Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Las Vegas Review Journal, Pere Santilli seeking name of undercover agent
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...over-fbi-agent
Bundy case defendant seeks identity of undercover FBI agent
Peter Santilli, a defendant in the Cliven Bundy standoff trial, asked a federal court Tuesday to order prosecutors to provide the identity of an undercover FBI agent.
The witness list prosecutors provided to the defense Monday gives only a pseudonym, “Charles Johnson,” not the agent’s true name. Santilli’s attorney said the agent’s identity is needed to prepare for cross-examination of the witness and any recorded information or logs the agent kept during the standoff are needed as well.
The federal government’s witness list remains under seal.
Santilli is one of 17 defendants in the standoff case, which stems from a confrontation between federal agents and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters over the impoundment of his cows that were grazing on public lands.
The Bureau of Land Management had obtained a court order to impound the cattle over nonpayment of grazing fees. No shots were fired at the standoff, which attracted hundreds of people.
Santilli maintains that he was at the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville, north of Las Vegas, as an “advocacy journalist” who recorded and streamed online video.
“The need to protect a law enforcement officer’s identity this late in the pretrial phase is nonexistent,” the motion filed by defense attorney Chris Rasmussen said. “This is not a case in which the government can cross their fingers and hope the defendants are going to enter pleas and they can forever protect his identity.”
The motion requests an expedited hearing on the matter.
“The identity and whereabouts of the agent is essential to the preparation of Santilli’s defense,” the motion says. “Santilli requires the opportunity to test the agent’s credibility, ascertain his general relationship to others charged herein, discover the entire scope of his meetings, conversations and contacts with the principals herein, and to investigate the agent’s allegations.”
Federal prosecutors haven’t yet responded to the motion.
“I’ve never had a case where you kept the law enforcement officer’s name secret,” Rasmussen said.
The 17 defendants are currently slated to be tried in three separate trials, with the first one starting Feb. 6. The three tiers of defendants are grouped together based on their alleged level of involvement in the case.
Santilli is in the upper tier, which includes Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy. This group would be in the second trial, which would start 30 days after the first trial ends. However, Santilli has requested to be in the first trial and has argued that the prosecution of all defendants could be accomplished in two trials.
Both sides also have submitted lists of proposed questions for potential jurors.
Prosecutors’ proposed list tells potential jurors that they may hear testimony from a law enforcement officer who has acted as an undercover agent. The listed questions ask whether potential jurors have any personal feelings about the testimony of an undercover agent or about law enforcement use of video and audio recordings that would prevent them from fairly weighing the evidence.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted in October by a Portland jury after being tried in connection with a 41-day armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. They also are defendants in the Nevada case.
Santilli was indicted in the Oregon occupation, but federal prosecutors in September asked the judge to dismiss the case, citing the court’s ruling that excludes evidence, including statements Santilli made to counterprotesters and reporters.
Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @BenBotkin1 on Twitter.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Doug Knowles, It matters how you stand
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...ver-fbi-agent/
Deb Jordan , Pete Santilli's long time partner, had this to say on facebook today:
IMPORTANT - BUNDY RANCH STAR WITNESS IS FBI AGENT
Attorneys are quick to point out the AGENT'S NAME used in court documents is a pseudonym, so don't be fooled into thinking the AGENT is a man, however they suspect that it is.
The Prosecution says the AGENT does not live or work in the District of Nevada and works solely in a undercover capacity.
The person is a AGENT not an INFORMANT.
The person in question WOULD NOT have a criminal history.
This person would have probably been physically fit, possibly bragged about a Military or Law
Enforcement background, and gotten very close to the family and other protestors in order to gather information.
It is EXTREMELY possible this person is or was a member of a III%, MILITIA, OATHKEEPER, or BORDER PATROL ORGANIZATION.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
Is this reporter the son shown in this chart? It isn't surprising Adleson owns the Review Journal. Like all the media owned and controlled by Jews.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
Vicky Davis, TVOI News just revealed alarming information about CIs in the FBI and DEA (Confidential Informants)
TVOI News
16 mins ·
After reading an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal concerning Pete Santilli's demand to know the names of the Confidential Informants, I thought I'd better get some information out. This information needs to go to the attorneys of all the defendants in Nevada.
On December 7, 2016, there was a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Congressman Stephen Lynch made a statement saying that the DEA has approximately 18,000 Confidential Informants (CI) and it costs the government about $237 million per year to pay those CIs. The FBI has probably double that number - 30-40,000 CI's that cost the government about $500 million per year.
We know that a lot of those CIs actually go out and set people up so we can add the cost of jail, lawyers, the courts, prison and prison services to the costs of the CIs.
What the congressman also said was that the Congress has not been able to get any information about these programs that run Confidential Informants because they are "field level" programs so even the headquarters offices do not know about how the programs operate. If the headquarters of the DEA and FBI don't do oversight on these programs and if the congress can't get information on them, then that means we have a covert criminal network functioning under the color of law.
If that isn't good enough information for the Judge to order that the identities of the CIs be released, then I don't know what would be.
You can find the hearing that I'm talking about on C-Span.
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...94&oe=58B13F4A
The video of the Confidential Informant hearing Vicky Davis wrote about:
http://youtu.be/S-yOOBxJQ2E
https://youtu.be/S-yOOBxJQ2E
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
Is this reporter the son shown in this chart? It isn't surprising Adleson owns the Review Journal. Like all the media owned and controlled by Jews.
I would assume a son or grandson, my point being I have never known of anyone who's name ends with "kin" who is not Jewish. Benjamin is just icing on the Jewish cake.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
I would assume a son or grandson, my point being I have never known of anyone who's name ends with "kin" who is not Jewish. Benjamin is just icing on the Jewish cake.
It's rare, but there are a few. I worked offshore with a Boykin. He had Blond Hair and blue eyes and was just a very ordinary oilfield hand working stiff.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The impact of stacked 924(c) "Crime of Violence" charges and why they may be unconstitutionally applied . . . . .
http://bundyranchstandoff.info/impac...nally-applied/
Bundy Ranch Standoff
What Happened on April 12th, 2014
The http://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-co...nch-header.jpg
The Impact of Stacked 924(c) “Crime of Violence” Charges – And Why They May Be Unconstitutionally Applied
Introduction
Defendants in the USA vs Bundy et al case face multiple charges of 18 USC 924(c), or “Crimes of Violence”. These charges are “enhancements” that get stacked upon a “predicate offense” (the primary offense). A 924(c) charge is unique primarily for two reasons:
- It introduces stiff mandatory minimum sentences that cannot be subject to probation and
- cannot be served concurrently with any other 924(c) conviction or concurrently with any other sentence for an applicable predicate offense.
The outcome is one where first-time offenders could potentially face absurdly excessive penalties, including life sentences, simply for being in possession of a weapon; exactly what we are seeing with regard to Idaho’s four political prisoners.
A Brief History
The first mandatory minimums for firearms-related crimes were introduced with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Mandatory minimums and the applications thereof fluctuated with varying legislation over the years, settling in 1990 with the inclusion of short-barreled firearms and destructive devices. Up until this point, a 924(c) required the “use” of a firearm in order to secure a conviction.
In Bailey vs The United States (1995), the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that “[…] ‘use’ must connote more than mere possession of a firearm by a person […]”. In response to this, 924(c) was updated by Congress in 1998 to not only prohibit “use” but also “possession in furtherance” of a predicate offense.
Related Statutory Provisions
Two provisions in the US Code are related to 924(c):
- The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) – 18 USC 924(e)
- Definition of a “Crime of Violence” – 18 USC 16
From 18 USC 16, a crime of violence is defined as:(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop*erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
18 USC 924(c) is nearly identical to 18 USC 16 in wording, the ACCA differs in the wording of its “residual clause” as it defines a “violent felony”, or: (e)(2)(B)(ii) “[…] or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another; […]”. The ACCA, which enhances sentences for repeat offenders, was successfully challenged in late 2015 through Johnson vs The United States.
The Johnson Decision
In 2015, SCOTUS ruled that the residual clause of ACCA was unconstitutionally vague under the void-for-vagueness doctrine; or simply stated, the residual clause of ACCA violates a defendant’s 5th Amendment rights to due process. SCOTUS determined:In the first place, the residual clause leaves grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime. […] At the same time, the residual clause leaves uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony.
Leading up to Johnson, courts used a “categorical approach” (from Taylor vs the United States (1990) ) to determine if a predicate offense classified as a crime of violence under ACCA. With the residual clause being found unconstitutionally vague, courts can now only consider the force clause. In this consideration, a defendants actions (or facts underlying a conviction) are irrelevant. Instead the court looks to the elements of the predicate offense and see if there is a “categorical match” to the generic offense (which specifies the enhanced penalty). In limited circumstances, a “modified categorical approach” is used, but is mostly outside the scope of the predicate offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment in USA vs Bundy et al.
Connecting The Dots
The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth (which hears appeals for the District of Nevada) and Tenth Circuit courts have all ruled that 18 USC 16(b) is not meaningfully indistinguishable from ACCA’s residual clause such that it must be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The wording in 18 USC 16(b) is nearly identical to the wording in 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b).
ACCA – 18 USC 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) – is unconstitutionally vague per Johnson and is similar to 18 USC 16(b). Several circuits have decided that 18 USC 16(b) is, by extension, unconstitutionally vague. The wording in 18 USC 16(b) is almost identical to 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii)… giving rise to a preponderance of evidence that it too is unconstitutionally vague.
If 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague, the predicate offense to which the 924(c) is applied can only be weighed categorically on 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(i), meaning that the predicate offense must be a categorical match of the general offense of “crime of violence” described in 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(i).
Post-Johnson: The Circuits Divide
As stated, The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth (which hears appeals for the District of Nevada) and Tenth Circuit courts have all ruled that 18 USC 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague. It is nearly identical to the language that defines a crime of violence in 18 USC 924(c). The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, clearly distinguishes 18 USC 16(b) from ACCA’s residual clause.
For district courts, they would be subject to binding precedent on the circuit court of appeals above them. In the 9th Circuit, Dimaya vs. Lynch (2015), it was determined that 18 USC 16(b), which is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act to define an aggravated felony, was unconstitutionally vague. The District of Nevada, subject to binding precedent of the 9th Circuit, would also have to conclude the same about 18 USC 16(b)
Where Rubber Meets The Road
Defendant Ryan Payne has a sweeping motion to dismiss all 924(c) charges based on two criterion:
- 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii), like nearly identically worded and categorically applied 18 USC 16(b), is unconstitutionally vague, and…
- 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(i) fails to establish a crime of violence for the predicate offenses when subjected to the categorical approach outline in Taylor.
In this motion, Payne addresses counts 3, 6, 9, and 15 making the case that the alleged predicate offenses are not “crimes of violence”.
- Count 2: Conspiracy to Impede – 18 USC 372
This charge was dismissed by the District of Oregon during the Malheur Refuge Occupation trial. The statute does not have any requirement of actual, attempted, or threatened use of force. That is, 18 USC 372 defendants to “conspire” to use the threat of force. Precedent exists to exclude conspiracy from being a crime of violence. - Count 5: Assault on a Federal Officer – 18 USC 111(a)(1) and (b)
Payne argues that this statute is not divisible (that is, not separate crimes, but different means of committing the same crime) and therefore subject in total to the categorical approach; whereby it is categorically broader such that the entire statute cannot be classified as a crime of violence. - Count 8: Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 18 USC 115(a)(1)(B)
Similar to Count 5, Count 8, is not divisible. It criminalizes threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder federal officers for the purpose of impeding, intimidating, or interfering with the execution of lawful court orders. Nowhere does the statute require the elements set forth in 18 USC 924(c)(3)(b)(ii). Because of this, it would fail a categorical inquiry as to whether or not it constitutes a crime of violence. - Count 14: Hobbs Act Extortion – 18 USC 1951(a)
This count is problematic (but not insurmountable) for the defendants. The Distric of Nevada has ruled in (Smith, May 2016) that Hobbs Act Extortion is divisible for the purpose of categorical analysis. Payne argues that there exists other precedent for the statute to be considered indivisible for categorical analysis. As such, when viewed as a whole, the statute is overly broad and fails to enumerate a crime of violence. Further, extortion is a crime that can be committed without violence.
Final Thoughts
The government wants to make an example of these men to cover their own lawless actions on Saturday, 12 April 2014. They have dropped a literal avalanche of litigation upon these men complete with stacked 924(c)’s that will ensure, upon conviction, that they receive effective life sentences.
Mandatory minimums were enacted with the best of intentions but ultimately ensure that certain scenarios arise where punishments far outweigh the merits of the crime. The use of 924(c) enhancements was a calculated, vindictive maneuver by the Department of Justice.
In this case, the government wants to criminalize the lawful possession of a weapon during a protest. Their avenue is to allege “crime of violence” enhancements to statutes stretched to fit their larger agenda.
Resources
Some of these resources are clearly biased; the most obvious belonging to the Dept. of Justice.
http://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-co...4/facebook.pnghttp://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-co...64/twitter.png
http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b15ea26...?s=49&d=mm&r=gAuthor anthony-dephuePosted on December 20, 2016Categories UncategorizedLeave a Reply
