment. We camped along the river where Custer and his men tried to cross the river. Sure glad I didn't pick anything up.
On the reservations around here there's lots of whiskey bottles, beer cans, junked out and wrecked cars and trash of every kind laying around. Nobody picks it up and now I know why. Those are indian artifacts and the BLM might send a swat team. SOB's
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
A few years ago my brother and I were out in the hills close to the ranch where we grew up. There were some old rusty wood cookstove parts in the brush. I was going to pick some up and take home. My brother said hell no, those are artifacts, you'll be in jail. I didn't know that. I learned something that day too.
There is an interesting interview with Eric Parker, who the media refers to as the Bundy Sniper.
It is quite long and in 3 parts. Part 3 begins with:
Jason Arment concludes his fascinating, in-depth interview with “The Bundy Sniper,” Eric Parker. They continue discussing events in eastern Oregon and talk about other activist movements.
In this final part of our interview, when Eric and I talk, we are unaware that within twenty-four hours LaVoy Finicum would be shot dead and several of his compatriots arrested. [Read Part I and Part II.]
First Bundy Ranch Trial Presents Paradox
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...esents-paradox
Supporters and critics of six defendants on trial at the federal courthouse gather Monday, Feb. 6, 2017, in Las Posted February 25, 2017 - 11:35pmUpdated February 26, 2017 - 7:33pmFirst trial in Bunkerville standoff case presents paradox
. The defendants are accused of taking arms against federal agents herding cattle off public land near Cliven Bundy's ranch in April 2014. (AP Photo/John Locher)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...y2_7997619.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy, currently in federal custody, displays a bouquet of desert foliage, the type his cattle graze on, during a news conference near his Bunkerville ranch in April 2015. David Becker/Special to the Pahrump Valley Times
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...py_7997619.jpgAmmon Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy, stands outside Metropolitan Police Department headquarters in Las Vegas on May 2, 2014. (Chris Carlson/AP)
http://mm.reviewjournal.com/media/vi.../Bundy_thb.jpg
Previous coverage
See Full coverage of the feud between the Bundy family and the BLM
By JENNY WILSON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Cliven Bundy’s armed stand against the federal government has landed him in a prison cell, but some of the rancher’s positions on public lands could be enacted into federal law in the new political frontier of President Donald Trump’s Washington.
The first trial in the case against Bundy and his supporters coincides with a new political regime. The timing has presented a paradox: Federal prosecutors characterize the 70-year-old rancher as an anti-government extremist while federal policymakers prepare to act on some of his ideas.
“Disarm the National Park Service,” the recalcitrant cowboy cried in a video played in court recently, during the ongoing trial against six people charged as gunmen in the 2014 standoff in Bunkerville. A witness testified about the “unreasonable” nature of Bundy’s demand. But a Utah Congressman has introduced legislation that would remove the law enforcement function from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forestry Service — effectively honoring Bundy’s request.
Bundy declares Nevada a “sovereign state.” He asserts that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the hundreds of thousands of acres of land where he let his cattle roam freely. Prosecutors lambaste him for those claims. But the Republican National Committee last summer called on elected officials to immediately begin transferring federal land to the states.
“It is absurd to think that all acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington,” the 2016 Party Platform stated. “Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states.”
When former President Barack Obama awarded national monument designation to the Gold Butte area near Bundy’s ranch last month, Bundy’s supporters responded with protests. Their reaction was consistent with Republicans who hold public office throughout the West. Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt blasted Obama’s move as a “federal land grab.” In neighboring Utah, elected leaders are pushing Trump to reverse the recent national monument designation of the Bears Ears canyon area.
SHIFTING ATTITUDES
Trump’s nominee to oversee the nation’s massive national parks and public land system has said that he wants to keep public lands controlled by the federal government. Still, he has hinted that the federal government could cede control of some of that land back to the states.
U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., the pick for secretary of Interior, said in his recent confirmation hearing that it will be “interesting to see if the president has the power to nullify a national monument.” If approved, Zinke would become the top-ranking official in charge of managing more than 600 million acres of federal land throughout the United States. That land accounts for nearly 90 percent of Nevada.
The shifting attitudes toward public land management hang over the first trial in Las Vegas. The 2014 armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement occurred when BLM agents tried to carry out a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle from federal land. Will a new political climate affect how the jury weighs the evidence in the case?
“It can leach into things,” criminal defense attorney Tom Pitaro said.
Pitaro, who is not involved in the case, said that as the national political dialogue becomes “less mainstream,” jurors are more likely to “normalize” an anti-mainstream position like Bundy’s.
Three years ago, he said, “you didn’t have national conversations out there concerning some of those issues. … They were relegated to the political trenches.”
The trial hinges on an ideological argument, as defense attorneys are trying to convince the jury that the armed confrontation with law enforcement resulted from their clients’ dramatic exercise of constitutional freedoms to assemble and to bear arms.
AN IDEOLOGICAL RIFT
The jury was selected from a diverse pool with views that span the ideological and political spectrum. The public lands issue in particular tends to rile an array of interest groups, and the transfer of executive power has ranchers optimistic and conservationists worried.
“The minute you start hearing about cutting regulations, that’s huge. Those are the kind of things that you need to hear,” said David Stix Jr., president of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association.
In the past eight years, Stix said,“the people out on the ground have not had the ability to make the proper calls on how grazing should be done on the federal allotments. The calls have been made from back in D.C.”
But Ken Cole, a coordinator for the nonprofit environmental conservation group Western Watersheds — which has fought both the ranchers and the BLM in court over grazing regulations — said: “Donald Trump appoints people who want to get rid of the agencies rather than actually run them in an effective manner.”
“We’re very concerned about the transfer of either public lands outright or management of public lands to the state,” Cole said.
U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat who sits on the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee, said in an emailed statement:
“While the new Administration’s exact approach to these issues is still unknown, I will be keeping a close watch on any and all actions that could affect our state’s vast and beautiful lands and natural resources. I grew up enjoying Nevada’s natural lands and national parks, and continue to do so to this day. I am committed to ensuring the same is possible for generations to come.” (Harry Reid's puppet)
But to do so she’ll have to satisfy a wide range of constituents who are deeply divided on issues of public land management. Bundy’s legal battle with the federal government started more than two decades ago. The ideological rift that sparked it is only expected to deepen over the next four years.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
Andrea Olson-Parker lunchtime report on the mornings court testimony. She is hard to hear.
http://youtu.be/EvKVUswZ3Jw
https://youtu.be/EvKVUswZ3Jw
Andrea Olson-Parker with the afternnoon testimony update
http://youtu.be/bqnsehXrxXQ
https://youtu.be/bqnsehXrxXQ
This RangeFire article isn't really about the Bundy Ranch standoff and trials, but is more about the ongoing public lands dispute between the ranchers and the federal government which initiated the Bundy standoff. I don't want to start a new thread for just this one article. I will post it here
Response to PLC’s & Its Lawyers’ Attack on the Range Allotment Owners Association — by Tim K. Smith
February 26, 2017 - Government/Politics, Land Use News - Tagged: Alllotment, Association, grazing, McIntosh, PLC, public lands, Public Lands Council, Ranching, Range, Range Allotment Owners, RANGEfire, RAO - 2 comments
PLC and Legal Community Comment on the Range Allotment Owners Association
[Please refer to the added, numbered and underlined phrases addressed in the comments listed below]
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...han-Lane-1.jpg
WASHINGTON (Feb. 20, 2017) — Ethan Lane, executive director of the Public Lands Council, today released the following statement and open letter regarding the Range Allotment Owners Association:
“The Public Lands Council is the only organization in Washington, DC,
(1) who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands.Since 1968,
(2) PLC has had boots on the ground in the halls of Congress and the federal land management agencies,working to ensure that rancher’s voices are heard.
(3) “Recently, a group has materialized, claiming to be the only organization that represents the public lands rancher. This group, called the Range Allotment Owners [RAO] Association, is advancing a compelling
(4) but dangerous theory, that ranchers who hold grazing permits on public lands are not merely permittees, but allotment owners. While we at PLC fight every day for the preference and property rights of ranchers,
(5) we feel that this particular theory goes beyond our legal rights and could ultimately result in the loss of permits and subsequent destruction of family ranches.
(6) “We are lucky in this industry to have a deep bench of legal talent that is focused on our issues and represent our interests in the courts. These assembled legal minds have released the following open letter on this general topic, which we present to you independent of our opinions and analysis.
(7) That so many of the names on the attached letter will be familiar to you is a testament to their commitment to our industry and their years of work on behalf of ranchers.”
Comments on numbered items above; by Tim K Smith, Harney Co,, Oregon
- “who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands”. When I first read this statement my thought was “who is PLC trying to sell this to”? Efforts to offer alternative detail, thought and discussion on resource rights has clearly touched a raw nerve with the PLC/Cattlemen’s Associations. There are groups in essentially every rural community who are working to improve the lot of grazers and resource users on currently Federally managed lands. This verbiage smacks of a defensive position for the organization rather than a recognition and welcoming of other efforts to benefit the ranchers and resource users. The decline in the associations’ numbers and the significant loss of grazing numbers across the West give a hint as to the effectiveness of their work and reasoning behind their fear of new rancher support groups.
- “PLC has had boots on the ground in the halls of Congress and the federal land management agencies,” Boots on the ground in DC does nothing to help educate individual ranchers and resource users about their existing rights or unify them to the point where they can stand up for their individual rights and economic security. When did we give away our individual voice and responsibility for our own welfare to any group? We all need to regain our sense of independence from absentee government and politically motivated administrators and attorneys. To be educated and independent is our civic duty and our duty to our families and neighbors, which is not to be farmed out to anyone who may or may not have lost sight of their original purpose and our inherent freedoms. Education will allow ranchers and resource users to better know how and when to reach out to groups like PLC and Cattlemen’s Associations and their assets.
- “Recently, a group has materialized, claiming to be the only organization that represents the public lands rancher. I have been watching, and been supportive of, the RAO’s goals and claims since its inception. Not one time have I ever heard or seen it claim “to be the only organization that represents the public lands rancher”. In contrast, RAO and its associates have reached out to various land rights groups, cattlemen’s associations, agencies and legislative bodies and invited them to the discussion regarding the need for education and information about the status of “public lands” and land rights. This past year it became clear that ranchers were uncomfortable about their rights to the point of being intimidated away from getting into conflict with the Federal agencies. In my observation this is what led to the formation of RAO. Unification and cooperation of existing resource advocacy groups has always been a desire of the founders and supporters of RAO. In addition, PLC’s blithe use of the term “public lands” here shows the need for education as to what the term “public land” means and how often the term is misused and overused.
- “but dangerous theory, that ranchers who hold grazing permits on public lands are not merely permittees, but allotment owners”. What is the danger here? Is the danger that ranchers will become educated enough to understand when they can stand up for themselves vs when they need to submit? Is the danger that if better educated, the ranchers will still not be smart enough or judicious enough to know what information can or will fit their operation and whether or not to use it to their benefit? Or…Is the danger that if ranchers become informed and more unified they will be able to stand up for themselves as individuals or as unified force and not need a fleet of lawyers? My background is in in mining so I will use this common sense example. A mining claim is to mining as a grazing allotment is to livestock grazing. Without question a mining claim is real property and can be bought or sold or inherited as a real property asset. It obviously travel with the land as well. Why is it then that a grazing allotment is purported by the government and the PLC as not a real property asset? It travels with the land as well. It seems that it is because that’s what the government has said and what the lawyers have accepted and not what the intent of the various Congressional Acts have intended. This discussion must be rejoined and settled, not simply disregarded.
- “we feel that this particular theory goes beyond our legal rights”. I am glad they used this term “feel”. This is a classic term used by the left or a person or group in a problematic intellectual position when they do not “know”. Again I will say here, educate and unify significant numbers of our resource users and then let them make the decision as to whether or not their rights are being upheld or abused by the managing agency. They then can determine their best course of action and not just suck it up and continue to be “managed at will”.
- http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...dd-Falen-1.jpg
- “We are lucky in this industry to have a deep bench of legal talent”. When I read this I had to think, this is like saying; I know I have symptoms of a disease that may be curable but thank goodness there are lots of good doctors out there so I will just treat the symptoms and go after the disease later. How about we define the disease, define the treatment and complete the cure??
- “That so many of the names on the attached letter will be familiar to you is a testament to their commitment”. This statement makes it clear that the approach by PLC and the fleets of attorneys out there is to treat the symptom and not really go after the disease. In my opinion the disease here is twofold. (a) The short term lack of understanding of the rights inherent on split estate lands currently under Federal management, and; (b) the long term poorly managed Federally controlled lands which could be better managed ecologically, economically, and flexibly under more local jurisdiction. While there may be some young attorneys out there who are dedicated to the cause of a better and more productive use of our resources, in the long term attorneys get promoted to make money for their firms. There is no long term incentive for them to permanently cure the disease.
2 thoughts on “Response to PLC’s & Its Lawyers’ Attack on the Range Allotment Owners Association — by Tim K. Smith”
- http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/900e5a2...?s=78&d=mm&r=gChris ZindaFebruary 27, 2017 at 9:12 am
Mr. Smith: the dangers are tested legal claims of the RAO and what it means for permittees.
What you and the Storm crew want is ‘critical mass’ as a popular uprising to force your position of permits as ‘property right’. It is clear you/Mac/Mc reject case law as hamburger, have been called in it by lawyers in your industry, and that the efforts of Finicum, Bert Smith, MacFarlane, Sylvesters and McIntosh have utterly failed.-
Curious: Is the UT AG still placating the 8 Storm Cedar City permit renouncers (like Stanton Gleave, Matt Wood)? I hope Gleave follows through with the pact he made with Cliven and LaVoy. Seems to me, besides testing the legal wayers THAT is your best bet. But, he won’t, as he, they, too, all saw the writing on the wall the PLC did, never ‘really’ following through.
Reply
- http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d713400...?s=78&d=mm&r=gJamesFebruary 27, 2017 at 9:18 am
All I can say is when it comes to Chris Zinda, PLC and its lawyers, consider the sources. They all have their own separate, government-controlled, environmental agenda. They are all tainted sources. Take everything they all say with a grain of salt.
Reply
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Today's Feb. 28 Bundy Ranch Trial # 1 videos
http://youtu.be/4PdFzerfzQA
https://youtu.be/4PdFzerfzQA
http://youtu.be/BxLhuBmIxrY
https://youtu.be/BxLhuBmIxrY
Judge Gloria Navarro Stymies Due Process Again
Navarro Stymies Due Process – Again
Denies Defense Timely Access To Love-Related Henthorn Materials
The first Bundy Ranch trial resumed Monday, 27 Feb 2017. During the week-long President’s Day holiday break, more damning evidence surfaced relating to the Bundy Ranch Tyrant (SAC Dan Love) behavior at Burning Man 2015. Specifically, the Deptment of the Interior’s Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) report that implicated Love in witness tampering and coercion was a redacted “for-public” version of the real report. In the full report, the OIG found evidence that Love had tampered with evidence. In addition, he also committed obstruction of justice. Along with tampering and coercion, he deleted or destroyed documents. Gloria Navarro stymies due process by withholding evidence from defendants.
Tier 3 Witnesses Implicated
Attorneys for Tier 3 defendants originally tried to make the case that the discovery of Love’s questionable ethics violated certain mandates. Specifically, Bradyand Giglio requirements for the disclosure of evidence that could impeach a witness. While the court denied any motions to dismiss, it did hold that the jury would have to see the full, unredacted version of the OIG’s report, IF, the Government were to call Love as a witness. Subsequently, the Government seems content to forego calling Love to the stand.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...215-300x93.jpg
When the unredacted version came to light over the holiday break, lawyers argued that the non-disclosure of the full report was a violation of Henthorn evidence mandates. In US v. Henthorn, 931 F. 2d 29 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1991, the 9th Circuit held that prosecutors must furnish personnel records of witnesses if the material contains exculpatory (favorable to the defendant) evidence. Attorneys argued that the OIG’s report contained individuals on the Government’s witness list. Consequently, any material related to Love’s obstruction of justice could have included information related to the Bundy Ranch Protest in April 2014.
Navarro’s Response: I decided it wasn’t relevant…
When confronted with another Brady / Giglio / Henthorn violation, Navarro’s response was simple. She said that the material had been provided to her in a timely manner. In addition, she didn’t feel that it had any bearing on the case. If defense attorneys wished to view the material, they would have to do so during a video-recorded session.
Navarro Stymies Due Process
Bottom line: this material should have been provided weeks, if not months ago. Due process violations stack up one after the other. This judge doesn’t care. She knows that the 9th Circuit will not be friendly to these defendants in appeal. The 9th Circuit is tantamount to a clown car of judges waiting to jump out and rule left on any case that goes to appeals. Her collusion with the Government falls under judicial discretion.
These defendants will have to beat these charges with the cards stacked against them. Fortunately, the outcome will watershed on the ability of a jury to see truth and apply it fairly. The Court and Government can collude with each other… but they can’t buy a jury.
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 28, 2017 Catagories Trial Updates
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Andrea Olson-Parker with Bundy trial report fot Feb. 28. Audio isn't real good
http://youtu.be/BxLhuBmIxrY
https://youtu.be/BxLhuBmIxrY
Andrea Olson-Parker Bundy Ranch trial March 1 update
http://youtu.be/BQzC8FXILgg
https://youtu.be/BQzC8FXILgg
Teralee Jared Morley filling in for Andrea Olson-Parker Bundy Ranch trial
http://youtu.be/1jAZcZG_UUM
https://youtu.be/1jAZcZG_UUM
NBC could be paying Cliven Bundy's legal bills. He has a perfect oportunity for a libel suit against them. Calling him a domestic terrorist. @ 3:10
http://youtu.be/zeNaCb-2vvg
https://youtu.be/zeNaCb-2vvg
Andrea Olson-Parker lunch break update for Bundy trial March 2
http://youtu.be/lh1KSjPd-jI
https://youtu.be/lh1KSjPd-jI
Andrea Olson-Parker, end of day report for Bundy Ranch Trial #1 March 2
http://youtu.be/5X5shljwKDA
https://youtu.be/5X5shljwKDA
What are the odds this will be read by either Trump or Sessions?
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...0f&oe=5933CFEC
RYAN BUNDY FILES MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES
Ryan Bundy asks judge to dismiss his charges in Bunkerville standoff case
Ryan Bundy, who previously accused federal authorities of violating the Constitution when they seized his father’s cattle, now claims he has been denied his right to a speedy trial.
In a motion filed late Wednesday, Bundy asks a federal judge to dismiss his 16-count indictment on threats, extortion and related charges stemming from the 2014 armed standoff near his family ranch in Bunkerville. Prosecutors are trying the first of three groups of people charged in the case, and Bundy is in the second trial group.
“The speedy trial right trumps any countervailing problems with courthouse facilities, overburdened court staff, or caseload,” wrote Bundy, who is representing himself. “The very purpose of the speedy trial right is to disincentivize the filing of onerous, vexatious and unnecessarily complex cases (like this case).”
Bundy accuses the government of tactically delaying the case by structuring it “in a repetitive style with multiplicitous counts to give an appearance of complexity.”
The standoff occurred in April 2014, but prosecutors did not announce charges until February of last year. In the intervening period, federal investigators staged an undercover operation in which they posed as documentary filmmakers to gain access to the people involved.
Bundy asserts that the undercover FBI operation was the “real reason” federal prosecutors did not bring charges until two years after the standoff occurred. He accuses undercover FBI agents of using “attractive women” and “alcohol” to trick his supporters into giving incriminating statements.
“The government spent more than half a million dollars on the creation of a fake film company designed to trick defendants into making boastful, false and incriminating statements that could be used against Defendants,” Bundy wrote in his filing.
Defense attorneys previously argued that evidence gathered during the undercover operation should not be admitted at trial, but a judge sided with the government and ruled the statements were admissible.
Bundy further argues that several key defense witnesses have died in the three years that have passed since the standoff.
“Evidence and witnesses have gone missing and evaporated,” he wrote in his filing.
Among the witnesses who died was LaVoy Finicum, who participated in the Bunkerville standoff and later was shot by law enforcement during protesters’ occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge in early 2016.
“Finicum was also the most important first-hand witness to the distressed and deteriorated condition of the cattle while in BLM custody,” Bundy wrote.
The people charged in the case accuse federal authorities of mistreating the cattle during the impoundment operation, but the judge has limited defense attorneys in what evidence they can introduce at trial related to cattle mistreatment.
Bundy and his brother, Ammon, who likewise is being held without bail pending trial, recently were acquitted on charges related to the 41-day standoff in Oregon.
In Wednesday’s filing, Ryan Bundy wrote that he has been held “in solitary confinement or in distant holding cells without legal materials or focused on other false federal charges in the U.S. District of Oregon.”
He is being held at Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump.
The U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on Bundy’s filing.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter
Bundy Ranch Surprise: Agents had been told to stop day before major confrontation
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...tion/98695460/
Bundy Ranch surprise: Agents told to stop day before major confrontation with anti-government protesters
Robert Anglen
BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF TRIALSBLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy ranch standoff trial | 0:48An investigation could derail one of the most high-profile land-use trials in modern Western history. Wochit
1 of 2
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ff86...2203294001.jpg
BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF TRIALS
Rancher:?'We did what we had to do' | 2:14Cliven Bundy refuses to pay fees for cattle grazing on public land for 20 years.
2 of 2
Next Video
- BLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy ranch standoff trial
- Rancher: 'We did what we had to do'
LAS VEGAS — Law-enforcement officers were ordered by the federal special agent in charge to cease "all operations" hours before an armed standoff at a Nevada ranch reached its tension-filled zenith in 2014.
But they did not. Three law-enforcement officers testified in federal court Thursday that they maintained their positions throughout the night and into the next day, anticipating a bloody gunfight at Bundy Ranch.
The officers told jurors they feared for their lives, prayed to God and thought they would see their partners get shot as cattle ranchers and militia members squared off against federal authorities.
None of the officers explained in court why they were ordered to engage anti-government protesters — and open fire with less than lethal weapons — after being told at least twice to stand down, abandon their efforts to round up private cattle on federal land and leave.
"We were still under threat," U.S. Parks Police Officer Tara McBride said. "My understanding was we were ceasing gathering cattle and we were to remain in place to provide security for the (incident command post)."
This was one of the first times law-enforcement officials have publicly acknowledged the government orders to back down, drawing attention to a little-known detail about the high-profile confrontation.
Defense attorneys for the men accused of taking up arms against federal agents said the contradictory orders made no sense and escalated the potential for violence.
RELATED: First of three trials set to begin in Bundy Ranch standoff
The six-day standoff reached a climax on April 12, 2014, as hundreds of protesters formed a line across a wash near Interstate 15 about 80 miles north of Las Vegas. Armed men took up positions on the overpass, sighting their rifles at federal agents below.
"All operations had ceased? All operations were done?" Las Vegas lawyer Richard Tanasi asked McBride on cross-examination. "Despite that operations were over, despite your requests to fall back, your requests were being denied?"
Tanasi represents Steven Stewart, one of six defendants charged with conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction for taking up arms to stop the Bureau of Land Management from seizing cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy.
READ MORE: BLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy Ranch standoff trial
The six men, from Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma, are the first of 17 defendants to go on trial on charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch standoff. Although federal prosecutors designated them as the “least culpable,” the defendants face identical charges and could spend the rest of their lives in prison if convicted.
Tanasi said if federal agents had followed the order to cease operations the day before, the standoff could have been defused.
"(Witnesses) testified that they were ceasing all operations," he said after court Thursday. "It's either all or it's not ... it makes no sense to me."
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/4268...6675140907.jpg
Next Slide13 Photos
Bundy Ranch standoff trials
April 11 order: Pack up and leave
Federal authorities testified Thursday about an April 11 briefing to cease operations.
They said Dan Love, BLM special agent in charge of operations, said authorities were going to release Bundy's cattle, pack up and leave the wash. They said a news release signaling the standoff was over would be sent out the next day.
Instead, the situation intensified through the night. National Parks police officers and rangers, who served on a regional operations team called to the Bundy Ranch, testified that they believed an attack was imminent.
McBride said supervisors ordered her team to take up defensive positions through the night and prepare for an attack on the incident command post that never came.
The next day, on April 12, supervisors ordered her to advance with three team members and fire non-lethal gas and pepper spray at protesters.
She said they approached the line of 100 protesters in the wash in a tactical "stack formation." McBride was in the lead behind a ballistic shield, followed by an officer armed with a gun loaded with pepper rounds, a third carrying a gas-canister launcher and a rifleman for protection.
“I was scared that as leader of my team, I was not going to get my people out. I thought I was going to see one of my friends' heads explode.”
David Keltner, National Park Service ranger
"The four of us were given OK (to fire),"
McBride said, adding that they disregarded the order because they feared the pop of the gas rounds would be mistaken for gunfire and spark a shooting war.
"While we were standing there in the stack, we discussed it," she said. "We would have shots fired against us."
She said her team twice requested permission to fall back and her supervisor denied their request.
U.S. Park Police Officer Brandon Novotny, who was armed with the gas-canister launcher in the stack, testified that officers were warned armed militia members were going to attempt to overrun the command post on the night of April 11.
"We had intelligence from the FBI that individuals on a domestic terrorist watch list had arrived and were camped out at the Bundy compound," he said. "We received intelligence there was going to be an attack."
Novotny said as he advanced in the stack, he was aware that armed protesters were taking positions above him and sighting down rifles at him. He said that while sheltering behind vehicles in the wash, he knelt and briefly thought that he might never see his family again.
National Park Service Ranger David Keltner also testified his team was told in intelligence briefings that authorities were going to be attacked imminently by militia members.
"I was scared that as leader of my team, I was not going to get my people out," he said. "I thought I was going to see one of my friends' heads explode."
A battle over rights to public lands
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/8f2d...413-Bundy.jpeg
Supporters of Cliven Bundy and others charged in the Bundy Ranch case gather outside the U.S. District Courthouse in Las Vegas on March 2, 2017. (Photo: Robert Anglen/The Republic)
Thursday wrapped up the second week of testimony by government witnesses in one of the West’s most high-profile land-use cases.
For decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered rancher Cliven Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.
In April 2014, the BLM, led by Love, implemented a roundup of 1,000 cows.
Bundy issued a social-media battle cry. Hundreds of supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma.
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.
The BLM abandoned the roundup without a shot being fired.
RELATED: What made Ammon Bundy go from Arizona businessman to standoff leader?
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. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon, Ryan and five others in October.
No arrests were made in the Bundy Ranch case until after the trial in Oregon. Three trials are planned. The first six defendants are characterized as 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.
Second week of testimony concludes
In Thursday's testimony, federal prosecutors led law-enforcement officers through descriptions of their fear as they faced down armed protesters and the fear they might open fire on fellow Americans. They described seeing at least two protesters tracking them with rifles.
Officers said after abandoning the wash, they feared they would be ambushed. They said they were given 30 minutes to clear hotel rooms in Mesquite, Nev., because they believed militia members would come after them. They said they remained on high alert until they got to Las Vegas.
"I spent the night in a foxhole in the United States," Keltner said.
RELATED: Key figures in Oregon standoff have Arizona ties
Defense attorneys hammered away at the witnesses, repeatedly pointing out that no shots were fired and no attacks were made.
Defendant Todd Engel, who is representing himself, asked questions about the threat officers faced while pictures showed other law-enforcement officials walking around the wash unprotected and with their backs to the armed men with rifles.
A series of those photos showed the four officers in the stack only feet away from other law-enforcement officers not bothering to take cover and talking in the open.
The defendants argue that conduct by reckless government agents led to the standoff. They said federal agents incited the violence against people exercising their constitutionally protected rights to assemble and bear arms.
Prosecutors counter that the protesters are lawbreakers who illegally pointed weapons at law-enforcement officers and conspired to block a lawful court order.
Trial expected to continue for weeks
The first trial was expected to take several more weeks as prosecutors plan to call more witnesses, and each of them is expected to be cross-examined by the defense.
“Nothing would have happened. You wouldn't be having this trial because you wouldn't have these defendants there.”
Shawn Perez, defense attorney for Richard Lovelien.
Las Vegas defense attorney Shawn Perez, who represents Oklahoma defendant Richard Lovelien, said if the order to cease operations had been followed and law enforcement had started packing up instead of ratcheting up, militia members would have dispersed.
"Nothing would have happened. You wouldn't be having this trial because you wouldn't have these defendants there," he said.
In the first phase, Lovelien is being tried with Gregory Burleson of Arizona, and O.Scott Drexler, Todd Engel, Eric Parker and Steven Stewart of Idaho.
The government's case is already facing significant challenges.
Love, who led the Bundy Ranch operations and was considered the government's key witness, has been named in federal misconduct probe citing ethical violations that occurred in 2015 at the annual Burning Man event in northern Nevada's Black Rock Desert.
Federal investigators said Love 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.
U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, on Feb. 17 called for an investigation into Love's conduct
Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, said in a letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior's deputy inspector general that Love's actions could damage the BLM.
"As a federal law enforcement officer, Love's actions have the potential to not only taint your investigation, but to seriously undermine the trust in BLM's law enforcement office and thwart Congressional oversight of the bureau,'' Chaffetz wrote.