Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

Review Journal - Bunkerville Standoff Captures Agent Conversations

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


Bunkerville standoff video captures agent conversations

Prosecutors trying the case against six of rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters played hours of video footage this week that gave the public a peek into the minds of federal law enforcement officers as the 2014 confrontation with armed protesters unfolded in Bunkerville.

When Bureau of Land Management Agent Mark Brunk testified early in the week, prosecutors played dash cam footage that recorded him uttering an expletive, followed by, “You come find me and you’re gonna have hell to pay.”


Another agent laughed, and replied, “Pretty much a shoot first, ask questions later kind of thing.”
The statements were made after a crowd of hundreds of cowboys and supporters arrived at Toquop Wash, a sandy ditch that served as the headquarters for the court-ordered cattle roundup that sparked the protests. The protesters had traveled 5 miles, by horse and by car, from a morning rally where Bundy — upon learning the government was ceasing its operation — ordered supporters to go get his cows.


The conversations among law enforcement grew more serious as officers scanned the crowd for guns, and the footage captured their frantic conversations. First they didn’t notice any long guns. Then they saw two. Then at least five. Then 10.


“If we get any more guns, we’re gonna be outgunned,” a law enforcement officer remarked at one point.


The footage captured expressions of fear and humor, and some of the government’s witnesses testified that their jokes and laughter reflected coping mechanisms, or expressions of nervous energy. Prosecutors have asked nearly every law enforcement witness to rank their fear on a scale of 1 to 10. None of them has rated it below a 5, and one officer gave it a 10.


Defense lawyers, meanwhile, highlighted portions of the video that recorded agents mocking protesters. The line of questioning reflected an attempt to prove that the government witnesses’ fear is overstated.


“There’s no gun there … He’s just holding his back, he’s standing like a sissy,” one agent said of a protester as authorities assessed the scene about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.


As one woman in the crowd screamed angrily, two law enforcement officers chuckled.
“She must not be married,” one said.


The videos captured protesters yelling things like, “Get the hell out of here.” Throughout the footage, a BLM agent makes the same statement repeatedly over a megaphone: “This area is closed for the enforcement of a United States District Court order. Please leave the area.”


United States Park Police Officer Brandon Novotny testified Thursday that law enforcement officials attended a briefing the day before the standoff. He said officials were alerted to numerous people on “domestic terrorist watch lists in and among the protesters at the Bundy campground.”


Novotny was photographed in a military-style “stacking formation” with other federal agents, armed and wearing SWAT gear.


“I took a moment to think about my family,” he said, his voice cracking. “I made my peace with God … I expected to die that day.”


The six men standing trial are charged as “gunmen,” accused of conspiring with Bundy to thwart the government’s efforts to carry out a court order. Prosecutors describe them as the least culpable of the 17 people they eventually plan to try in the case.


Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.

I have read the referenced article and this posting and I fail to comprehend exactly how the

"BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF TRIALSBLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy ranch standoff trial"

Maybe that was just a click bait title for that article that did not in any way explain how the trial may be derailed by what the title claimed would be the reason for the derailing.

On the surface it sounds like this order to stand down could be a real ray of hope but frustratingly then fails to clearly explain it.

I think this was because when they Bundy Ranch supporters first heard that the governments star witness, Daniel P. Love, was being investigated for ethics and misconduct violations these supporters had visions of his credibility and testimony being destroyed. Since he was the man in charge of the operations at Bundy Ranch these folks assumed by destroying his credibility it would derail the prosecutions case. Basically wishful thinking on the part of some supporters.

The government has chosen not to call him to as a witness.

Dan Love may have chosen to disobey the stand down order. I don't know what transpired there. I speculate if the defense might make a big impact on the jury by emphasising the fact the BLM did not stand down when ordered.

My judgement is biased, plus I have information the jury does not have, but if I were deciding this case I would say the government has no case. All the evidence is against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dachsie

I have read the referenced article and this posting and I fail to comprehend exactly how the

"BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF TRIALSBLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy ranch standoff trial"

Maybe that was just a click bait title for that article that did not in any way explain how the trial may be derailed by what the title claimed would be the reason for the derailing.

On the surface it sounds like this order to stand down could be a real ray of hope but frustratingly then fails to clearly explain it.

---

These three articles may help why some felt Dan Love being outed could have derailed the trial:

http://thepetesantillishow.com/blm-a...of-misconduct/

http://thepetesantillishow.com/did-p...en-bundy-case/

http://thepetesantillishow.com/first...ake-the-stand/

Dan Love also had previous complaints from Utah sheriffs, county commissioners and Senator Orin Hatch

I wonder if the defense attorneys will indeed make a big deal out of that stand down order being a fact and that it was in fact ignored? I understand Mr. Bundy, the father, is defending himself. It does look like this stand down order has just come to light and it could potentially be a wonderful gift from above to end these unjust charges and trials.

This San Juan County Utah Dan Love newspaper article was posted on facebook. It is dated March 1

https://m.facebook.com/groups/824803...27473277364654

https://s19.postimg.org/yzcs8k9ib/IMG_1523.png

Anthony Dephue who writes BundyRanchStandoff.info wrote a tribute to the four Idaho defendants currently on trial

https://www.facebook.com/adephue/pos...54797547455081

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...da&oe=592DA67E


Anthony Thomas Dephue

Yesterday at 4:09pm ·

For those of us in Idaho, four of our own were taken one year ago today. Selectively prosecuted, they went to prison facing an indictment good for 100+ years minimum if convicted on all counts. Over 100 years, potentially, for protesting and posturing defensively in the face of a life and liberty robbing collective of agencies operating under the tenets of unbridled tyranny. They stood, they were taken; and one year later they still stand... on the truth of what they know happened that day. If it matters how you stand, their stand is the object of our pride as Idahoans.

We gave tirelessly and selflessly to an organization that we believed had fundamentally shifted its core purpose to assist these men. When that ended in frustration; we acted quickly to put it down, kick it aside, and press on to accomplish what we promised to do.

This past week, witness after witness gave sworn testimony in aid of the Government's embellished narrative of what transpired in the Toquop Wash. Witness after witness... trampling under foot the sacredness of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. These witnesses testify as truth a narrative that they could have only perceived because of media coverage after the event. None of their reports written shortly after the event accurately depict what they are testifying to. There is no honor for these individuals; they aid and abbet a tyrant in its witch hunt.

When the Judiciary can no longer be trusted to provide the neutral place it is supposed to for the fair and equitable metering of prudent justice, the people find themselves inexorably isolated to the realm where absolute despotism must (eventually) be addressed. Our brothers press on, advancing under a rule of law that leans in favor of a Government hell-bent on making an example of anyone who would stand up to its nefarious agendas for the vast areas of the west.

They stand tall, and they stand with honor, and they look their lying accusers right in the eye. Their turn will soon come and the truth will sound to mercilessly expose the Government's corruption.

With an outcome merely weeks away, all we can do is stand with them and make sure that no one ever forgets Saturday, April 12th 2014... that no one forgets them... that we always remember and honor how they stood.
Eric, Todd, Steve, & Scott... Idaho couldn't be more proud.


24 Likes 9 Comments 25 Shares

Deborah Jordan on the Pete Santilli Show with an important update the Nevada Trial

http://youtu.be/bj3Jcnfx9Xs

https://youtu.be/bj3Jcnfx9Xs

click through to youtube to raise the viewer count

Andrea Olson-Parker with the March 6 mid-day Bundy Ranch Trial update

http://youtu.be/ZDVyvEeRip0

https://youtu.be/ZDVyvEeRip0

Bundy Ranch ~ Court testimony showed confusion, contradictions in command during Bundy standoff
http://www.guns.com/2017/03/06/court...undy-standoff/

Guns.com

Menu

Skip to content

• Reviews
• Industry News
• Concealed Carry
• 2nd Amendment
• More

• Gun Bazaar
• The Wire

SearchSearch
Court testimony showed confusion, contradictions in command during Bundy standoff

3/06/17| by Jennifer Cruz

http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.ne...lle-nevada.jpg

Supporters — many of which armed — of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy confronting officers with the Bureau of Land Management in April 2014. (Photo: AP)

Testimony by federal officials in court Thursday revealed contradictions and confusion with the chain of command as the 2014 standoff with rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters came to an end.

After nearly a week, the standoff came to a climactic end on April 12, 2014, after authorities stayed through the night despite being told by the federal agent in charge the day before to cease all operations and leave, The Arizona Republic reported.

About 1,000 people, many of whom were armed, came to the area in support of Bundy, who was involved in a decades-long battle over grazing rights with the Bureau of Land Management. Federal authorities had moved in to seize Bundy’s cattle as payment for the more than $1 million in grazing fees they say he owed.

Authorities already began rounding up Bundy’s cattle when, according to BLM director Neil Kornze, there became serious concerns over the safety of officials as well as the public, causing the federal government to make a decision to back down.

Dan Love, BLM special agent in charge of operations, announced to officials at the site on April 11, 2014, that they were to stop seizing Bundy’s cattle, pack up, and leave, and a news release was set to be sent out the following day announcing the decision. Despite this, according to court testimony, law enforcement officials were commanded by their own supervisors to move forward and engage with the protesters using non-lethal means.

“We were still under threat,” U.S. Parks Police Officer Tara McBride said in court last week, adding it was her understanding that they were to stop gathering the cattle but remain at the standoff “to provide security for the (incident command post)” because her supervisors anticipated a bloody battle with the protesters.

“We had intelligence from the FBI that individuals on a domestic terrorist watch list had arrived and were camped out at the Bundy compound,” said U.S. Park Police Officer Brandon Novotny. “We received intelligence there was going to be an attack.”

Nonetheless, McBride and her team expressed concern over engaging the protesters. More specifically, they feared the non-lethal pepper rounds would be mistaken for live rounds, causing armed protesters to return fire.
“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,” McBride said.

In fact, McBride said as her team positioned themselves as directed, they discussed the risks amongst themselves. Additionally, McBride said, her team twice requested permission from her supervisor to fall back, but both times the requests were denied.

Defense attorney Richard Tanasi said the multiple commands were not only confusing but contradictory and could have contributed to a violent escalation between federal officials and protesters. Tanasi also added the situation could have more quickly been defused had officials simply followed the original commands to cease operations.

Filed Under: Concealed Carry, Gun Laws, Open carry, Police, Politics & 2nd Amendment

Andrea Olson-Parker March 6 End of Day Report. The wind and traffic noise make it very hard to understand all she is saying.

http://youtu.be/sIMalDdqCdY

https://youtu.be/sIMalDdqCdY

Free Range Report ~ Recordings ahow paranoid, abusive attitutdes of federal agents at Bunkerville . .
Reprint of Las Vegas Review-Journal

Recordings show paranoid, abusive attitudes of federal agents at Bunkerville standoff

March 5, 2017 editor Leave a comment

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, highlighted portions of the video that recorded agents mocking protesters. The line of questioning reflected an attempt to prove that the government witnesses’ fear is overstated.“There’s no gun there … He’s just holding his back, he’s standing like a sissy,” one agent said of a protester as authorities assessed the scene about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.As one woman in the crowd screamed angrily, two law enforcement officers chuckled.“She must not be married,” one said.

Jenny Wilson
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Bunkerville Standoff video captures agent conversations

Prosecutors trying the case against six of rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters played hours of video footage this week that gave the public a peek into the minds of federal law enforcement officers as the 2014 confrontation with armed protesters unfolded in Bunkerville.

When Bureau of Land Management Agent Mark Brunk testified early in the week, prosecutors played dash cam footage that recorded him uttering an expletive, followed by, “You come find me and you’re gonna have hell to pay.”
Another agent laughed, and replied, “Pretty much a shoot first, ask questions later kind of thing.”

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=683%2C378
Another agent laughed, and replied, “Pretty much a shoot first, ask questions later kind of thing.”

The statements were made after a crowd of hundreds of cowboys and supporters arrived at Toquop Wash, a sandy ditch that served as the headquarters for the court-ordered cattle roundup that sparked the protests. The protesters had traveled 5 miles, by horse and by car, from a morning rally where Bundy — upon learning the government was ceasing its operation — ordered supporters to go get his cows.

The conversations among law enforcement grew more serious as officers scanned the crowd for guns, and the footage captured their frantic conversations. First they didn’t notice any long guns. Then they saw two. Then at least five. Then 10.

“If we get any more guns, we’re gonna be outgunned,” a law enforcement officer remarked at one point.

The footage captured expressions of fear and humor, and some of the government’s witnesses testified that their jokes and laughter reflected coping mechanisms, or expressions of nervous energy. Prosecutors have asked nearly every law enforcement witness to rank their fear on a scale of 1 to 10. None of them has rated it below a 5, and one officer gave it a 10.

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, highlighted portions of the video that recorded agents mocking protesters. The line of questioning reflected an attempt to prove that the government witnesses’ fear is overstated.

“There’s no gun there … He’s just holding his back, he’s standing like a sissy,” one agent said of a protester as authorities assessed the scene about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

As one woman in the crowd screamed angrily, two law enforcement officers chuckled.

“She must not be married,” one said.

The videos captured protesters yelling things like, “Get the hell out of here.” Throughout the footage, a BLM agent makes the same statement repeatedly over a megaphone: “This area is closed for the enforcement of a United States District Court order.

Please leave the area.”

United States Park Police Officer Brandon Novotny testified Thursday that law enforcement officials attended a briefing the day before the standoff. He said officials were alerted to numerous people on “domestic terrorist watch lists in and among the protesters at the Bundy campground.”

Novotny was photographed in a military-style “stacking formation” with other federal agents, armed and wearing SWAT gear.
“I took a moment to think about my family,” he said, his voice cracking. “I made my peace with God … I expected to die that day.”

The six men standing trial are charged as “gunmen,” accused of conspiring with Bundy to thwart the government’s efforts to carry out a court order. Prosecutors describe them as the least culpable of the 17 people they eventually plan to try in the case.

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=610%2C380

Free Range Report

Las Veags Review-Journal March 6 ~ Tempers Flare, Nerves Fray

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...ndy-supporters


Tempers flare, nerves fray in trial against Bundy supporters

A downtown Las Vegas courtroom provided scenes as wild as a Western movie Monday when federal prosecutors and defense attorneys battled over nearly every piece of evidence presented in the trial against six of rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters.


Defense attorneys tried to block a government witness from testifying. A prosecutor invoked an evidence rule that led even the judge to flip open a legal handbook. A juror made a wisecrack that caused one lawyer to raise concerns of potential bias.


By 4 p.m., U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro had sent the jury home early and told them not to return until Wednesday.


The day’s most hotly disputed footage was played outside the presence of the jury when defense lawyer Todd Leventhal tried to bring into evidence a video from the April 2014 standoff in Bunkerville. The video was captured by a Fox News cameraman, and Leventhal, who represents Bundy supporter O. Scott Drexler, wanted the judge to let him play it when he cross-examined Bureau of Land Management Ranger Gregory Johnson.


Johnson testified as a government witness Monday. On April 12, 2014, he was recorded on dashboard camera footage using a megaphone to repeatedly order protesters to disperse.
The protesters, who were gathered near the site where federal authorities had been impounding Bundy’s cattle, screamed angrily. At one point on the footage, authorities referenced a man walking towards them — “blue shirt, looks like press.”


The cameraman was identified in court only by his surname, Lynch. Defense lawyers tried to use the footage he captured to bolster their arguments that protesters could not understand law enforcement’s instructions from 200 yards away on a windy day.


On the video, Lynch walks toward the cattle impoundment site where federal authorities were headquartered.


“I do not have a weapon — I am shooting for Fox News,” he yelled. “May I approach so this doesn’t end in bloodshed … the people don’t want to get hurt.”


“You are in violation of a U.S. District Court order,” Johnson’s voice boomed over the megaphone.
“I am the press!” Lynch shouted.


“Go back.”


“Why? Why can’t you talk to me?!”


“You are in violation …”


“I have no weapon! Are you really gonna shoot these people?” Lynch exclaimed. “We can’t hear your announcement that far away.”


Navarro would not allow the video into evidence Monday, but she told Leventhal he could play it for jurors if he calls Lynch as a defense witness.


The drama intensified Monday when Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Dickinson, questioning the witness for the second time, declared that he was invoking an evidence rule to publish notes from an FBI interview with Johnson. The interview first was referenced by defense attorney Jess Marchese, who tried to suggest that the witness exaggerated in about the threat level in his trial testimony.
Dickinson asked Johnson to read directly from a line in the April 2014 FBI report.


“When asked if he felt threatened or intimidated, Johnson responded with, ‘Yes. Most definitely. We were f——d.”


When Johnson finished testifying and prosecutors called their next witness, defense attorneys responded furiously because Sgt. Tom Jenkins of Las Vegas’ Metropolitan Police Department was not on the original government witness list.


Judge Navarro allowed Jenkins to testify under direct examination, but she canceled testimony in the trial Tuesday to give defense attorneys an extra day to prepare for cross-examination.
The jury was shuttled in and out of the courtroom during Monday’s legal wrangling. Their expressions displayed both laserlike focus and utter confusion as they watched the heated but legally dense disputes unfold.


Before Jenkins testified, the judge asked jurors whether they recognized him.
One juror replied, “Only from the TV show ‘Cops.’”


His joke drew chuckles, but also a challenge from Leventhal, who asked the judge to bring the juror in for questioning Thursday.


Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.

Lisa Bundy with an update on Ammon March 7

http://youtu.be/kT6UDOaT5tI

https://youtu.be/kT6UDOaT5tI

Cliven Budy's neice Teralee Jared Morely posted an uppdate video for March 6 on facebook

https://www.facebook.com/teralee.spe...10699020785383

Mid-day update for Bundy Ranch trial, March 8

http://youtu.be/re5Nv1q24Mg

https://youtu.be/re5Nv1q24Mg

Andrea Olson-Parker has the end of day update for the Bundy Ranch Trial. Dennis Michael Lynch who was reporting for Fox News during the standoff was called by the Prosecution to testify

http://youtu.be/EIqRFNfdXZ8

https://youtu.be/EIqRFNfdXZ8

Stacy Benner report on Dennis Michael Lynch testimony. Lynch was called by the govt..

http://youtu.be/vmVhj2rt8K0

https://youtu.be/vmVhj2rt8K0

Channel 8 TV Las Vegas promotes message 'Comply with government'.

http://youtu.be/WHoqtod-TBY

https://youtu.be/WHoqtod-TBY

RangeFire ~ Fur Flying in Bundy Trial. A repost from Las Vegas Review-Journal

http://rangefire.us/2017/03/09/fur-f...a-bundy-trial/

Fur Flying in the First Nevada “Bundy” Trial

March 9, 2017 - Uncategorized - no comments


According to Jenny Wilson, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Tempers are flaring and nerves are fraying in the the first trial against Bundy supporters in Las Vegas


The scene inside the courtroom may rival the scene outside the courtroom:

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x207.jpg

A downtown Las Vegas courtroom provided scenes as wild as a Western movie Monday when federal prosecutors and defense attorneys battled over nearly every piece of evidence presented in the trial against six of rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters.

Defense attorneys tried to block a government witness from testifying. A prosecutor invoked an evidence rule that led even the judge to flip open a legal handbook. A juror made a wisecrack that caused one lawyer to raise concerns of potential bias.

By 4 p.m., U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro had sent the jury home early and told them not to return until Wednesday.

The day’s most hotly disputed footage was played outside the presence of the jury when defense lawyer Todd Leventhal tried to bring into evidence a video from the April 2014 standoff in Bunkerville. The video was captured by a Fox News cameraman, and Leventhal, who represents Bundy supporter O. Scott Drexler, wanted the judge to let him play it when he cross-examined Bureau of Land Management Ranger Gregory Johnson.

Johnson testified as a government witness Monday. On April 12, 2014, he was recorded on dashboard camera footage using a megaphone to repeatedly order protesters to disperse.

The protesters, who were gathered near the site where federal authorities had been impounding Bundy’s cattle, screamed angrily. At one point on the footage, authorities referenced a man walking towards them — “blue shirt, looks like press.”

The cameraman was identified in court only by his surname, Lynch. Defense lawyers tried to use the footage he captured to bolster their arguments that protesters could not understand law enforcement’s instructions from 200 yards away on a windy day.

On the video, Lynch walks toward the cattle impoundment site where federal authorities were headquartered.
“I do not have a weapon — I am shooting for Fox News,” he yelled. “May I approach so this doesn’t end in bloodshed … the people don’t want to get hurt.”

“You are in violation of a U.S. District Court order,” Johnson’s voice boomed over the megaphone.
“I am the press!” Lynch shouted.

“Go back.”

“Why? Why can’t you talk to me?!”

“You are in violation …”

“I have no weapon! Are you really gonna shoot these people?” Lynch exclaimed. “We can’t hear your announcement that far away.”

Navarro would not allow the video into evidence Monday, but she told Leventhal he could play it for jurors if he calls Lynch as a defense witness.

The drama intensified Monday when Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Dickinson, questioning the witness for the second time, declared that he was invoking an evidence rule to publish notes from an FBI interview with Johnson. The interview first was referenced by defense attorney Jess Marchese, who tried to suggest that the witness exaggerated in about the threat level in his trial testimony.

Dickinson asked Johnson to read directly from a line in the April 2014 FBI report.

“When asked if he felt threatened or intimidated, Johnson responded with, ‘Yes. Most definitely. We were f——d.”

When Johnson finished testifying and prosecutors called their next witness, defense attorneys responded furiously because Sgt. Tom Jenkins of Las Vegas’ Metropolitan Police Department was not on the original government witness list.

Judge Navarro allowed Jenkins to testify under direct examination, but she canceled testimony in the trial Tuesday to give defense attorneys an extra day to prepare for cross-examination.

The jury was shuttled in and out of the courtroom during Monday’s legal wrangling. Their expressions displayed both laserlike focus and utter confusion as they watched the heated but legally dense disputes unfold.

Before Jenkins testified, the judge asked jurors whether they recognized him.

One juror replied, “Only from the TV show ‘Cops.’”

His joke drew chuckles, but also a challenge from Leventhal, who asked the judge to bring the juror in for questioning Thursday.

Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I think this Bundy trial will benefit from the times, considering the state of our nation, the economy, and the future of human civilization. I have a gut feeling the TPTB are going to throw us a bone on this one. It's the only halfway intelligent thing THEY can do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_FXtAsi9Ws

Andrea Olson-Parker Mid-Day Bundy Ranch update

http://youtu.be/6vChblG6YnY

It is obvious from this map Nevada is still a territory. The checkerboard strip along Interstate 80 is land granted to the railroad to completenthe trans-continental railway.

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...28&oe=59613049

So the feds called Dennis Michael Lynch . . .

https://scontent.flim5-1.fna.fbcdn.n...89&oe=5972EAE1

Cliven Bundy is correct, the govt. and environmentalists are wrong, it is not public land. Wayne Hage also said once man has established rights it is no longer public land "Braydon v Northen Pacific RR". Dr. Angis McIntosh goes much farther:

http://freerangereport.com/index.php...-public-lands/

Angus McIntosh responds to PLC: Its time to Drain the Swamp on the “Public Lands”

March 10, 2017 editor Leave a comment

By the time Trent was finished questioning Ethan Lane, he had backpedaled to the point where he said he agreed with 95% of what I have been teaching ranchers in my seminars for the past 16 years.

by Angus McIntosh, PhD

Executive Director, Range Allotment Owners Association

Recently the Range Allotment Owners Association (RAO), an association of Western ranchers who own Grazing Allotments and Range Units on split-estate land in the 17 Western States, has been attacked in the press by the Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), and state affiliates of those organizations (such as the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association). In particular, the Executive Director of PLC (and Public Lands Coordinator for NCBA), Ethan Lane, led the attack and included with his stated disinformation, a letter signed by several attorneys who like to style themselves as champions of Western ranchers. There was so much mischaracterizing, deception and outright fabrication in these attacks that it was difficult to know how to immediately respond. Fortunately, many of the Western ranchers who know me and belong to the RAO themselves, began to respond to the attack through Facebook and letters of their own to the various livestock publications which had printed what can only be described as PLC’s “Fake News.” Chief among the respondents, I’m happy to say, was renowned Radio Host and farmer, Trent Loos. By the time Trent was finished questioning him, Ethan Lane had backpedaled to the point where he said he agreed with 95% of what I have been teaching ranchers in my seminars for the past 16 years.

Frankly, I am used to personal attacks by anti-ranching groups and the environmentalist left, so I usually just ignore their ranting, distortions and outright lies. However, since I have been involved in Western Allotment Owner’s property rights issues for 37 years, have been an Allotment Owner myself for 33 years, and, for at least 27 years have been widely known throughout the Western States as an outspoken public supporter of rancher’s property rights, I decided I could not let the falsehoods go unaddressed. Failing to address the issue would only further harm Western ranchers who, for the last 40 years, have been denigrated by a steady stream of misinformation spewed by career lobbyists and globalists inhabiting the Washington D.C. “swamp.” Many of these anti-ranching interests are entangled by Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. Exactly how have these globalist-controlled Washington insiders helped the Western split-estate ranchers? They have not. By all measures; number of Allotments, number of Allotment Owners, number of head of livestock, or number of AUMs used for stockraising, in the last 40 years the Western Livestock Industry has been cut by approximately 60%.

First, never at anytime has the Range Allotment Owners Association or myself stated that we represent the “public land” rancher. It is precisely this erroneous representation that has been the cause of many Western ranchers being forced off their Allotments during the past 40 years. The term “public land” has a well established and undeniable legal definition. Neither I nor the PLC get to pick what that definition is. Only Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court get to define that term. During the settlement period from 1776 to 1920, “public lands” were defined as “lands open to entry and disposal upon which there were no rights or claims” (see Words & Phrases and cases cited therein). “Most enduringly the public lands have been defined as those lands subject to sale and other disposal under the general land laws” (Utah Div. of State Lands v United States, 482 US 193 (1987)). By legal definition there are NO private rights on “public lands” and there never has been. However, once land was opened to settlement, occupied, improved and had a possessory right or claim established, it was no longer “public land” because it was no longer “unoccupied,” but now had private rights attached to it that prevented anyone else from settling on the land (see Frisbie v Witney, 76 US 187 (1869), Atherton v Fowler, 96 US 513 (1877), Hosmer v Wallace, 97 US 575 (1878), Rector v Gibbon, 11 US 276 (1884), Cameron v United States, 148 US 301 (1893)).

During the settlement period, bona-fide ranch settlers occupied, improved and possessed the Western rangelands with the intent of permanent settlement. Through their settlement and improvement, ranchers established “possessory property rights,” which gave them a valid claim or color of title to the land. These lands were thereafter called “entered unpatented lands” or “entries,” and the settlers in occupancy were called “entrymen” or “bona-fide settlers.” Under a series of post Civil War statutes, Congress sanctioned and confirmed the water rights, ditches, canals, roads, (1866, 14 Stat 253), reservoirs (1870, 16 Stat 218), improvements (1874, 18 Stat 50),
forage/grazing use (1875, 18 Stat 482), timber use (1878, 20 Stat 88), and State/Territorial possessory range rights (1885, 23 Stat 321) of these bona-fide stockraising settlers (or “entryman”) on the Western ranges. See Atherton v Fowler, supra, Griffith v Godey, 113 US 89 (1885), Brooks v Warren, 13 P. 175 (1886), Comm. Natnl. Bank of Ogden v Davidson, 22 P. 517 (1889), Wilson v Everett, 139 US 616 (1891), Cameron v United States, supra, Lonergan v Buford, 148 US 581 (1893), Swan Land & Cattle Co. v Frank, 148 US 603 (1893), Grayson v Lynch, 163 US 468 (1896), Ward v Sherman, 192 US 168 (1904), Bacon v Walker, 204 US 311 (1907), Bown v Walling, 204 US 320 (1907), Curtin v Benson, 222 US 78 (1911), Omaechevarria v Idaho, 246 US 343 (1918).

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=554%2C309

Ranchers’ property rights were so well established by 1909, that it was virtually impossible for the United States to grant a homestead or mining patent to any applicant that did not infringe on some valid existing claim. The West was covered with ranchers’ water rights, easements, improvements, and land-use rights that Congress had already statutorily recognized and granted. There was constant turmoil between Western ranchers and federal bureaucrats, particularly with the newly formed U.S. Forest Service. The fact was that under the traditional definition of “public lands” there were no more “public lands.” Nearly all the land in the West had some valid existing claim attached to it. In a speech to Congress in 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the only logical solution, which was to create a split estate. “Rights to the surface of the public land….be separated from rights to the forests upon it and to minerals beneath it, and these should be subject to separate disposal.” (Special Message to Congress, Jan. 22, 1909, 15 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 7266.) The United States would retain the mineral estate and the commercial timber while granting a surface fee title to the stockraisers for all agricultural and ranching purposes (Kinney Coastal Oil Co. v Kieffer, 277 US 488 (1928), Watt v Western Nuclear, 462 US 36 (1983).

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=542%2C385

By 1910, the corruption, abuse and overreach by federal bureaucrats had become so bad that Congress enacted special legislation to have a full Congressional Investigation of the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and the Forest Service (36 Stat 871). The result of this investigation was the adoption of the split-estate policy and enactment of several key statutes: Pickett Act of 1910/1912 (36 Stat 847, 37 Stat 497), Act for the Relief of Settlers (which specifically incorporated the Enlarged Homestead Acts) (37 Stat 267), and the Agricultural Entry of Mineral Lands Act (38 Stat 509). By a special Act passed in 1912 (37 Stat 287) Congress “directed and required” the Secretary of Agriculture to classify all land within National Forests open to entry and settlement. These Acts taken together in para materia resulted in the perfection of ranchers surface titles to their Allotments. The split estate policy was fully implemented by the passage of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (41 Stat 437) (Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer, supra.). Western National Forests were explicitly included into the language of the Pickett Act and the Mineral Leasing Act.

This change in land disposal policy resulted in the need to redefine the term “public land,” which Congress did in the Federal Power Act of 1920 (41 Stat 1063). “’Public lands’ means such lands and interests in lands owned by the United States as are subject to private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws.” Since the allotment owner was referred to as the “surface owner,” (Agricultural Entry Act 1914 and StockRaising Homestead Act 1916) the mineral estate and commercial timber is what constituted “public lands” (ie “interest in land”). The only requirement to “prove up” on their allotments was that the ranchers construct improvements worth $1.25 per acre. Similar to the Reclamation Fund established for Irrigation Districts, Congress established the Cooperative Improvement Fund Act in 1914 (38 Stat 43), to provide a cooperative program for constructing the requisite range improvements under the Agricultural Entry of Mineral Lands Act of 1914, (38 Stat 509) and the StockRaising Homestead Act of 1916 (39 Stat 862). A cursory reading of the “permit” provisions of the Forest Service Organic Act (30 Stat 32), the Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat 1269) and the Granger Thye Act (64 Stat 82), reveals that the intent of Congress was to regulate Allotment Owners grazing only to the extent of protecting the “young growth of trees” and to prevent “soil erosion” (ie the government’s reserved mineral and timber interests).

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=608%2C481

The definition of “public lands” continued to be “lands and interest in land open to sale and disposal,” and after Allotments were adjudicated, the only kind of entry or disposal that could be made was a mining claim or lease, and a timber sale. This remained the law up until October 23, 1976, when Congress adopted Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA) (90 Stat 2743) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (90 Stat 2949). On that date, the definition of “public land” changed to the current definition and has been in place since. The current definition is found on page 3 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (90 Stat 2746): “The term ‘public lands’ means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within any of the several States and administered by the Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of land Management…”

The definition still embraces the split estate nature of the lands. Missing, however, is language expressing that those retained federal interests are open for sale or disposal. Significantly, after passage of FLPMA and NFMA the US Supreme Court ruled that ranchers still owned their water rights within National Forests, and these prior existing rights were not affected by either FLPMA or the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (74 Stat 215). See United States v New Mexico, 438 US 696 (1978).

For the benefit of the globalist Washington “swamp” insiders who want ranchers to believe that they have no rights and are merely “permittees” on the “public lands,” we want you to know we have a “deep bench” of legal minds on the side of the Allotment owners. The Range Allotment Owners Association believes that Allotments owned by ranchers in National Forests and Grazing Districts withdrawn by authority of the Pickett Act, are “split-estate” lands, NOT part of the government’s “interest in lands” as defined by FLPMA and the Federal Power Act. I’ve been asked by the following attorneys to publish their names to ranchers as an alternative to the government insiders and the anti-property rights groups who have been colluding with the BLM and Forest Service for decades to undermine Western ranchers property rights. Its time to DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Mark Pollot, (208) 867-8389 Former Spec. Asst. to the US Att. Gen. for Nat.Res. & Environment

Margaret Hageman, (307) 635-4888 Hageman Law P.C.

Korry Lewis, (307) 635-4888 Hageman Law P.C.

Morgan Philpot, (801) 891-4499

Bret Whipple, (702) 493-6075

Blair Dunn, (505) 750-3060

Roger Roots, (406) 224-3105

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=711%2C524

Free Range Report

Lisa Bundy ~ Abuse of Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne during transfer to Portland

http://youtu.be/RkeKit6V6so

https://youtu.be/RkeKit6V6so

Greg Burleson suffered a seizure the interrupted the trial for about two hours Thursday March 9

https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...tandoff-trial/

Defendant’s medical complaint interrupts standoff trial

Posted on March 9, 2017 by Doug Knowles

By KEN RITTER Associated Press Mar 9, 2017

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A medical complaint by a defendant with a history of health problems briefly interrupted a trial Thursday in Las Vegas for six men accused of wielding guns during a 2014 armed standoff between followers of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and federal agents.

An attorney for Gregory Burleson rose suddenly during testimony and told Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro that Burleson needed immediate attention.

Attorneys and spectators in the courtroom said Burleson became pale and his hands were shaking when the judge called a two-hour break.

Burleson, 53, of Arizona is blind, diabetic and uses a wheelchair. His attorney, Terrence Jackson, has argued several times for Burleson’s release from jail, saying he wasn’t getting proper medical treatment.

Burleson once told the judge he feared dying in federal custody.

During the break, Jackson told The Associated Press that Burleson has a history of seizures and felt that he was having another one.

When court reconvened, Burleson was back in the courtroom in his wheelchair, and Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo was back in the witness box.

The judge said medics checked Burleson and reported that his vital signs were normal but he might have been dehydrated.

Jackson said Burleson told him he was willing to go forward.

“He wants to resolve this matter in a timely way,” the attorney said.

Burleson and co-defendants Eric Parker, Orville Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart, Todd Engel and Richard Lovelien are the first of 17 defendants to stand trial in the standoff near the Bundy ranch, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Each is accused of 10 charges including conspiracy, firearm offenses and assault on a federal officer. Each could face up to 101 years in prison if convicted of all charges.

source

Deborah Jordan says Judge Navarro may not allow defense to call Dan Love to testify. March 10, Bundy Ranch Trial update from The Pete Santilli Show

http://youtu.be/7wYaw_o9QKg

https://youtu.be/7wYaw_o9QKg
Bundy Trial Update: Judge May Not Allow Defendants Biggest Accuser To Be Questioned In Front Of Jury


Pete Santilli Show 1,099 views

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-oHfqhTSTM5Y/A...ffff/photo.jpg
SUBSCRIBE

76,033
188
5
Published on Mar 10, 2017
Judge Gloria Navarro presiding over USA vs Cliven Bundy says, if the Prosecution does not call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either. In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury .. Also this week Dennis Michael Lynch took the stand ..
Please help support us in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal acoount: peter@petersantilli.com . Please also LIKE our Facebook page to receive important updates and information from Burns, Oregon http://facebook.com/guerillamedia **** TigerStream $50 OFF promo: http://pnn3.com/tiger CODE tiger5 Ranger Gear & Nutritional Products: http://pnn3.com/store Life Change Tea: http://GetTheTea.com Please visit & bookmark our website: http://ThePeteSantilliShow.com You can also listen to the audio stream 24/7: (712) 432-7848 *** Help keep The Pete Santilli Show raw; real & independent....If you like our channel; please support us: http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate Direct to PayPal: peter@petersantilli.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/PTSantilli

• Category
  
  • News & Politics
  
  
• License
  
  • Standard YouTube License

I remember way back in 9-11 research days how I learned about who Santilli was and how he was conducting his radio broadcasts and who he connected with in the "9-11 truth movement." He was suspected of being on the payroll of the FBI to serve as controlled opposition in the "patriot" alternative Internet radio arena, and there was even substantial proof for that. For that reason, I do not trust or respect him. He even had someone "coaching" from behind the scenes his on-air show hosts including Santilli and a female host so they would be sure to promote the 9-11 truth party line of the time, that is, the government covert line. Santillii may be playing the role of one of the defendants and doing this for his former employer, the FBI. (Search Susan Posel and Vinny Eastwood with Pete Santili. Try this link too


http://www.occupycorporatism.com/exp...fbi-informant/


The nicest thing I could say about Santilli is that it seems like the Bundy trial is just something he latched on to to revive his radio / "truther" career prospects.

Hope I am wrong and that Santilli has turned good guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dachsie

I remember way back in 9-11 research days how I learned about who Santilli was and how he was conducting his radio broadcasts and who he connected with in the "9-11 truth movement." He was suspected of being on the payroll of the FBI to serve as controlled opposition in the "patriot" alternative Internet radio arena, and there was even substantial proof for that. For that reason, I do not trust or respect him. He even had someone "coaching" from behind the scenes his on-air show hosts including Santilli and a female host so they would be sure to promote the 9-11 truth party line of the time, that is, the government covert line. Santillii may be playing the role of one of the defendants and doing this for his former employer, the FBI. (Search Susan Posel and Vinny Eastwood with Pete Santili. Try this link too


http://www.occupycorporatism.com/exp...fbi-informant/


The nicest thing I could say about Santilli is that it seems like the Bundy trial is just something he latched on to to revive his radio / "truther" career prospects.

Hope I am wrong and that Santilli has turned good guy.

---

I have heard the same. I have some doubts as well. He could have been an informant, but without his video exposure of the Malheur Protest we would only have the mainstream media lies. None of us would know the truth. It may have been another Waco. I didn't know anything of Santilli prior to the Bundy Ranch affair.

I do not have any info on this, but there was a "mixed verdict" in the Oregon case related to these BLM-related matters. So overall it was not good and the defendants were hit hard.

Maybe Monty has more info.

I have a feeling this belongs in the other thread with Wildlife word in the thread title...

...http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...ents_afte.html...

Read reaction to split verdict in second Oregon standoff trial

By Tony Hernandez | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Follow on Twitter
on March 10, 2017 at 1:49 PM, updated March 10, 2017 at 10:16 PM

Here's what people are saying after the mixed verdicts Friday in the second Oregon standoff trial.

The jury found two of four defendants -- Jason Patrick and Darryl Thorn -- guilty of conspiracy in the 2016 takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and acquitted two others -- Duane Ehmer and Jake Ryan -- on the conspiracy charge

But the jury found Ehmer and Ryan guilty of willfully damaging the refuge and found Thorn guilty of possessing a gun at a federal facility. Patrick and Ryan were acquitted on the gun charge.
For the full story:

Two convicted and two acquitted of conspiracy in Oregon occupation trial

Two convicted and two acquitted of conspiracy in Oregon occupation trial

Prosecutors described Jason Patrick as an organizer of the armed seizure, but the other three men on trial had more minor roles, including guard duty.

***

Defendant Jason Patrick spoke outside after the decision:
Oregon standoff defendant Jason Patrick discusses verdict

***

Here's a brief statement from defendant Duane Ehmer:
"I'm headed home to ride my pony": Defendant Duane Ehmer reacts to Oregon standoff trial verdict



***

From Duane Ehmer's defense lawyer Michele Kohler:

She believed U.S District Judge Anna J. Brown unfairly restricted the number of defense witnesses who could be called during trial, based on the judge's experiences during the five-week trial last fall of Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five others.

Kohler said she could have presented more evidence to bolster Ehmer's defense for the depredation of government property charge - that he dug the trench on the refuge on Jan. 27, 2016, because he was terrified of an FBI attack and he didn't willfully know he was breaking the law.

"I feel I failed in presenting more witnesses who could have talked about his mindset, but at the same time when you have Judge Brown breathing down on you, 'No, it's cumulative!' you cut your case down,'' she said.

She expects appeals and believes the prosecution won't deter supporters of the defendants but make them more determined in challenging federal control of public land.

"I think this fight is going to continue. I think the new Sagebrush Rebellion has ignited. I do not think this is going to go away.''

***

From Jake Ryan's defense lawyer Jesse Merrithew:

"I think it is likely a compromise verdict. I think Jason Patrick hit it right on the head. If they had the option of convicting them of tampering with a government vehicle or trespass, they wouldn't have been convicted of conspiracy.''

Merrithew said he was disappointed the jury convicted Ryan and Ehmer of depredation of government property, a felony that could bring up to six years in prison.

They built the trenches because they thought the FBI planned to raid the refuge, Merrithew said. "They were simply terrified, trying to do what they had to do to survive,'' he said.

With Patrick and Thorn's convictions on conspiracy charges in the wake of last fall's acquittals of the occupation leaders, Merrithew said, "I don't think that comports with anybody's sense of justice.''

Quote:

---

I have a feeling this belongs in the other thread with Wildlife word in the thread title

---

There is another less biased point of view in that thread: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...l=1#post888444

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dachsie

I do not have any info on this, but there was a "mixed verdict" in the Oregon case related to these BLM-related matters. So overall it was not good and the defendants were hit hard.

Maybe Monty has more info.

---

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...l=1#post888444

There are a few other articles from some of the biodiversity groups,cheering this verdict. I won't reading them because they are pure propoganda. These groups exist on government grants which they use to file lawsuits against the BLM to protect some endangered spider or moth. The court rules in favor of the biodiversity groups and force the BLM to close the are to protect the so called endangered creature. The rancher is forced to cut his herd because he cannot utilize his former rangeland. Eventually it becomes impossible for him to operate profitably. The environmentalist buys his ranch for pennies on the dollar because without the range rights it won't sell. Then the environment group turns the land back to the United States. This is all done with taxpayer funding

the Oregoinan will have its left leaning slant as will Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Andrea Olson-Parker ~ Lunchtime update for Bundy Trial, March 13

http://youtu.be/h2_gDry6E9I

https://youtu.be/h2_gDry6E9I

Lorrie Kramer has combined three videos. The afternoon end of day report by Andrea Olson-Parker starts about 12:30 Teralee - Jared Morley and Andrea Olson-Parker

http://youtu.be/Ouq5uTc5wBs

https://youtu.be/Ouq5uTc5wBs

Nevada Highway Patrol sergeant testifies for prosecution. From what the videos show and what he says it sounds like he was well rehearsed.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...es-bundy-trial

Nevada Highway Patrol sergeant testifies in Bundy trial

A Nevada Highway Patrol sergeant who responded to the 2014 protests in Bunkerville testified Monday that he was “jealous” of one of Cliven Bundy’s supporters because the man carried a radio that broadcast police scanner activity better than a state-issued device.


“Our radios weren’t that clear. I was kind of jealous because his was better than ours,” Sgt. Shannon Selena told jurors Monday.


He was referring to was Gregory Burleson, one of six men in the first group of a three-part federal trial against Bundy and 16 others accused of conspiring to block federal agents from rounding up the rancher’s cows. The jury seated for the first trial has heard hours of testimony about law enforcement’s assessment of the general threat level during the April 2014 standoff, but Monday marked the first time a government witness singled out a defendant for his role in the protests.


Selena said he came into contact with Burleson when he responded to the growing crowd of protesters on the I-15 highway overpass bridge that overlooked a sandy ditch where federal authorities for days had been impounding cattle from Bureau of Land Management land.


Police scanner activity broadcasts conversations between dispatch and responding officers. The conversations are public record, but Selena said the protester’s monitoring of Metropolitan Police Department air traffic concerned him.


“If there are things that we needed to discuss … we didn’t necessarily want published for everyone to hear,” Selena said. “To just have a citizen with it or a militia member … that’s concerning.”


Burleson’s health has declined rapidly since 2014. He now is blind and requires the use of the wheelchair. He suffers from seizures, which halted the trial for a few hours last week when he fell ill in the middle of testimony. He sat in the back of the courtroom while Selena was on the stand Monday, hidden behind his co-defendants and their lawyers at the two defense tables in front of him.


Selena is one of several local law enforcement officers prosecutors have called in the past week to testify. The agencies’ responses have been an undertone of the trial, especially after Burleson’s attorney implied in opening statements that the Bureau of Land Management agents who handled the impoundment operation were not “real” law enforcement officers.


“The funny thing is the Metro police officers, who are real law enforcement officers who carry guns and deal with hard-core criminals — murderers, rapists …they weren’t scared to death,” Jackson said in his opening statement to jurors. “Highway Patrol and Metro didn’t think these guys were a super danger, like they were about to go crazy and start pulling the trigger.”


Prosecutors, in presenting their case against the six defendants, have challenged that narrative by calling members of local law enforcement to testify that they perceived a high degree of danger.
Last week, a Metropolitan Police Department officer told jurors that he noticed every officer in his skirmish line crying the day of the standoff. Another, when asked about threat level, gave the protests the highest rating on a 1 to 10 scale.


Selena followed suit Monday, and told jurors he texted his then-wife to tell her he loved her because he was afraid he would not survive the day’s events. He said he still has flashbacks about the day.
Selena highlighted a number of protesters who were armed and wearing military fatigues to emphasize the perceived threat. As he testified, prosecutors played dashboard camera footage from his police cruiser, which was parked on the side of the highway overpass.


Jackson, in animated cross-examination, suggested that Selena exaggerated the threat level. He pointed out that the sergeant did not try to apprehend Burleson the day of the standoff.
“If you were in great fear … you’re not going to turn your back on him like this, and just let him have a weapon that’s loaded so they can shoot you?” Jackson asked.


He turned his back on the witness while asking the question to demonstrate his point.
“I was about as apprehensive as I could be that day, sir,” Selena said after Jackson posed several similar questions.


Other defense attorneys made the same argument in a variety of ways. Defense attorney Todd Leventhal highlighted a portion of the dash cam video that recorded Selena’s voice as he tossed a Gatorade into the front passenger seat of his cruiser.


“Everything is peaceful,” the sergeant said, apparently speaking over his radio as protesters started to gather. “All good.”


Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.

FBI Subversion, Conspiracy and Corruption. Bundy Ranch is discussed 3:10 to 5:20. The commenter has issues with the Malheur takeover so he doesn't discuss it, only mentions it.

http://youtu.be/iFGTPOctI64

https://youtu.be/iFGTPOctI64

The Big Event! FBI Subversion, Conspiracy, and Corruption!
roypotterqa 1,011 views

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-6PnbRIzy_Y8/A...ffff/photo.jpg
SUBSCRIBE

10,918

80

1
Published on Mar 14, 2017Here it is! This has got to be it!!! You can bet this was leaked not only by FBI insiders and NYPD, but CIA patriots, as well. FBI Waging War On Trump The Secret Police Agency involved in subversion, espionage, conspiracy, and treason! http://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbis-... Pedophile investigation ready to blow wide open.http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/201...

• Category
  
  • News & Politics
  
  
• License
  
  • Standard YouTube License

COMMENTS • 33

Thank you, Monty.

This one, though brief, summed up what is going on right now today is great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFGTPOctI64&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

Andrea Olson-Parker March 14 Bundy Ranch Trial updates

http://youtu.be/13IclBaCmdo

https://youtu.be/13IclBaCmdo


http://youtu.be/b_ndjqPFeaQ

https://youtu.be/b_ndjqPFeaQ