http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20070619165229Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
Why no mob dragging that "judge" and fellow perps outside Monty?
:(??
Printable View
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20070619165229Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
Why no mob dragging that "judge" and fellow perps outside Monty?
:(??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewboo
That's a good question Jewboo and I think I know the answer. It's because any mob that would try that would be destroyed by the full might and power of our jew owned and controlled government, military and media. It's what needs to happen not only to the sob's you've mentioned but to all the jews and their lackeys and tools in this country. It would take the whole country though turning against the jew devils and their lackeys to be successful and that's not likely to happen. We'll probably all be murdered or starved to death eventually like the peasants in Russia and Ukraine were when the jews took over there in the bolshevik revolution.
I'm tired of hearing people like Roy Potter tell us that Trump or Sessions are playing some kind of chess game to save this country. I don't think Trump or Sessions are going to do a damn thing to help the Bundy's or anyone else who resists the take over of all the natural resources of this country by jews and their lackeys. Trump loves the jews and he's not going to let anything bad happen to them. His friends are jews or jew sympathizers and his family are mixing their blood with them and his descendants are all going to be jews.
That's what I think Jewboo. What do you think is the reason the judge and her fellow perpetrators aren't being drug outside?
I think you covered it pretty well. Clinton and Bruce Babbit put the programs in place to steal our resources for the jew bankers. Trump isn’t going to undo any of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
You are correct that the jew controlled government would anialate any mob that did attempt to drag the judge and prosecutors outside.
I also have noticed more and more that recently Roy Potter is repeating information from disinformation sources. That makes me think he might be a governement shill.
Sessions is compromised. I think he made some kind of a deal with Congress during his conformation hearing that he wouldn’t get involved in the Clinton Foundation or Hillary investigations. I believe that is the reason for his recusal.
Trump, well we’ve known from the beginning where his loyalties are. He has never made any attempt to hide his love for the jews and the Clintons.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/46/43/43/4...ide-comics.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
I think you nailed it perfectly Tumbleweed. At best the Bundys have been naive...
The government investigating itself . . . I am not sure this is a good thing. After Sessions patted Myhre on the back during his Vegas visit, I have bad feelings about this. Prosecutorial bungling is prosecutorial criminal activity, period.>:(
The judge needs to dismiss this case with prejudice. She probably won’t because of pressure from Harry Reid.
AG Sessions orders examination of Bundy case after mistrial over prosecution bungling
Posted on December 21, 2017 by Doug Knowles
AG Sessions orders examination of Bundy case after mistrial over prosecution bungling
Government failed to turn over evidence
https://i1.wp.com/itmattershowyousta...20%2C407&ssl=1
By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Attorney General Jeff Sessions stepped into the Bundy prosecution after Wednesday’s mistrial, ordering a third-party examination of the case in light of the latest government snafu.
“The attorney general takes this issue very seriously and has personally directed that an expert in the [Justice Department’s] discovery obligations be deployed to examine the case and advise as to the next steps,” said Ian D. Prior, the department’s principal deputy director of public affairs, in a late Wednesday statement.
The decision to intervene came after Chief U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial over the government’s “willful failure to disclose information” to the defense, saying it would have been “impossible” for the four co-defendants to receive a fair trial.
SEE ALSO: Mistrial bolster’s Bundy’s claim of federal persecution, gives prosecutors black eye
“Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process,” Judge Navarro said in the courtroom, the Arizona Republic reported. “A fair trial at this point is impossible.”
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and Ryan Payne of Montana have been charged with 15 felony counts stemming from the 2014 armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management at the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville.
The examination represents the first direct public intervention by the attorney general in the Nevada case, which began last year under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Acting U.S. Attorney Steven W. Myhre, who oversees the prosecution, said he welcomed the input from D.C.
“We respect the ruling of the court and take very seriously our discovery obligations,” Mr. Myhre said in a statement. “The office welcomes the assistance of the attorney general as we continue to evaluate the case in light of the court’s ruling.”
No deadline was given for the attorney general’s examination, but Judge Navarro set a Jan. 8 hearing on defense motions to dismiss the case. The next trial is tentatively scheduled to begin Feb. 26.
The case, which involves 19 defendants spread over three tiers, has been riddled with setbacks for the prosecution, including a previous mistrial, hung juries and acquittals on lesser figures in the April 2014 armed confrontation with BLM agents.
Judge Navarro said the prosecutors had willfully failed to disclose key evidence in the case, including FBI records about surveillance and government snipers at the Bundy ranch, activity logs, law enforcement threat assessments showing the Bundy family posed no threat of violence, and internal reports about BLM agent misconduct.
She dismissed the jury after seven weeks in the latest trial involving the second of the three tiers of co-defendants.
All four in the latest trial are considered leaders of the confrontation with the BLM, which began after agents tried to impound the ranch’s cattle following Cliven Bundy’s refusal for years to pay grazing fees in a protest over federal land management.
Share this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
- Replies: 1,685
- Views: 75,054
This GSUS thread, created and maintained by Monty, is probably the world wide web's most comprehensive single archive (with links) of this still-ongoing news story.
:o 75k views so far since 7th April 2014
I appreciate being able to follow the on going story and timeline of BS events in a one stop shopping event.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewboo
The thread was created by Ares. I have kept it up to date because I have witnessed the ever increasing abuse by the BLM against many of my friends an neighbors. I am not personally acquainted with either the Bundy or Finicum families except by email. Thanks Book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewboo
This blog details the last trial from Ryan Bundy's opening statement on through the mistrial. I just skimmed over it, it looks to be factual and very well done.
http://www.iwearacowboyhat.com/
David Knight talks about the Mistrial, seems to be blowing his own horn, ~ J Grady
Now we know the reason the persecution didn’t want to allow any discussion of water rights into evidence. Another BLM supervisor caught commiting perjury on the witness stand.
I remember Wayne Hage telling my brother and me that a rancher actually owns the forage rights in a 2 mile radius of his deeded water rights. Wayne found this doing research for his takings case in the Court of Federal Claims.
Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case
HOW MANY MORE VIOLATIONS WILL BE UNCOVERED BEFORE THIS CASE IS COMPLETELY FINISHED?
December 21, 2017 BLM, Federal Courts 2
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...lm-598x381.jpg
Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case
by Shari Dovale
A mistrial was declared in the Bunkerville Trial on December 20th with the prosecution, headed by Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, criticized by Judge Navarro for blatant violations of the law.
The violations go to BRADY v. MARYLAND in which the Supreme Court held that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence that is exculpatory to the defense.
We have heard about numerous violations, yet it does not end there. Ryan Bundy filed another motion to dismiss the case on December 19th based on yet another violation by the prosecution.
The government called witness Mary Jo Rugwell, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District Manager for Southern Nevada from April 2008 through August 2012, to the stand in November. The cross examination revealed several points:
First by Cliven Bundy’s attorney, Bret Whipple:
Whipple: You had a meeting with Mr. Tom Collins and others?
Rugwell: Yes.
Whipple: Do you recall what Mr. Collins said about water rights?
Rugwell: He said he believed Mr. Bundy should have access to water rights.
Whipple: Who owns the water rights on Gold Butte?
Rugwell: I do not know.
Whipple : There were range improvements on each and every spring?
Rugwell: I don’t know. I can’t say that there are range improvements on every spring.
Then, Ammon Bundy attorney, Morgan Philpot followed up with:
Philpot: Did you do any research into stock watering rights.
Rugwell: I did not.
Philpot: Are you aware that Mr. Bundy had stock watering rights?
Rugwell: I’d heard that, but it was not relevant. This was a trespass issue. I never looked into any stock watering rights myself.
And there was redirect testimony by Prosecutor Daniel Schiess:
Schiess: You have been asked about stock watering rights. Do you have any information on who owns water rights?
Rugwell: No, I don’t.
Rugwell was very clear and concise in her testimony:
- She knew absolutely nothing about water rights
- She never investigated Bundy’s water rights
- She did not know who owned the water rights.
-
However, a man from Arizona happen to request some documents from the Nevada State Water Resources Board that proved Rugwell’s testimony to be false.
Included on these documents was correspondence with Mary Jo Rugwell in 2008. These letters show that not only did Rugwell, in her capacity as head of the BLM in the District, not only investigated Cliven Bundy’s water rights on Gold Butte, but attempted to eliminate them, as well.
Rugwell tried to have Bundy’s water rights canceled simply because he was not a current grazing-permit holder, as recognized by the BLM.
Rugwell’s testimony was clearly intended to convince the jury that Bundy had no rights to use the public lands in question, yet his rights predated the BLM. She knew this as is shown by her prior investigation, of which she denied on the witness stand under oath.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...-4-236x300.jpg
Read Motion here
The court orders that are continuously referenced by the prosecution do not authorize the destruction of the water infrastructure and improvements.
These letters prove that the BLM recognized the fact that Cliven Bundy owned vested property rights! He had legal right to use these lands, even though the government does not want the public to understand this.
These letters are exculpatory evidence. By not turning them over to the defense, the prosecution AGAIN violated the Brady rule.
This evidence could have easily been used to impeach the testimony of Mary Jo Rugwell and shown her to be untruthful.
What will Judge Gloria Navarro do now? Will she hold Rugwell up on perjury charges? What about Steven Myhre and Daniel Schiess? They knew her testimony was false when they put her on the stand and elicited these answers. Will they be held accountable?
How many more violations will be uncovered before this case is completely finished?
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Larry Klayman’s letter published in WND.com adds further proof of the intentional ineffectiveness of AG Jeff Sessions whose priorities are anti marijuana pro asset forfeiture.
AG Sessions: End Bundy prosecution now!
Exclusive: Larry Klayman's open letter to DOJ chief results in plan to review case
Larry Klayman About | Email | Archive
Published: 13 hours ago
LAW OF THE LAND
Via Hand Delivery, Email and Federal Express
Dec. 21, 2017
URGENT | FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Gross Prosecutorial Misconduct and Non-Meritorious Charges Against Cliven Bundy Which Now Require Dismissal of All Criminal Charges, An Ethics Investigation, And The Termination and Prosecution of Department Prosecutors.
Dear Jeff:
As you know, shortly after your confirmation as attorney general early this year, we spoke by phone. During our conversation, I requested that you review the criminal prosecution of my client Cliven Bundy and by extension his sons Ryan, Ammon, Dave and Mel, as well as the other defendants. I explained that this prosecution was unwarranted, it apparently having been forced on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch by former President Barack Obama and then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The latter had defamed the Bundy family as “domestic terrorists” after they and their supporters waged a successful peaceful armed protest, as a result of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents, many of whom were paid mercenaries and snipers, invaded Bunkerville with the intent and purpose of seizing their cattle, denying them their grazing and water rights, and thus forcing the Bundys off the land they had ranched for around 150 years.
I added that it appeared to me and many others that the prosecution was political in nature, since it had been reported that Harry Reid and his son Rory, a Las Vegas lawyer, were attempting to arrange an “under the table deal” to sell the land to Chinese environmental interests. In addition, after the successful standoff, provoked by BLM armed agents who had threatened the lives of the Bundy family, violently assaulted Cliven’s sister, Margaret, tased and attacked two of his sons, viciously kicked and harmed the family dog and killed dozens of the bulls in the ranch’s herd, it became apparent that President Obama, as he revealed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner a few weeks later, was offended when Cliven had equated his family’s treatment to the “Negro in the old South.” See Obama video at www.clivenbundydefensefund.org.
I thus asked that you undertake a neutral, unbiased review of the case to determine if it warranted continued prosecution. You promised to me that you would undertake this review, but would of course have to consult with the Acting U.S. Attorney in Las Vegas, Steven Myhre, and well as me. I responded that this was understood.
However, after you made this commitment to me, and had agreed that we could meet at some later time, you reneged on your commitment. Despite my many attempts to schedule a meeting with you through your “scheduler,” Erical, you avoided me. Instead, at a press conference concerning your sanctuary cities policies, while you were at the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Las Vegas, you praised the courage of the acting U.S. attorney and the assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to the case, and then added, incredulously, that nevertheless “I am not taking sides.”
Your inaction and acquiescence to this prosecution has now come back to tarnish not just the reputation Steven Myhre and his staff, but your office. As you may know – and I am not confident that all of the facts have been provided to you by Steven Myhre – after the trial began last October, testimony forced from BLM and FBI agents on the witness stand revealed that crucial exculpatory evidence, called by criminal defense lawyers “Brady material” – evidence which would go to show Cliven’s and the other defendants innocence – had been shredded, hidden and secreted. It was later learned that Myhre and his prosecutors in particular intentionally suppressed this Brady material.
In the last week, through an ethically troubled BLM whistleblower who came forward as a matter of conscience, Larry “Clint” Wooten, it was also disclosed that BLM and the FBI had put the Bundys on a “kill list,” mocked and disparaged their Mormon faith, and bragged about assaulting and waging a violent invasion of their land, as well as harming them. To make matters ethically and legally worse, Myhre and his staff also suppressed this whistleblower report documenting BLM and FBI gross misconduct and indeed criminal behavior.
In short, your prosecutors in Nevada not just condoned the hiding and destruction of evidence that could lead to my client’s acquittal, but they themselves engaged in obstruction of justice through a cover-up. Importantly, Myhre and his staff committed crimes in furtherance of attempting to falsely convict Cliven Bundy. Incredibly, if convicted on all counts, Cliven and his sons would be sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.
This gross prosecutorial conduct prompted me to file complaints with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the Inspector General (IG), which are encharged to investigate and remedy unethical and otherwise illegal conduct by your employees. When OPR and IG refused to even acknowledge the receipt of my complaint, I was forced to file suit in federal court. To try to settle the case, I suggested to the Department lawyer, Daniel Schaefer, defending the complaint, that we agree that OPR and IG simply agree to investigate this unethical and illegal conduct. However, AUSA Schaefer refused, and the judge, an Obama appointee, then refused to order the investigation. The transcript of my hearing last Tuesday before this judge, Rudolph Contreras, can be found, along with the full sordid history of this flawed and criminally tainted political prosecution, at www.clivenbundydefensefund.org.
Last Thursday, the federal judge, Gloria Navarro, in Las Vegas presiding over the trial, also an Obama appointee (who had been recommended by Harry Reid to Obama), was forced to declare a mistrial because of this unethical and gross prosecutorial misconduct by Myhre and his staff, as well as involved BLM and FBI agents. Given her partisanship, Judge Navarro, who had been sarcastically described by the neutral Las Vegas Review Journal as being a “friend of the prosecution,” since she previously had shown great bias in favor of Myhre and his staff during previous related cases, refused to dismiss the indictment but instead predictably decided to retry Cliven, his sons, and the other defendants. Importantly, she did, however, find that the prosecutorial misconduct of Myhre and his staff was “willful.”
As you know and should appreciate as a former U.S. attorney in Mobile, Alabama, the level of unethical gross prosecutorial conduct revealed in the last weeks should have warranted an outright dismissal, with prejudice, of the indictments. The only reason, in my opinion, that Judge Navarro did not so rule, is because as a Harry Reid and Obama “protégé,” her political bias and allegiance to them could not bring her to take this required action.
Cliven and his sons, who have been and were unjustly imprisoned for over two years by this judge, were also denied their speedy trial rights. And to make matters considerably worse, Cliven was also denied his right to counsel, meaning me, as Navarro had denied my pro hac vice application to enter the case on his behalf as an out of state counsel. Outrageously, “your” Justice Department opposed my entry pro hac vice as well. While I have been active in other important capacities, I am still appealing this decision to exclude me as counsel of record. This violation of Sixth Amendment rights, coupled with the manifest other constitutional violations of due process and equal protection under the law, urgently require that you now conduct the review which you committed to do and order Myhre to withdraw the charges.
In addition, it is incumbent that you also direct the Department’s OPR and the IG to now conduct an ethics investigation and mete out appropriate strong disciplinary sanctions against Myhre and his staff, as well as the involved complicit FBI agents. It is hoped that after a thorough investigation, that you will fire and thus prevent them from doing further harm to not just the Bundys, but also the public at large. They also should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, as they are not above the law.
Jeff, in the interests of justice, much less fundamental fairness, it is now incumbent that you do your job. To put it bluntly, the time has come to “take sides.” This travesty must end now. And, you have a duty to restore the integrity of the Department, of which I, like you, am a proud alumnus.
I look forward to your finally taking this “corrupt bull of an unjust prosecution by the horns” (no pun intended), before further deprivation of constitutional rights and more severe damage damage is done to my client, Cliven Bundy, his sons, as well as the other defendants.
Sincerely,
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Counsel for Cliven Bundy
cc: Counselor to the Attorney General Brian Morrissey
NOTE: Hours after this letter was delivered, Attorney General Sessions issued a statement that he would finally conduct a review of the Bundy prosecution!
Go to www.clivenbundydefensefund.org to support Bundy defense.
Myhre has a history of witholding evidence. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..." John Dahlberg-Acton
BOMBSHELL: Myhre Has A History of Brady Violations
WITH A HISTORY OF HIDING EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENSE, ISN'T IT TIME TO PROSECUTE THE PROSECUTORS?
December 23, 2017 BLM, FBI, Featured, Federal Courts 6
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u.../2017/12/X.jpg
BOMBSHELL: Myhre Has A History of Brady Violations
by Shari Dovale
In the recent mistrial of the Bunkerville Standoff case in Las Vegas, Judge Gloria Navarro harshly rebuked Acting US attorney Steven Myhre for his blatant Brady violations and refusal to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Exculpatory evidence is information that is critical to the defense case. It could change the way the attorneys present their cases, change the theory of the case, impact jury selection, and even exonerate the defendants completely.
Prosecutors are well aware of the legal requirements to turn over this evidence, though they know that by doing so they could be crushing their own case in the process.
This brings up the question of whether they are “Finders of Fact” as they should be, or if they are only interested in gaining a conviction. The current Federal conviction rate is above 97% overall, with the majority being plea agreements. Defendants are overcharged with crimes so they will be more amenable to taking plea agreements.
In the case of the current Bunkerville Trial, Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, as well as Ryan Payne, have been held for nearly 2 years in pretrial detention, and Cliven is still there.
The case was declared a mistrial on December 20th, with Judge Navarro finding that the prosecution “willfully” suppressed potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information from the defense.
This are serious allegations that could lead to a multitude of punishments. Something that should be considered when they are looking at sanctions, etc. would be the prosecution’s history of Brady abuses.
In the case of US v. Chapman, Steven Myhre was, again, the Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada. He was in charge of the case and controlled all aspects of the case.
The case centered around securities fraud. On August 8, 2003, a grand jury in the District of Nevada returned a sixty-four-count indictment charging that Defendants allegedly created multiple shell corporations, back-dated corporate records to make their activities appear lawful, and named dummy directors and officers who had no actual control over the corporations and in some cases did not even know of their existence.
But, as in the Bunkerville Standoff trial, this case lead to a mistrial due to the prosecution ~ headed by Steven Myhre ~ not disclosing vital exculpatory evidence.
During the mistrial hearing, Chapman’s attorney alerted the court to hundreds of pages of documents that the government had delivered that morning and the previous evening. They totaled some 650 pages and consisted of rap sheets, plea agreements, cooperation agreements, and other information related to numerous government witnesses, including at least three important witnesses whose testimony was already complete.
This case resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. The government prosecutors ~ headed by Steven Myhre ~ attempted to appeal this decision. The appellate court upheld the ruling and stated clearly:
This is prosecutorial misconduct in its highest form; conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution; and conduct which should be deterred by the strongest sanction available.
Obviously, the powers that be did not heed the advice of the 9th Circuit. Myhre continued on in his current capacity. How many more violations will we find as we search his history?
It seems that the District of Nevada has little to no concern for the Constitutional rights of defendants. With a history of hiding evidence from the defense, isn’t it time to prosecute the prosecutors? Who will hold Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre accountable for his lawlessness?
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Bille Goode opines on the future of public lands, Bundy Ranch, Bureau of Land Management, or “What's at Stake in the Bundy Trial?”
https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f0&oe=5ABD0904
Bill Goode is with Ammon Bundy.
Yesterday at 11:04am
WHATS AT STAKE IN THE BUNDY TRIAL?
To be sure no lawyer wants to lose a case, so certainly the prosecution does not want to lose in Las Vegas. However, the stakes are much broader than that for both sides. The very survival of the BLM itself is at stake.
The BLM was established in 1946, merging the US Grazing Service (est 1934) and the General Land Office (est 1812) into a single agency, presumably to manage public lands, as its name would suggest. It did that for a while, but it does very little land management today - Ask any rancher. Instead the BLM today manages other federal agencies that manage public lands, ie National Park Service, National Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service.
At a public hearing I attended about a year & a half ago, National Park and National Forest representatives acknowledged that all land improvements under their jurisdiction must be cleared through the BLM. The Fish & Wildlife Service was not represented at the hearing, but I would presume, based on experience and observations at the Malheur Refuge standoff, that the Fish & Wildlife Service would fall in line with these other agencies under the BLM.
What is commonly called BLM land are public lands outside those agencies and has not been allocated specifically for conservation and / or recreational purposes by the President or Congress. These are the primary lands that ranchers graze their cattle on, though the Forest Service and Park Service lands also have grazing allotments on their lands.
National Monuments come under the jurisdiction of any of these agencies. Thus the BLM creates its own National Monuments, including Gold Butte and Bears Ears. Additionally the the BLM has designated (on its own without Presidential or Congressional approval) some 749 BLM land areas as "Wilderness Study Areas" and "Wilderness Areas". These areas have presumably been dedicated for conservation purposes as the category names would suggest. However mineral studies are done in those areas for potential mining activity, but the BLM disallows ranch grazing to take place on these areas.
When the Bundys are finally declared innocent in the Las Vegas trial, that will only conclude the legal status of individuals involved in the Bunkerville standoff. Then there is Cliven's suit and the suits of other standoff defendants against the DOJ that must be decided in court.
However, the most significant issue after the current Las Vegas trial will be the legal status of the Bundy Ranch itself. The legal status of the Bundy Ranch is now held in abeyance, despite the return of the Bundy cattle. The Bunkerville grazing allotment was officially closed by the BLM after the standoff, though the Bundy cattle do still graze on that land. So that's a conflict that must be resolved.
The BLM could restore the Bunkerville grazing allotment for which Cliven was declining to pay grazing fees to the BLM. So such a restoration would not resolve anything. We would simply be back at the point in 1993 when Cliven stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM and sent the fees to Clark County instead, which has declined to cash Cliven's check.
Of course we know the area lawfully belongs to the State of Nevada per the state's Enabling Act of 1864. But will the BLM give up control of this area easily? Not likely.
If the BLM were ordered to surrender that land to either Clark County or Nevada, just think of the precedent that would set. Just think of all the millions of acres of BLM public lands being grazed.by ranchers. If grazing lands were turned over to states and / or counties, the BLM would lose control of those 155 million acres, an area almost as big as Texas. This is what the feds are fighting to keep - control over public lands and the very existence of the BLM itself.
https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...33&oe=5AFDDD91
48 Likes6 Comments86 Shares
New motions unsealed in Bundy Trial detail persecutions violations. The Oregonion. Maxine Bernstein
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
In a July 5 email, Ryan Payne's lawyers asked prosecutors for copies of all threat assessments prepared before the April 2014 standoff between Cliven Bundy's supporters and federal officers trying to impound Bundy's cattle for years of failing to pay grazing fees and fines.
Prosecutors characterized the defendants' continued push for the assessments as another in their "long list of frivolous and vexatious pleadings.''
Prosecutors didn't turn over the assessments to Payne, Bundy and Bundy's two sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, until the four were in the midst of a trial last month and a government witness under cross-examination acknowledged familiarity with one of the reports.
The threat assessments by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, the Southern Nevada Counterterrorism Task Force, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and Gold Butte Cattle Impound Risk Assessment found the Bundys weren't likely to use violence.
They were just one example of the prosecution team's callous disregard of its constitutional obligations to share with the defense any potentially favorable evidence, according to Payne's lawyers, assistant federal public defenders Brenda Weksler and Ryan Norwood.
The date of the defense attorneys' initial request for the crucial threat reports and their late disclosure is among the information revealed in newly unsealed motions by Payne's lawyers to dismiss the case.
The motions contain redactions throughout as the trial judge had requested.
The paperwork discloses that prosecutors had sought to continue the trial, once U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro on Dec. 11 signaled she was concerned about more than a handful of potential evidence violations by the government attorneys.
Prosecutors argued that much of the material turned over late to the defense was "irrelevant'' and that the defense theories that the Bundys recruited militia to the Bunkerville area in 2014 because they feared federal snipers or federal surveillance weren't valid legal arguments.
Instead, Navarro on Dec. 20 declared a mistrial, finding at least six types of Brady discovery violations and that prosecutors "willfully'' withheld the evidence, resulting in due process violations. She set a hearing for Jan. 8 to determine if the case should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be retried. The government and defendants have until Friday to file their written arguments.
The unsealed motions filed by Payne's lawyers also signal what his lawyers are likely to argue in Friday's legal brief: that prosecutors repeatedly failed to abide by deadlines set to share favorable evidence with the defense, were dismissive of specific requests for evidence, engaged in a "pattern to ridicule and disparage the defense'' requests and then made "brazen proffers'' to the court that specific information sought didn't exist, only to find out later they were mistaken.
Further, the government has continually failed to take responsibility for its misconduct, Weksler argued in a December motion.
"Here the government cannot seem to recognize what constitutes Brady material, maintains it has done nothing wrong, blames the defense for improper and 'late demands,' and for 'filing serial motions to dismiss based on proclaimed discovery violations,' '' Payne's lawyers wrote. "This Court should be 'troubled' by the government's actions and its 'failure to grasp the severity of the prosecutorial misconduct' involved here, as well as the importance of its constitutionally imposed discovery obligations.''
Beyond the threat assessments, other evidence that defendants obtained "piecemeal'' during the trial included information about an FBI surveillance camera on a hill overlooking the Bundy home with a live-feed image viewed in a command center and snipers positioned outside the Bundy ranch.
Those would have bolstered the defense argument that Payne summoned militia members and supporters to Nevada because he feared the Bundys were surrounded by federal officers and isolated before the April 12, 2014, standoff.
The information also directly refutes the federal indictment, which alleges the Bundys and Payne used deceit to draw supporters, by falsely claiming snipers were surrounding the Bundy home.
The threat assessments, as well as evidence on a surveillance camera and federal snipers, also wasn't shared with the defendants prosecuted in two earlier Nevada trials this year, Payne's attorneys pointed out.
"It bears reminding that this Court sentenced one of these defendants in the Trial 1 group to 68 years and another one is pending sentencing,'' Weksler and Norwood wrote.
The government's delay in turning over the evidence prejudiced Payne and his co-defendants, his lawyers argued. The material would have been helpful for Payne's opening statement to jurors and to impeach the government's first witness, Mary Jo Rugwell, former head of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management office in southern Nevada, who referenced one of the threat assessments. She was cross-examined and excused as a government witness before the defense got the report.
The Bundys and Payne are charged with federal conspiracy to impede federal land managers through intimidation, threat or force, assault on a federal officer and extortion stemming from the standoff.
Here's some other details from the motions:
-- Prosecutors dismissed a defense request for an Office of Inspector General's report on fired Bureau of Land Management agent Dan Love as something of an "urban legend.'' In early December, though, prosecutors turned over nearly 500 pages of internal affairs reports on Love.
-- After Rugwell, the Bureau of Land Management manager, testified in November, prosecutors sent defense lawyers an email on Dec. 1, saying they inadvertently had forgotten to share notes the FBI had taken prior to Rugwell's testimony when she was being prepped as a witness. In those notes, Rugwell referenced a 2012 FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit Threat Assessment. Rugwell also referenced it during testimony. Defense lawyers demanded a copy of the assessment after Rugwell testified, yet prosecutors questioned its relevance before they were ordered to share it with the defense.
"The defense is anxious to learn how, even based on that discussion alone, it did not occur to the government to turn over information it knew the witness was relying on,'' Payne's lawyers wrote in their motion.
-- By late November, the defense had asked the court at least twice to appoint a "discovery monitor'' to make sure defendants were receiving all the evidence they were entitled to receive. None was appointed.
However, a day after the judge declared a mistrial, the U.S. Department of Justice released a statement saying Attorney General Jeff Sessions took "this issue very seriously and has personally directed that an expert in the Department's discovery obligations'' be sent to Las Vegas to examine the case and provide advice as to next steps.
-- Payne's lawyers briefly suggest that a Nov. 29 whistleblower memo from a Bureau of Land Management agent, complaining that the U.S. Attorney's Office didn't want to hear about potential evidence being withheld by his agency, should disqualify the prosecutors from future work on this case, if it's allowed to be retried.
-- The U.S. Attorney's guidelines on sharing evidence in criminal trials state prosecutors' obligations clearly: "It is the obligation of federal prosecutors, in preparing for trial, to seek all exculpatory and impeachment information from all members of the prosecution team. Members of the prosecution team include federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and other government officials participating in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against the defendant.''
DOCUMENTS UNSEALED WEDNESDAY:
- Ryan Payne motion to dismiss based on discovery provided Nov. 17, 2017
- Ryan Payne motion to dismiss based on discovery provided Nov. 21, 2017
- Ryan Payne motion to dismiss based on continuing pattern of evidence violations
- Ryan Payne reply to a government response to motion to dismiss
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
“A fair trial at this point is impossible - Sessions orders examination of Bundy case ~ Real Liberty Media
Advance to 1:30:00 to listen to Sessions orders examination . . .
Power hungry Myhre appeals to Judge Navarro to retry Bundys, says evidence violations were ‘inadvertent’. ~ Maxine Bernstein @ Oregonlive
NV prosecutors seek new trial against Bundys, say evidence violations were 'inadvertent'
By Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
The Oregonian/OregonLive
Updated 11:46 AM; Posted 12:13 AM
Prosecutors on Friday urged a federal judge to allow them to retry Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a fourth man, arguing that any failure to provide evidence to the defense in the last trial was simply "inadvertent'' or because they reasonably believed the law didn't require them to share the material.
"The Brady violations found by the court are regrettable and benefit no one,'' Nevada's Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre wrote in a 55-page legal brief. "But because the government neither flagrantly violated nor recklessly disregarded its obligations, the appropriate remedy for such violations is a new trial.''
The prosecutors claim they couldn't simply turn over all the material, citing "harassment and threats'' made to witnesses, victims and officers in the case who would be in jeopardy if personal information got out, especially on social media.
They also cited the massive volume of documents, videos and emails from two federal agencies and Las Vegas and Nevada law enforcement agencies that they needed to cull, and the constraints of the U.S. attorney's "low-tech'' database.
The 1.5 terabytes of information shared with defense was "by far the largest review and disclosure operation'' in the history of the Nevada's U.S. Attorney's Office, Myhre wrote.
Prosecutors argued that the six Brady violations found by the judge encompass "one small portion of the discovery'' and that the defendants can proceed with a new trial and "all the information they're entitled to."
The legal brief represents the prosecution team's first significant comments since U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro declared a mistrial last week in the case brought by the government against Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy and Ryan Payne in the April 2014 armed standoff with federal officers.
Prosecutors are undertaking a substantial review of all their evidence and will share any further reports it may discover, they noted. The Brady law, named for the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to turn over all evidence that may prove favorable to defendants.
"The government takes its discovery obligations seriously,'' Myhre wrote. "The government seeks justice on the merits of a case, not through dodging discovery rules and technicalities, or by obscuring violations if and when they may occur.''
Defense lawyers said the harm caused by the violations and the prosecution's continued failure to accept responsibility demand a dismissal of all the charges against the four men. They were indicted last year on conspiracy and other allegations, accused of rallying militia members and armed supporters to stop federal agents from impounding Bundy cattle. Officers were acting on a court order filed after Cliven Bundy failed to pay grazing fees and fines for two decades.
"The government's irresponsible and, at times, false proffers to this court as well as its dismissiveness toward the defense inspires no confidence in the prospect of fairness," Brenda Weksler, an assistant federal public defender representing Payne, wrote on behalf of all the defendants. "Anything short of a dismissal is tantamount of condoning the government's behavior in this case. ... Dismissal is the only way to ensure such conduct will not happen again.''
The judge found the prosecutors' violations were "willful,'' and led to due process violations. She said they waited too long to provide FBI and other agency reports and maps on surveillance, including a camera and snipers, outside the Bundy ranch, threat assessments that indicated the Bundys weren't violent and nearly 500 pages of internal affairs documents involving U.S. Bureau of Land Management special agent Dan Love, who led the cattle roundup. He has since been fired from the agency for unrelated misconduct.
Both sides are expected to return before Navarro on Jan. 8 for a hearing to determine whether the government will be allowed to retry the case.
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
Mistrial declared in Cliven Bundy standoff case
"The court does regrettably believe a mistrial in this case is the most suitable and only remedy,'' U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro declared.
Myhre wrote that the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office began working in October 2014 to collect investigative documents from the Bureau of Land Management and FBI, as well as historical documents related to Cliven Bundy's long-running grazing dispute. The combined database contained more than 30,000 documents or 250,000 pages.
In addition to that database, there were 45 search warrants that generated more than 500,000 pages of affidavits and evidence lists, more than 82,000 emails and 75 videos, including bodycam and dashcam videos from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Highway Patrol.
The prosecution team looked through all the information with witness protection in mind, their legal motion said.
"The prosecution team went 'low tech,' spending hundreds of hours conducting word searches for documents, reviewing documents one at a time for relevant information and tagging documents individually for relevancy and future production," Myhre wrote.
Prosecutors also believed the court's restrictions barring self-defense arguments during earlier standoff trials this year meant they didn't have to share information about certain aspects of the law enforcement response.
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
Rebuke of U.S. attorneys in Cliven Bundy case: 'Every prosecutor's nightmare'
If ever there was a time when federal prosecutors needed to make sure they acted with complete integrity it was in the high-stakes Bundy case, legal observers say. The defendants already held a deep distrust of the government and had successfully rallied followers to their cause.
The prosecutors said, for instance, they didn't become aware until Nov. 10 of a Tactical Operations Center log that referred to a surveillance camera outside the Bundy home - it was found on a thumb drive left in a federal vehicle -- and still don't consider it relevant to the Bundys' defense. It contained four notations from observations on April 5 and April 6, 2014, largely noting the type of vehicles arriving and that a Bundy was seen outside on the phone.
"The government argued in good faith that the information was not material, and this court concluded that it was. That may make the government wrong, but being wrong does not equate to bad faith, nor does it show a flagrant disregard of the government's discovery obligations," Myhre wrote.
As for documents referencing snipers or maps of officers' positions, some of the information was contained in earlier reports that had been shared on time, showing the prosecution's actions weren't done for "tactical advantage," Myhre wrote.
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...53.03%20PM.png
A footnote from the prosecutors' legal brief, regarding what they say they shared in the first two trials about the existence of federal snipers.
The judge, in her ruling, was concerned that the government had denied the snipers' presence near the Bundy Ranch in the first two trials, and at the start of the third trial.
The prosecution also didn't think the threat assessments would be helpful to the defense, the memo said. Some were done as early as 2012 and considered "stale" and irrelevant, he wrote.
The threat assessments have proven a source of significant arguments between the prosecution and defense. A 2012 FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit assessment concluded there was a "low to moderate risk of violence" by Cliven Bundy at that time and that the Bureau of Land Management was "trying to provoke a conflict." A separate FBI operations order described Cliven Bundy "as not being violent based on past history, but if backed into a corner could be" and that Ryan Bundy "could be violent." A BLM law enforcement assessment said the Bundys "will probably get in your face'' but not engage in a shootout. A Gold Butte Risk report referenced media talking points for the BLM to stay ahead of negative publicity that apparently were not used.
http://expo.advance.net/img/711b6535...ortland036.JPG
Unsealed motions in NV Bundy case detail prosecution's violations
Late Wednesday, defendant Ryan Payne's defense lawyers effectively unsealed three motions to dismiss that they had filed under seal in late November and early December in U.S. District Court in Nevada.
The prosecution also sought to explain its dismissive response to Ryan Bundy's pretrial motion, which sought any information on "mysterious devices" outside the Bundy ranch, as a "fantastical fishing expedition."
The words referred to Ryan Bundy's request for the make and model of every piece of equipment and his "speculat[ion]" that the camera was being used to "paint" the Bundy home "for artillery or [aerial] target acquisition," Myhre wrote. He added that his team never suggested "the Court's request'' for information about the camera was a "fantastical fishing expedition.''
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...34.37%20PM.png
Excerpt of government's legal brief, explaining why prosecutors characterized the defense's request for an Office of Inspector General report as an "urban legend.''
They said the report was not identified as such, but instead as an internal report by the Bureau of Land Management. That's why they couldn't locate it until this month, they said.
In the weeks leading up to the April 12, 2014, standoff, more than 100 law enforcement officers were involved in providing security, prosecutors said. They acknowledged they "inadvertently" didn't share federal reports on Bureau of Land Management officers, dressed in tactical gear and armed with AR-15 rifles, on observation posts near the Bundy ranch before trial, but noted that some of the information was contained in another Bureau of Land Management operation report shared in May. It described as many as five officers on listening/observation posts around the Bundy ranch.
They said it was "simply an oversight'' they didn't share a 2015 report on a BLM agent who was on watch in tactical gear east of the Bundy ranch in early April 2014 with a rifle and using a "seismic sensor,'' to alert him and another of cars traveling on Old Gold Butte Road, or the report about another land agent on "roving assignment'' near the impound center during that time.
Myhre wrote that "it was not apparent'' that these reports were helpful to the defense in challenging their federal conspiracy, assault or other charges, which resulted from actions that occurred several miles from the Bundy ranch.
The defense, however, said the prosecution's behavior "was instrinsically wrong and has defeated the ends of justice."
Defense lawyers pointed out that the judge already found that the FBI knew of the evidence that was withheld and that there were federal prosecutors present during interviews of officers whose reports were not disclosed.
"The government's untimely disclosures came almost four years after the government began its investigation, and almost two years after the government secured its indictment. Based on the indictment, the defendants lost almost two years of their lives in custody,'' Weksler wrote.
The prosecution's failure to recognize what material needed to be shared with the defense, she wrote, "affects cases beyond the one in question and is emblematic of a much larger problem.''
The government shouldn't be allowed a "do-over'' with a different jury, now that it's more familiar with the Bundys' and Payne's defense theories and how the defense worked to eliminate potential jurors, she wrote. Based on questions some jurors posed to witnesses during the trial that was halted, Weksler wrote that it appeared the government's case was "faltering.''
"The government cannot be fairly given another bite at the apple as a result of its own flagrant misconduct,'' Weksler wrote.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
DOCUMENTS FILED FRIDAY:
PROSECUTION -
--Prosecution's opposition to dismissal
Prosecution's exhibits filed with motion opposing dismissal:
--Exhibit on Tactical Operations Center log
--Exhibit on maps
--Another exhibit on maps
--Exhibit on back-and-forth defense/prosecution emails regarding threat assessments
--Exhibit on email to Cliven Bundy's defense lawyer Bret Whipple
--Exhibit including partial transcript from Nov. 21 court hearing on snipers/threat assessments
--Exhibit on 'Mission 18- Bundy residence,' Gold Butte communications information
--Exhibit on BLM letter explaining why no Office of Inspector General case number for what became BLM investigation into 2009 complaint about agency not taking action to protect desert tortoise
--Notice of the Nevada U.S. attorney's chief appellate lawyer, assistant U.S. attorney Elizabeth White, being added to the prosecution team
DEFENSE
--Ryan Payne's defense motion for dismissal
--Ryan Bundy's motion for dismissal of indictment
http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...12.48%20AM.png
Map provided late to defense in Nevada trial that shows drop posts (DP) where federal law enforcement officers were placed for 2014 cattle impoundment.
Screenshot of above map http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-s...12.48%20AM.png
Will Judge Navarro dismiss cases against all 19 defendants? Shari Dovale
Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants?
HOW DEEP DOES THIS COVER-UP GO? WAS IT ALL FROM STEVEN MYHRE, OR WAS NAVARRO COMPLICIT?
December 30, 2017 Constitution, Featured, Federal Courts, Opinion 1
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...er-678x381.jpg
Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants?
By Shari Dovale
The recent mistrial in the case of US v CLIVEN D. BUNDY et al. Sets some issues on the table for Judge Gloria Navarro that she has avoided thus far.
The mistrial came on December 20th, weeks into the case that was the third try for the government. Prosecutors, including Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, AUSA Daniel Scheiss, AUSAA Nadia Ahmed, and AUSA Erin Creegan, have had extraordinary difficulty in getting juries to convict any of the 19 defendants.
There have been no convictions on the most serious charges of conspiracy, and the only convictions that have been handed down were admittedly based on the defendants statements after the fact, such as within the entrapment video by the FBI and there phony “Longbow Productions”.
The most significant achievements by the prosecution was the plea agreements that several of the defendants accepted, based on the false narrative the prosecution alleged. The men were told they would face a lifetime in prison, and they already knew that they would not receive a fair trial. They were bullied into accepting the plea agreements.
Yes, the defendants already knew they would not receive a fair trial. They had access to the discovery evidence and knew some of what had been left out They filed motions to get certain evidence placed into the record, yet Judge Gloria Navarro continued to rubber-stamp the prosecutions motions.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...re-150x150.jpg
Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada, Steven Myhre (right)
Navarro never seemed to consider that these men were innocent until proven guilty. The more she validated the prosecutions narrative, the more she denied the defendants their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. This should come as no surprise, however, considering she repeatedly refused to allow the Constitution to be mentioned during the first two trials.
Things did change during the third trial, which brought Cliven Bundy to the defense table. The prosecution seemed to have lost their edge as the new team of defense lawyers, which includes a stellar performanceby Ryan Bundy, challenged the rhetoric that Myhre and company continued ranting.
Evidence was finally allowed into the trial of the misdeeds of the government, and the prosecutions deliberate suppression of this evidence. Judge Navarro made it clear on December 20th that the Court, “does find that it was a willful disclosure/suppression of this potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information”.
Navarro finally came clean and smacked the prosecution for the “willful” Brady violations. This means that she recognizes that the Acting US Attorney for the entire District of Nevada, Steven Myhre, and his crew of miscreants, deliberately broke the law and tried to illegally railroad these men into prison for the rest of their life.
Still, Navarro has shown that she is not quite up to speed on the workings of the judicial system, a hard pill to swallow for a seated Chief Judge. She made a blanket declaration of a mistrial, instructing all parties to submit motions for and against a dismissal with prejudice, or whether the government should be allowed yet another bite at the proverbial apple.
What Navarro should have done is follow Rule 26.3 which states that “Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives.” Navarro bypassed this rule and did it her own way, which is exactly what the prosecutors have done all along, and she has allowed.
However, since the truth has begun to come out, Navarro has been put into a position to make some hard choices.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...en-150x150.jpg
Cliven Bundy
The original indictment was against 19 men. Some of these men have already been sentenced, such as Jerry DeLemus and Greg Burleson. If Navarro dismisses the case against the current defendants, will it include the dismissal for all 19 men?
The general consensus seems to be that this is the only ethical answer to the problem. The previous trials were conducted under the same false premise and Brady violations. The plea agreements were based on the defendants not being allowed a fair trial.
But, how deep does this cover-up go? Did Steven Myhre design this farce on his own? This might seem the obvious response, as the case being cited for Brady violations is US v Chapman, a case that Myhre was intimately involved in.
Still, we must ask the next questions: Was Navarro complicit? Were they taking their orders from a higher entity, possibly from Washington DC?
With the announced investigation by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I am sure these questions will be answered in the coming weeks. For now, the defendants will continue to fight for their freedom.
Defendants that are scheduled for sentencing are requesting delays, so as to see the outcome of the January 8th hearing. This include Pete Santilli and Todd Engel. The remaining defendants are showing patience through this hearing, wherein they will decide their next move.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Myhre Begs Navarro for Another Chance
Myhre Begs Navarro For Another Chance
WHAT WILL MYHRE DO TO SAVE HIMSELF? WHO WILL HE THROW UNDER THE BUS?
December 30, 2017 Constitution, Featured, Federal Courts, Opinion 2
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...er-678x381.jpg
Myhre Begs Navarro For Another Chance
Editorial by Shari Dovale
Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada Steven Myhre filed a brief outlining his reasons that he should be allowed to retry the defendants in the Bunkerville Standoff trial.
This is quite the masterful work of a desperate man. Clearly he believes that overwhelming the court with a brief so large that it requires a table of contents may hide the truth of the words themselves.
Not only does he repeatedly imply that did he not intend to violate the law, but, in his opinion, it really did not have a substantial impact on the defendants.
This sounds suspiciously like Hillary’s infamous response, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Let us not forget that the case that continues to be cited for prosecutorial misconduct, US v Chapman, is a case where Steven Myhre was also the lead prosecutor. This is his history. This is his strategy. Hiding evidence from the defense seems to be his well-established nature as a prosecutor.
To be sure, Myhre does not deny the violations made by him and his team. But, he does downplay them to the point of barely mistakes. Using terms like “simple inadvertence” suggests that the blatant lawlessness of these violations was merely… an oopsie.
“As the government understood its Brady/Giglio obligations, the information was not helpful to the defendants” is almost offensive to these men incarcerated for nearly two years. Does Mr. Myhre really mean to suggest that only he should determine what is relevant to the defense?
The original indictment clearly accuses the defendants of lies and deceit in their internet postings.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...nt-clip-01.jpg
Claiming that the defendants made up tales about snipers and surveillance on their home which now, through the revelations of these Brady violations, prove to be absolutely true, Mr. Myhre still contends that this is not important enough to be sanctioned by the court.
It does make one wonder, if the tables were turned, how should Mr. Myhre’s deceit be judged? By the same standards as he applied to the common man (Cliven Bundy)? Or is he to be held to a different standard (above the law)?
What Myhre has not given much thought to is the fact that Judge Gloria Navarro has already ruled that his actions were “willful”.
The Court also finds that this information was willfully suppressed, despite representations by the Government that this report was an urban legend and a shiny object to distract the Court.Does Mr. Myhre believe that Judge Navarro will backstep her ruling and give him another chance at his exercise in futility? Or is he just hoping that she doesn’t set aside the previous convictions and plea agreements in this case, as they were materially effected by his illegal acts?
After the abuse was made public, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation into the case. This puts another high profile spin to the case that is not so easily swept under the rug.
Myhre is not the only one that will be held liable for this government SNAFU. There will be an onslaught of employees in the prosecutors office that will do anything to save themselves. What will Myhre do to save himself? Who will he throw under the bus?
I am sure that Steven Myhre will do “Whatever It Takes.”
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Perfect public headline to put this "judge" on notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
Enough evidence about the snipers publicly presented here in Monty's thread to end this charade...and motivate a mob.
:D
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20070619165229
I’ll bring the tar and feathers.
I’m not joking.
Patriots punished for going to Bundy Ranch ~ Shari Dovale Jan.1, 2018
Patriots Punished for Going to Bundy Ranch
WE MUST STAND STRONG AND FIGHT FOR OUR BASIC LIBERTIES! IF WE DON'T DO IT, THEN WHO WILL?
January 1, 2018 Constitution, Featured, Federal Courts 3
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...03-599x381.jpg
Patriots Punished for Going to Bundy Ranch
by Shari Dovale
Jon Ritzheimer and Ryan Payne are friends from way back. They recently met up after months of not seeing each other, and had a great time. With their ladies along side, they enjoyed everything from lunch to Go-Carts.
Then they went to the Bundy Ranch.
Now they are being punished by the Oregon Courts for not knowing they were not allowed to visit with this American family. Judge Anna Brown has decided, after the fact, that these men were not going to get away with supporting the Bundy family.
Both Ritzheimer and Payne are considered co-defendants on the Malheur Protest Trial in Oregon. They each decided to accept plea agreements in that case and are scheduled to begin their sentences soon.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...02-300x261.jpg
Jon Ritzheimer with Carol Bundy
Jon Ritzheimer accepted a plea agreement in the Malheur Protest trial and was scheduled to begin his incarceration in several weeks. Instead, he will be headed to prison early, on January 12th
.
Ryan Payne is currently a defendant alongside Cliven Bundy and his two sons, Ammon and Ryan, in the Bunkerville Standoff trial in Las Vegas. Judge Gloria Navarro recently declared a mistrial in that case and further rulings are expected in the coming days.
Meanwhile, due to the gross misconduct of the prosecutors office, the defendants in Las Vegas have been released under pretrial conditions, with the exception of Cliven Bundy. Payne received additional conditions from Judge Anna Brown in Oregon due to his status in her court. Brown has now ordered him to be placed under house arrest.
Photos from their outing were published on Facebook. This was all it took for Judge Anna Brown to get worked up and call in her proverbial marker.
It was first said that they were not supposed to see each other, as co defendants. However, that was proven to be untrue by the document shown here. The ban for defendants to speak to each other was LIFTED!
It was actually all about them going to the Bundy Ranch. The government does not want anyone supporting Cliven Bundy, or anyone that takes a stand for citizens rights.
These are not the first stories being told about retaliation for supporting citizen rights. The Federal government has cracked down on Liberty-loving patriots around the country just because they can!
If you are an active militia member, if you are vocal about states rights, if you profess your support of the Constitution or call yourselves Patriots, then you are probably being looked at and may be targeted.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...dc-599x381.jpg
Greg Whalen is a disabled combat veteran who spends his days helping other vets and advocating for the US Constitution.
Whalen attended the Million Vet March on Washington DC during the 2013 government shutdown and was photographed removing barricades. Additionally, he went to Bunkerville when he heard about the standoff and removed the “First Amendment Area” sign.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...lv-300x246.jpg
In front of the Las Vegas Federal Courthouse. (Facebook)
Both of these events were listed on paperwork he saw when he was stopped from entering Nellis AFB last spring. He was roughed up, stripped searched, called a domestic terrorist and told not to come back to the base. He has yet to regain his base privileges.
Another vet named John was stripped of his VA benefits after being in Bunkerville, with the VA claiming he refused a mental health evaluation. With these documents in hand, he could not find anyone at the Veterans Administration who knew anything about it, yet he still does not have his disability benefits.
There are numerous stories of patriots being placed on the “No Fly” list, or at least held for several hours before being allowed to travel.
This is government terrorism against it’s citizens! They are punishing people for supporting anyone that stands up for their God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. If you don’t fall in line with the mandated rhetoric, then the NDAA will become your worst enemy.
Dear Americans: This Law Makes It Possible To Arrest And Jail You Indefinitely Anytime
Under Section 1021, however, anyone who has committed a “belligerent act,” can be detained indefinitely, without charges or trial, as a “suspected terrorist.” This is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and our Bill or Rights. In The FederalistNo. 84, Alexander Hamilton stressed the importance of the writ of habeas corpus to protect against “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”
What can we do to stop the NDAA?
We fight back. We the People push back against the Federal government’s encroachment on our rights and liberties.Contact People Against the NDAA (PANDA) who have already begun the fight and have resources to share with you.
We must stand strong and fight for our basic liberties! If we don’t do it, then who will?
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...01-678x381.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/patr...d-bundy-ranch/Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Share this:
2 hrs; Aiken comes on in last ~half hour. Though Kaminski's always a good listen too,
The Graham Hart Show - With Brizer 2018.01.01
Guests: John Kaminski and Patricia Aiken joins in the last half hour.
80k Download
^ Aiken says something interesting re the Cliven trial. She'd never seen a "darker" jury-- DA tried to stack it with blacks who would surely object to Cliven's comments on slavery. Those jurors who they spoke with after, weren't bothered by Cliven's comments at all; to the contrary, they agreed. :D
Why the feds can’t lose this case
For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option
IS IT SOMETHING MUCH MORE SINISTER THAT DRIVES THE FEDERAL TEAM TO DOUBLE DOWN, TRIPLE DOWN AND DO “WHATEVER IT TAKES” TO WIN THIS CASE?
January 2, 2018 Constitution, DOJ, Featured, Federal Courts, Opinion 5
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...an-640x381.jpg
(photo: reviewjournal.com)
For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option
by Loren Edward Pearce
Krisanne Hall, former prosecutor and well known expert on the US Constitution, spoke for all of us when she said in a recent post,
“Federal prosecutors are seeking a new trial against #BundyRanch?!?! Are you freaking kidding me?!?”
She went on to say, “As a former prosecutor, I can tell you the actions of Myre and these federal prosecutors are unforgivable.
Hey #Myre… YOU are a complete disgrace and evidence of the putrefaction of American Due Process. Sincerely, KrisAnne Hall, JD.”
Larry Klayman, also a former prosecutor, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and against the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, for prosecutorial misconduct. Klayman explains,
“The complaint details how the the U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada – Obama Deep State holdovers who should have been removed by now by Attorney General Jeff Sessions – working in concert with the FBI and BLM under the Obama administration, systematically violated the constitutional rights of Cliven Bundy and the other defendants in the criminal prosecution, denying them due process, equal protection and other rights under the Constitution and the law in general.
Key exculpatory evidence proving Cliven’s innocence in engaging in what the Obama Justice Department called a conspiracy to threaten federal agents was shredded; material FBI 302 investigative reports were not disclosed and hidden; and the existence of three surveillance cameras showing that the Bundys surrounded government snipers positioned to possibly kill the family as they were at home were kept from defense lawyers for years. In short, the Obama Justice Department, along with its corrupt FBI then run by, you guessed it, Director James Comey, hid and/or destroyed material evidence until this obstruction of justice was discovered mostly by accident during an evidentiary hearing in the criminal prosecution just the last week.”
What Is Motivating The Federal Team To Continue The Prosecution Of The Bundy Et Al Case?
Is it ego, is it pride or is it something much deeper, much more sinister, that drives the federal team to double down, triple down and do “whatever it takes” to win this case?
Why is the federal team refusing to give up? Why is the federal team continuing to spend many millions of dollars, tying up court resources, imposing on and severely harming the lives of not only the defendants and their families, but the many dozens of jurors, juror candidates and their families?
The Stakes For The Federal Team Are Incomprehensible
Some may ask, “Why can’t the federal team just dismiss the case with prejudice against the Bundy et al defendants, and everybody go back to their lives and pick up where they left off and be happy that the trials are over?”
There are a lot of reasons why life will never be the same for any of the parties and that the slate cannot be wiped clean, that the issues are so huge and remain that way, that the parties simply cannot afford to “forgive and forget”.
As noted under the title of this article, the land owned by the federal government, not counting Alaska and Hawaii, is estimated to be worth in excess of $1.8 trillion by 2009 values. That is $1,800 billion. Throw Alaska into the equation and it far exceeds $2 trillion.
That federal land ownership, and its accompanying power, is at risk because the Bundys and others have raised the issue of the constitutionality of federal ownership of over 640 million acres of land which includes 85% of Nevada. Navarro tried to keep the constitution out of “her” courtroom, and only focus on the charges by the prosecution. However, those many constitutional issues remain unresolved.
One article, states that, “Few minds will stir when they learn that the US federal government owns a grand total of 640 million acres of land: that figure is so vast that it becomes meaningless.” Meaningless because the average person can’t get their mind around it.
The BLM created to manage that land, has over 12,000 employees whose livelihood and lifestyle depend on the continued viability and constitutionality of their agency.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...st-300x246.jpg
Staring Down Stare Decisis
While many will argue that the issue of federal ownership of over 640 million acres has been well settled through numerous court cases and that it is a “dead horse” that can no longer be kicked, many will disagree, that the previous courts, based on the constitution destroying “stare decisis”, have made rulings that do not comport with the constitution or the original intent of the founders.
Stare decisis, the drifting away from the original constitution through a process of piggy backing precedent on top of precedent, is like the telephone game, where a message is relayed through a chain of people until it comes out at the other end totally different than the original intended message because each person puts their own biases and spin on the message.
The subject of land ownership by the federal government as it relates to the enumerated powers granted to the federal government as opposed to those reserved to the states and the people, was very clear at one time and needs to be revisited and the dead horse revived.
In addition to the raw subject of federal land ownership are many other tangential subjects that have to be resolved such as the constitutionality of BLM law enforcement, BLM administrative law judges, denial of bail and pretrial prison, denial of a speedy trial because the federal team declares it has a complex case, federal jurisdiction over criminal matters outside the boundaries of a territory, double jeopardy of multiple retrials, and many, many issues that have been warped and distorted over the decades by the imbalance between federal and state powers.
“THIS Is What The Feds Are Fighting To Keep –
Control Over Public Lands And The Very Existence Of The BLM Itself.” ~Bill Goode
In an excellent article by Bill Goode, he states,
“When the Bundys are finally declared innocent in the Las Vegas trial, that will only conclude the legal status of individuals involved in the Bunkerville standoff. Then there is Cliven’s suit and the suits of other standoff defendants against the DOJ that must be decided in court.
However, the most significant issue after the current Las Vegas trial will be the legal status of the Bundy Ranch itself. The legal status of the Bundy Ranch is now held in abeyance, despite the return of the Bundy cattle. The Bunkerville grazing allotment was officially closed by the BLM after the standoff, though the Bundy cattle do still graze on that land. So that’s a conflict that must be resolved.”
An Injustice Against One, Is An Injustice Against All
Morgan Philpot, attorney for Ammon Bundy, in one of his meetings with the media, made the comment, “An injustice against one, is an injustice against all”
The stakes really are incomprehensible, not only for the Deep State and the federal team, but for all of us. The injustices against the Bundys et al, are injustices against all of us, and they need to be resolved.
Because losing is not an option, for either side, we can expect to see many more legal battles to come. The outcome of the legal war will determine the future of America and its rising generations.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Pete Santilli reporting Steven Myhre has been replaced as the attorney in the Bundy case.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Attorney General Sessions Appoints 17 Current and Former Federal Prosecutors as Interim United States Attorneys
Attorney General Jeff Sessions today announced the appointment of 17 federal prosecutors as Interim United States Attorneys pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546. In a number of United States Attorney’s Offices across the country, First Assistant United States Attorneys are currently serving as Acting United States Attorneys under the Vacancies Reform Act. However, on Jan. 4, 2018, some of those Acting United States Attorneys will have served the maximum amount of time permitted under the Act. The appointments announced by the Attorney General today fill these vacancies.
“United States Attorneys lead federal prosecutions across this country, taking deadly drugs and criminals off of our streets and protecting the safety of law-abiding people, as well as representing the United States in civil litigation.” said Attorney General Sessions. “As a former U.S. Attorney myself, I have seen firsthand the impact that these prosecutors have and it is critical to have U.S. Attorneys in place during this time of rising violent crime, a staggering increase in homicides, and an unprecedented drug crisis."
“That is why, today, I am appointing 17 current and former federal prosecutors to serve as U.S. Attorneys on an interim basis. Each has excellent prosecution skills and the temperament necessary to succeed in this critical role—and they have already proven that with a number of accomplishments on behalf of the American people. I want to thank them for stepping up to take this difficult but noble job. I also want to thank those First Assistant United States Attorneys who temporarily stepped up to lead their offices as Acting U.S. Attorneys and who are now returning to their roles as First Assistants.”
The Attorney General has appointed the following individuals to serve as Interim United States Attorneys:
Shawn Anderson – Districts of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands
Geoffrey Berman – Southern District of New York
Gregory Brooker – District of Minnesota
Craig Carpenito – District of New Jersey
Stephen Dambruch – District of Rhode Island
Richard Donoghue – Eastern District of New York
Dayle Elieson – District of Nevada
Duane Evans – Eastern District of Louisiana
Timothy Garrison – Western District of Missouri
Nick Hanna – Central District of California
Joseph Harrington – Eastern District of Washington
Grant Jaquith – Northern District of New York
Maria Chapa Lopez – Middle District of Florida
Kenji Price – District of Hawaii
Matthew Schneider – Eastern District of Michigan
Gretchen Shappert – District of the Virgin Islands
Alexander Van Hook – Western District of Louisiana
Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General
Press Release Number:
18 - 4
Myhre gets demoted, returns to his former position as first assistant U.S. Attorney.*Gotta keep those jails full! Sessions is a big stockholder in the private prison industry.Quote:
“United States Attorneys lead federal prosecutions across this country, taking deadly drugs and criminals off of our streets and protecting the safety of law-abiding people, as well as representing the United States in civil litigation.” said Attorney General Sessions.*
Myhre Gets Demoted in US Attorneys Office
TEXAS FEDERAL PROSECUTOR DAYLE ELIESON TAKES THE INTERIM POSITION EFFECTIVE ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 5TH.
January 3, 2018 Federal Courts, Nevada 3
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...02-678x381.jpg
Myhre Gets Demoted in US Attorneys Office
by Shari Dovale
During a trip to Las Vegas this past summer, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a remark that seemed to pat Acting US attorney Steven Myhre on the back for his prosecution of Cliven Bundy and his supporters from the Bunkerville Standoff.
However, Sessions did not come off looking too good after the high profile case was declared a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
US Attorney for the District of Nevada, Daniel Bogden, resigned his position last spring after Sessions sought the resignations of 46 U.S. attorneys remaining from President Barack Obama’s administration. Steven Myhre was promoted to Acting US Attorney at that time.
Today, Sessions announced that he has appointed Texas Federal prosecutor Dayle Elieson to fill the interim top spot in Nevada, replacing Steven Myhre, effective on Friday, January 5th.
Myhre will return to his previous position of First Assistant US attorney.
Read the full press release:Attorney General Sessions Appoints 17 Current and Former Federal Prosecutors as Interim United States AttorneysPlease support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Attorney General Jeff Sessions today announced the appointment of 17 federal prosecutors as Interim United States Attorneys pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546. In a number of United States Attorney’s Offices across the country, First Assistant United States Attorneys are currently serving as Acting United States Attorneys under the Vacancies Reform Act. However, on Jan. 4, 2018, some of those Acting United States Attorneys will have served the maximum amount of time permitted under the Act. The appointments announced by the Attorney General today fill these vacancies.
“United States Attorneys lead federal prosecutions across this country, taking deadly drugs and criminals off of our streets and protecting the safety of law-abiding people, as well as representing the United States in civil litigation.” said Attorney General Sessions. “As a former U.S. Attorney myself, I have seen firsthand the impact that these prosecutors have and it is critical to have U.S. Attorneys in place during this time of rising violent crime, a staggering increase in homicides, and an unprecedented drug crisis.”
“That is why, today, I am appointing 17 current and former federal prosecutors to serve as U.S. Attorneys on an interim basis. Each has excellent prosecution skills and the temperament necessary to succeed in this critical role—and they have already proven that with a number of accomplishments on behalf of the American people. I want to thank them for stepping up to take this difficult but noble job. I also want to thank those First Assistant United States Attorneys who temporarily stepped up to lead their offices as Acting U.S. Attorneys and who are now returning to their roles as First Assistants.”
The Attorney General has appointed the following individuals to serve as Interim United States Attorneys:
Shawn Anderson – Districts of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands
Geoffrey Berman – Southern District of New York
Gregory Brooker – District of Minnesota
Craig Carpenito – District of New Jersey
Stephen Dambruch – District of Rhode Island
Richard Donoghue – Eastern District of New York
Dayle Elieson – District of Nevada
Duane Evans – Eastern District of Louisiana
Timothy Garrison – Western District of Missouri
Nick Hanna – Central District of California
Joseph Harrington – Eastern District of Washington
Grant Jaquith – Northern District of New York
Maria Chapa Lopez – Middle District of Florida
Kenji Price – District of Hawaii
Matthew Schneider – Eastern District of Michigan
Gretchen Shappert – District of the Virgin Islands
Alexander Van Hook – Western District of Louisiana
One has to wonder why Jeff Sessions didn’t fire Myhre.
Bundy Ranch Prosecutor Steven Myhre Gets a Demotion – But That’s Just Not Good Enough!
Tim Brown
This is a start, but it’s just not good enough, Mr. Sessions!
On Wednesday, it was made official by the Department of Justice that Bundy Ranch standoff prosecutor Steven Myhre was demoted to his previous position as First Assistant US attorney.
That’s right, he was demoted for his violations of the law, not led away in handcuffs.
Taking his place will be Dayle Elieson, a Texas federal prosecutor.
Last year, Sessions heaped praise on Steven Myhre and his prosecution of the Bundy Ranch defendants.
“I’ve got to tell you, it’s impressive when you have a tough case, a controversial case, and you’ve got the top guy leading the battle, going to court, standing up and defending the office and the principles of the law,” Sessions said of Myhre.
“I’m not taking sides or commenting on the case,” Sessions added. “Just want to say that leadership requires, a lot of times, our people to step up and be accountable.”
[
TRENDING ON SONS OF LIBERTY MEDIA
- Former FBI Asst. Director: ‘5th Estate’ at FBI was Planning ‘Something’
- Communism & Millennials: Why Their Ignorance About Ideology’s Horrors Is Dangerous
- Sharia California: Man Charged For Sending Islamocritical Posts To Islamic Center Of Southern California
- Elderly Man In Hospice With Lung & Brain Cancer Beats It With Cannabis Oil
Hmmm, about that accountability, Mr. Sessions. Your former acting US attorney in Nevada committed multiple Brady violations and sought to rig the trial in his favor against patriots who were calling out the lawlessness of the DC government, and what did you do? You let him keep a job in the office and got him out of the spotlight, but you failed to bring justice, something that you are supposed to be engaged in.
Myhre should have been arrested and charged for his crimes, along with others in his office, and anyone in the BLM, FBI or any other organization that conspired to engage in these crimes.
The move comes after Sessions said that he would be looking into the matterfollowing the mistrial.
I guess now, Sessions has egg on his face after Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the latest round of Bundy Ranch trials because of the prosecution’s “willful” violations of the law and the rights fo the defendants. And those were not his first.
By failing to bring justice against Steven Myhre, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is not aiding and abetting a criminal, who “willfully” violated his oath to the Constitution, broke federal law and violated the rights of innocent American citizens. I’m saying that just so everyone knows whose side Sessions is on here. More violations of the law by Steven Myhre are all on Jeff Sessions.
The Justice Department issued a press release on Wednesday announcing Elieson’s new position, as well as 16 other federal prosecutors as Interim United States Attorneys.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions today announced the appointment of 17 federal prosecutors as Interim United States Attorneys pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546. In a number of United States Attorney’s Offices across the country, First Assistant United States Attorneys are currently serving as Acting United States Attorneys under the Vacancies Reform Act.Following the mistrial based on Myhre’s violations of the law, he had the audacity to appeal to the court to retry the defendants.
However, on Jan. 4, 2018, some of those Acting United States Attorneys will have served the maximum amount of time permitted under the Act. The appointments announced by the Attorney General today fill these vacancies.
“United States Attorneys lead federal prosecutions across this country, taking deadly drugs and criminals off of our streets and protecting the safety of law-abiding people, as well as representing the United States in civil litigation.” said Attorney General Sessions. “As a former U.S. Attorney myself, I have seen firsthand the impact that these prosecutors have and it is critical to have U.S. Attorneys in place during this time of rising violent crime, a staggering increase in homicides, and an unprecedented drug crisis.”
“That is why, today, I am appointing 17 current and former federal prosecutors to serve as U.S. Attorneys on an interim basis. Each has excellent prosecution skills and the temperament necessary to succeed in this critical role—and they have already proven that with a number of accomplishments on behalf of the American people. I want to thank them for stepping up to take this difficult but noble job. I also want to thank those First Assistant United States Attorneys who temporarily stepped up to lead their offices as Acting U.S. Attorneys and who are now returning to their roles as First Assistants.”
The Attorney General has appointed the following individuals to serve as Interim United States Attorneys:
Shawn Anderson – Districts of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands
Geoffrey Berman – Southern District of New York
Gregory Brooker – District of Minnesota
Craig Carpenito – District of New Jersey
Stephen Dambruch – District of Rhode Island
Richard Donoghue – Eastern District of New York
Dayle Elieson – District of Nevada
Duane Evans – Eastern District of Louisiana
Timothy Garrison – Western District of Missouri
Nick Hanna – Central District of California
Joseph Harrington – Eastern District of Washington
Grant Jaquith – Northern District of New York
Maria Chapa Lopez – Middle District of Florida
Kenji Price – District of Hawaii
Matthew Schneider – Eastern District of Michigan
Gretchen Shappert – District of the Virgin Islands
Alexander Van Hook – Western District of Louisiana
Judge Navarro will make a ruling on January 8.
H/T RedoubtNews
Monday January 8, Harry Reid’s handpicked Chief Judge for the District of Nevada will give her decision on the Cliven Bundy mistrial. Will it be with prejudice, or without prejudice or will she consider Ryan Payne’s motion to dismiss the superceding indictment? She probably is feeling the heat because the choice she makes may well determine what happens to her career.
Bundy Trial Landmark Day – January Eighth
THE INFORMATION THEREIN PROVIDES FURTHER EVIDENCE OF FLAGRANT GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT.
January 4, 2018 BLM, Featured, Federal Courts, Opinion 1
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...1/BundyBio.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...al-575x381.jpg
Bundy Trial Landmark Day – January Eighth
by Terry Noonkester
Judge Navarro is scheduled to rule on which classification of mistrial is appropriate for Cliven, Ryan and Ammon Bundy, and their co-defendant, Ryan Payne. The classification she decides on will make a huge difference and could bring anything from a retrial, or the end of this case. Her decision could also affect the other 15 defendants indicted in USA v Cliven Bundy et al.
Judge Navarro indicated that the remedy for the Brady violations she was seeking was only for the evidence that was in violation for missing the October 1st, 2017 deadline, which would indicate only the four defendants in this trial. On December 20th, when Navarro declared a mistrial, she mentioned two options. A mistrial without prejudice would allow the prosecution to retry the current four defendants; or a mistrial with prejudice would bar a retrial. The status of all other defendants in Cliven Bundy et al would remain as they were unless they individually appealed to a higher court. The lawyers representing the four defendants, and the prosecution filed their briefs, as instructed, on December 29th.
Myhre wrote in his brief;…“The Brady violations found by the court are regrettable and benefit no one,”…. “But because the government neither flagrantly violated nor recklessly disregarded its obligations, the appropriate remedy for such violations is a new trial.”Ryan Bundy’s brief, referred to the “Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26.3 Mistrial” that states;
“Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives”… “The Rule ensures that a defendant has the opportunity to dissuade a judge from declaring a mistrial in a case where granting one would not be an abuse of discretion”.Judge Navarro not only failed to give the defendants this opportunity, but when Ryan Bundy requested to comment, she refused to allow it. Because of Navarro not following this procedure, the mistrial should be with prejudice.
There is a third option that Navarro failed to mention but the defense lawyers have strenuously brought to her attention in the briefs they filed on December 29th. They are in favor of a “dismissal of the indictment, with prejudice”. The grand jury Indictment, the formal accusation that a person has committed a crime, would then be dismissed. This type of dismissal was the choice in the USA v Chapman case, also headed by Steven Myhre as prosecutor, dismissed with prejudice on May 06, 2008. A dismissal of the indictments would bolster the legal status of the other 15 defendants in all tier groups of the trials.
As the Chapman case was concluded, two new Assistant United States Attorneys appeared on behalf of the government to argue against dismissal. The district court listened to the arguments and then granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss an indictment with prejudice. Myhre had acted “flagrantly, willfully, and in bad faith”.
Such a severe finding regarding Myhre’s misconduct as the lead prosecutor did not stop him from becoming the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Nevada. On the federal level, the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector Generals Office were in the chain of command for disciplinary actions, but those institutions failed to protect the public from Myhre’s unethical prosecutions. The Nevada Bar Association was responsible for disciplinary actions at the state level.
When a prosecutor violates the defendants constitutional rights, the court is supposed to pay for their wrongdoing by giving the defendants an advantage. In USA v Cliven Bundy et al, the defendants seemed to be well on their way to an acquittal. It is clearly to their disadvantage to start over with a new jury. The prosecution would have the advantage of a fresh start with a new jury that might not see the same struggle the defense team had to make to overcome the Brady violations that blocked crucial evidence. The government witnesses that have already impeached themselves have learned not to get caught in some of their own lies. Giving the prosecution another chance to correct their mistakes would put the defense at a disadvantage and therefore ‘dismissal without prejudice’ should not even be considered.
A district court may dismiss an indictment on the ground of outrageous government conduct if the conduct amounts to a due process violation. If the conduct does not rise to the level of a due process violation, the court may nonetheless dismiss under its supervisory powers. Judge Navarro had found the Brady violations in the Bundy trial were to the level of due process violations.
The nineteen men arrested for the Bundy Ranch Protest were indicted together by the same grand jury. The trial was later broken up into three tiers, each having their own trial for the courts convenience. That arbitrary division should not block any group or groups from the benefits of a dismissal of the indictment. In the best case scenario of dismissing the indictment with prejudice, Judge Navarro’s decision could help in termination of past plea bargains, convictions and both Tier 1 and Tier 2 group trials.
There is also evidence of worse prosecutorial misconduct that is not a part of the court record. Judge Navarro has not discussed this evidence, in the form of the ‘Wooton email’ publicly. This is the 17 page email plus a cover page written by BLM’s lead investigator of the Bundy case. Wooten held this position for nearly three years until he was removed on February 18th, 2017. Myhre requested Wooten’s removal from the Bundy investigation to Wooten’s BLM supervisor just the day or days before. Special Agent Larry Wooten’s summary of the email subject reads: “Bureau of Land Management Law Enforcement Supervisory Misconduct and Associated Cover-ups as well as Potential Unethical Actions, Malfeasance and Misfeasance by United States Attorney’s Office Prosecutors from the District of Nevada, (Las Vegas) in Referencer to the Cliven Bundy Investigation.”
There have been several sealed hearings in Judge Navarro’s courtroom since Larry Wooten’s email was made public by Washington State Representative Matt Shea and Shari Dovale of Redoubt News. Also, the “Motion to Dismiss” written by Public Defenders Brenda Weksler and Ryan Norwood in behalf of defendant Ryan Payne stated: “While violations already found by this court are already enough to justify dismissal, there remain other issues that have yet to be explored—notably those arising from (half a line of text redacted) provided to the defense on December 8, 2017.
The “Motion to Dismiss” continues; “The information therein provides further evidence of flagrant government misconduct, and a pervasive, willful failure to provide the defense exculpatory evidence. The Court should direct an extensive inquiry into the matter if it does not dismiss the indictment.” They later stated;
“THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”.
The attorneys give several court case examples that prove that the misconduct of the prosecution of the Cliven Bundy case fulfills the requirements to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, and then it continues with the statement; “The facts relied upon by the Chapman court to dismiss the case with prejudice pale in comparison to this case.”
Mixed in with heavily redacted pages is the following information; “The court should also hear evidence from the other parties directly involved with his dismissal, (redacted text), and Acting U.S. Attorney, Myhre,”…“A fair inquiry into circumstances (redacted text) will make the US Attorney a necessary witness, and will require their recusal from the case.” The heavily redacted text in this December 29th brief can be taken as a warning that there are still far too many governmental secrets involving this case.
The prosecution used false statements and hid evidence to make false charges against nineteen men indicted by the grand jury, the only remedy to preserve justice is to go back to the root of the deceit and dismiss the indictment, with prejudice.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018, that Dayle Elieson will replace Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre effective Friday, January 5th, 2018. Myhre will return to his role as First Assistant U.S. Attorney. Elieson was one of 17 interim U.S. attorneys appointed by Sessions in districts throughout the United States.
January 8th, 2018 will be a historic day, not only for the trial of USA v Cliven Bundy et al, but for many legal proceedings to come. Judge Gloria Navarro will decide between liberty and tyranny.
The Judicial Doctrine of Immunity states that “Immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”…”Judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice,” the Supreme Court said in its opinion in Mireles v. Waco. The opinion went on to explain; “… judges lose their immunity only in two circumstances: when they are sued for a ‘nonjudicial action,’ like a personnel decision, or when they are sued for an action that, ‘though judicial in nature,’ was ‘taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.’”
However, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to block impeachment of a judge through the U. S. House of Representatives, an avenue that Washington D.C. attorney Larry Klayman may be taking with the complaint he has filed.
The climax to the USA v Cliven Bundy et al trial will be at the Lloyd George Federal District Courthouse, 333 S Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada, 9:00 am on January 8th, 2018.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
LAS VEGAS — Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a militia member will not face a retrial on charges that they led an armed rebellion against federal agents in 2014.
A federal judge Monday said the federal prosecutors' conduct was "outrageous" and "violated due process rights" of the defendants.
U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said a new trial would not be sufficient to address the problems in the case and would provide the prosecution with an unfair advantage going forward. She dismissed the charges against the four men "with prejudice," meaning they cannot face trial again.
As the courtroom doors opened after Navarro's ruling, a huge cheer went up from the crowd of spectators gathered outside.
Charges dismissed against the four men "with prejudice,"
:)
This is great news. Many thanks to Monty for keeping this thread going for so long.
John Lamb & Keli Stewart, Bundy trial dismissed wit prejudice. ~ Valley Forge News Network
This is beautiful! Thanks for keeping this thread alive even as it seemed to drag on and on... In the end the people won for once (with loss and much disruption of life unfortunately).
Cliven Bundy speaks after charges thrown out ~ The Oregonian
America- land of limited government-> +1; Federal brownshirts- +uncountable. (but it is a start)
Hallelujah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewboo
Absolutely Spectacular!
Redoubt News And Lazaro Encenarro: Trump to issue full pardons to all involved and working on Oregon also.
Redoubt News ~ President Trump is to issue FULL pardons 1/8/18
J Grady 359 views
SUBSCRIBE
3.8K
31
0
Published on Jan 8, 2018
This just in from an announcement from REDOUBT NEWS and Lazaro Encenarro in Las Vegas at the after celebration following the news of a DISMISSAL with prejudice of the Bundy Vegas Trial - Trump is prepared to give a blanket pardon to all involved and is working on the Oregon issue as well. President Trump to issue full Pardons https://www.facebook.com/RedoubtNews/...
Copyright Disclaimer:Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
- Category
- License
- Standard YouTube License
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
The "brownshirts" were the good guys like the Bundy's that fought the communists that were trying to take over their government in Germany when Hitler was coming to power.
We all need to be fighting against the Jew communists that have taken over our government like the Bundy's and the 'brownshirts' of Germany in the past.
Shari Dovale: Dismissal With Prejudice
Dismissal With Prejudice – Bunkerville Standoff
THIS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY COME TO THE ATTENTION OF US ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS, WHO HAS ALREADY ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS PROSECUTION, AND THE PRINCIPLE'S INVOLVED.
January 8, 2018 Constitution, Featured, Federal Courts 2
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...-1-678x381.jpg
Dismissal With Prejudice – Bunkerville Standoff
by Shari Dovale
Today is a day that will go down in the history books as a great victory for the common man.
The Bunkerville Standoff trial is a battle that has been waged for nearly 4 years. 19 men were incarcerated for nearly two years. Several mistrials later, the world has seen the corruption in our country’s judicial system.
And Judge Gloria Navarro has seen it as well.
Navarro declared the trial to be dismissed with prejudice today against 4 defendants. Cliven Bundy, 2 of his sons, Ammon and Ryan, as well as Ryan Payne will not be tried again on the multiple charges from the protest held in April 2014.
The court found that the prosecution committed multiple flagrant Brady violations that a new trial would not fix. The defendants rights were egregiously violated and the only remedy was to let them go home.
Navarro rebuked and chastised AUSA Steven Myhre, and team, repeatedly in her ruling. She found that the prosecution willfully failed to produce Brady material for the defense. She cited the 55 page motion the prosecution filed recently and sounded offended when she talked of their minimizing the violations, calling it “disingenuous”.
She also stated that it was “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct”. Knowing that the majority of violations could be traced back to the FBI, she clearly stated that the prosecution had a duty to learn of all the evidence and disclose it.
This will undoubtedly come to the attention of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has already ordered an investigation into this prosecution, and the principle’s involved.
Today’s hearing was packed, with approximately 100 spectators, including media in the courtroom. About 50 people were left in the hallway due to running out of seats. There were additional dozens waiting outside for the ruling to be announced.
A notable point today was that there were at least 8 jurors from this case in the courtroom to hear the ruling They had been released from the case on December 20th, yet had become vested in the outcome of the trial.
After the jurors had been released, it was reported they talked to attorneys and indicated they were aware of problems in the government case, and were not inclined to convict, had the case gone to deliberations.
The crowd went wild when Cliven Bundy made his appearance outside the Lloyd George Federal Courthouse. Enjoy the video below taken live as he was released. (Video is one hour)
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
In his report to Congress after the Jarbidge Road dispute between the USFS and Elko County Nevada, “The Jarbidge Shovel Brigade” former U.S. Reresentative to Congress illustrates how the laws to ownership are created.
What really struck me when I read this report is the Congress and the general government followed the Constitution, Article I §8 Clause 17 and the Supremecy Clause both in writing treaties and in passing Acts of Congress. With the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 and the creation of the Bureau of Land Management things began to unravel. Little by little the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others began to ignore the laws Congress had passed regarding land rights. The more time passed the more flagrant their violations.
Quoted from Jim Gibbons report:Quote:
2. The courts insist that these laws must be read on pari materia (all together).The courts have stated repeatedly that laws relating to the same subject (such as land disposal laws) must be read in pari ma- teria (all together). In other words, FLPMA or any other land disposal act cannot be read as if it stands alone. It must be read together with all its parts and with every other prior land disposal act of Congress if the true in- tent of the act is to be known.
3. Each of these Acts contain ‘‘savings’’ clauses protecting existing right, including FLPMA.
All acts of Congress, relating to land dis- posal contain a savings clause protecting prior existing rights. FLPMA contains a sav- ings clause protecting prior existing prop- erty rights. There is an obvious reason for this. Any land disposal law passed by Con- gress without a savings clause would amount to a ‘‘taking’’ of private property without compensation. This could trigger litigation against the United States and monetary li- ability on the part of the U.S.
Former Nevada Congressman Jim Gibbons report to Congress, Oct. 23, 2000
http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.c...er-23-2000.pdf
Edit: Thanks to Hal Anthony of http://www.reallibertymedia.com/cate...-the-woodshed/ for pointing me to this report.