Ryan Payne Emergency Motion for Dismissal
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...4e&oe=59094A32
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...90&oe=5904D85C
Printable View
Ryan Payne Emergency Motion for Dismissal
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...4e&oe=59094A32
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...90&oe=5904D85C
Ryan Payne Memorandum of Points and Authorities supporting emergency motion.
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...97&oe=590474AA
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...da&oe=59065E50
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...00&oe=5944D6CE
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...76&oe=5906320F
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...a5&oe=5914D479
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...a3&oe=59113632
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...ae&oe=59466702
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...09&oe=590C6878
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...dc&oe=58FDFC25
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...da&oe=5908B4B4
Cliven Bundy Motion in Limine to exclude evidence from undercover FBI agents posing as Longbow Productions
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...fb&oe=5902F80E
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...0d&oe=59436631
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...71&oe=59140B66
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...21&oe=5902BDFF
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...1f&oe=59453D9C
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...5c&oe=5944F820
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...31&oe=5906A067
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...4b&oe=58FD4936
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...fb&oe=594BF7E2
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...c1&oe=5940D61A
Attorneys suggest BLM agent accusedmof misconduct could be central to Bundy case.
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...to-bundy-case/
Attorneys suggest BLM agent accused of misconduct could be central to Bundy case
Posted on February 3, 2017 by Doug Knowles
February 2, 2017 - 10:29pm
By JENNY WILSON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Defense attorneys representing men charged as co-conspirators of rancher Cliven Bundy have raised concerns that a Bureau of Land Management supervisor recently acccused of ethics violations is the same person who oversaw agency officials during the armed standoff in Bunkerville in April 2014.In a scathing report released this week, the Office of the Inspector General accuses an unnamed BLM supervisory agent of using his position to obtain sold-out Burning Man tickets in 2015. The report includes allegations that the agent intimidated employees who may have reported his wrongdoing, and it accuses him of threatening to ruin subordinates’ careers by saying things like, “If you’re not on my ship, you’re going to sink … so I suggest you get on my ship.”
The defense attorneys filed motions in federal court Wednesday seeking personnel files of all the BLM agents involved in the case. But the language in the filings reveals that lawyers are focused specifically on the identification of the unnamed supervisory agent targeted in the OIG report, whom they apparently suspect to be the same agent in charge of the cattle impoundment operation at Bundy’s ranch.
“Curiously, the report never actually names the Special Agent in Command who is the subject of the report,” defense attorney Todd Leventhal, representing defendant Scott Drexler, wrote in his filing. “This narcissistic and cavalier attitude towards the legal process calls into question at what lengths this Special Agent in Command may go to and whether or not future witnesses in the case at bar may be tainted with their testimony at trial for fear of ‘ruining their career’ as well.”
Drexler’s trial is scheduled to open next week, and Leventhal filed the motion as he is preparing to cross-examine federal agents who are included on the government’s witness list for the upcoming trial. He included a list of those agents in his court filing, and only one on the list is identified as a supervisor: BLM Supervisory Special Agent Daniel Love.
Defense attorney Chris Rasmussen, who represents defendant Pete Santilli, filed an identical request but did not identify by name any of the BLM agents. He did, however, use his filing to attack the behavior of federal officials — especially the special agent in charge.
“BLM had told officials in Washington D.C. that they were ceasing the cattle operation. However, when the cowboys came to recover the cattle, the BLM was still positioned in a confrontational manner in which they pointed firearms at protestors,” Rasmussen wrote in the filing. “The BLM agent in charge testified to the grand jury about facts that are disputed by our local law enforcement officials.”
The defense strategy involves portraying federal officials as excessively militant or aggressive against a peaceful group of protesters. If the lawyers’ suspicions are confirmed, some of the allegations detailed in the Inspector General’s report could bolster defense arguments at trial, provided the judge allows the jury to hear testimony on that topic.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
source
yes wouldn't it be interesting if the UCE informant was that guy. Probably the real reason they want to keep his identity secret.
Bridge photos might be inadmissable becuase they are prejudicial. The court gives the govt. 3 days to respond.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/brid...ling-imminent/
Bridge Photos Ruling Imminent
Court Gives Government 3 Days To Respond
On 27 January 2017, Parker, Drexler, and Stewart motioned to exclude from trial photos taken showing them on the NB I-15 bridge on Saturday, 12 April 2014. Their counsel argues that the opening in the jersey barrier is only 1.5 inches wide. Subsequently, no agent under the SB I-15 bridge would have been able to perceive an imminent threat from any of the three. In addition, Stewart didn’t surface in any agency reports until after photographs of the trio circulated widely in the media. The Court ruled that the Government will have until 07 February 2017 to respond making a bridge photos ruling imminent
.
Photos are likely prejudicial…
The motion argues that court precedent requires someone to perceive threat in order to be a victim of assault. Parker and Drexler’s defensive posture do not meet the standard for what the Court defines as assault. Further, jury instructions historically require that an alleged victim perceive threat or imminent harm. From the filing:Mr. Drexler, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stewart seek to prevent the United States from entering any photographs depicting them aiming their rifles at any persons and because none of these persons (and consequently, none of the witnesses) were aware of the defendants doing so. If one is unaware of being in a position of harm, that person cannot be the victim of assault, threats, obstruction, extortion, impeding or the alleged brandishing of a firearm in furtherance thereof.The chess match for evidence…
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...ss-150x150.png
The Government seeks to preclude defendants from introducing critical elements of their defense. Specifically, the Government motioned to preclude any mention of militarized police presence. Similarly, The Government wishes to preclude any mention of Federal Agent misconduct. These points are integral to the establishment of the defendant’s state of mind. Simply stated, it explains why they took a defensive posture.
Discovery evidence doesn’t support the notion that any Federal Agents knew that Parker and Drexler took a defensive posture. The Government would like to use the single snapshot of these men prone on the bridge to proffer (propose) that they did so in furtherance of the embellished criminal indictment levied against them. Consequently, inclusion of these photos could be prejudicial if introduced as evidence.
Bridge Photos Ruling Imminent
Motions to dismiss because of SAC Dan Love’s behaviorhave not yet received a ruling. Outright dismissal seems unlikely.
With jury selection beginning in just two days, the Court requests an expedited response from the Government.
The case will rise and fall on what the jury sees. This will be a watershed ruling.
Court document on Scribd Scroll down
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
Free Range Report - Will Dan Love misconduct cripple federal prosecutors in Bundy trial?
http://freerangereport.com/index.php...n-bundy-trial/
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=601%2C194
Will BLM agent Dan Love misconduct cripple federal prosecutors in Bundy trial?
February 4, 2017 editor Leave a comment
Whipple represents ranch owner and Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy, 70, whose years-long feud with the federal government over cattle grazing rights on federal land culminated in the 2014 standoffWhipple said the report paints a picture of an agent with a personal agenda and no regard for the rule of law. He said his client long has maintained that Love dangerously orchestrated events during the Bundy standoff to “enhance and enrich” his personal profile and “to make a name for himself.”Love did not respond to repeated phone calls left at his Utah office and on his cellphone.Jenny Kane
Robert Anglen
USA Today Network
Agent in charge at Bunkerville, Nev., standoff is implicated in Burning Man investigation
An investigation accusing a federal agent of misconduct and ethics violations could derail one of the most high-profile land-use trials in modern Western history.
Jury selection is scheduled to start in a Las Vegas federal courtroom Monday for a series of trials in which 17 cattle ranchers and self-styled militia members face charges for their roles in the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff against Bureau of Land Management officials.
But a Jan. 30 report by the Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General appears to raise serious questions about the BLM special agent in charge of operations during the standoff, who is expected to be a key witness for the government in the case.
The report, which does not identify the agent by name, cites ethical violations that occurred in 2015 at the annual Burning Man event in Northern Nevada’s Black Rock Desert.
Federal investigators said the agent wrongly used his influence to obtain benefits for himself and his family members at Burning Man, abused federal law-enforcement resources and intimidated other BLM staff to keep quiet about his conduct. They also accused the agent of manipulating BLM hiring practices to help a friend get hired.
Lawyers representing Bundy Ranch defendants say the report offers enough details to positively identify the agent as Dan Love, the BLM special agent in charge of Utah and Nevada between 2012 and 2015.
“I’m sure it is him. If it is Dan Love, first of all we will file a motion to dismiss. … He is the primary figure in the government’s case. He put together the plan. He negotiated with (the Bundys).”
Bret Whipple, Las Vegas attorney representing Cliven Bundy
Already, they are filing motions to confirm it. A defense lawyer said Thursday they are asking a federal judge to force the government to reveal the name of the agent in the inspector general’s report. If it is Love, they will ask for charges to be dismissed against the Bundy Ranch defendants before the trials begin.
“I’m sure it is him,” Las Vegas attorney Bret Whipple said Thursday. “If it is Dan Love, first of all we will file a motion to dismiss. … He is the primary figure in the government’s case. He put together the plan. He negotiated with (the Bundys).”
Whipple represents ranch owner and Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy, 70, whose years-long feud with the federal government over cattle grazing rights on federal land culminated in the 2014 standoff
Whipple said the report paints a picture of an agent with a personal agenda and no regard for the rule of law. He said his client long has maintained that Love dangerously orchestrated events during the Bundy standoff to “enhance and enrich” his personal profile and “to make a name for himself.”
Love did not respond to repeated phone calls left at his Utah office and on his cellphone.
BLM officials in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the inspector general’s report and would not confirm if Love is the unnamed agent. BLM spokesman Michael Richardson called the report a personnel matter. He said the unnamed agent is still employed with the BLM, but Richardson said he would not discuss the agent’s status or current assignment.
“The Bureau of Land Management takes allegations of misconduct seriously,” Richardson said in a statement. “These types of allegations do not align with our mission or the professionalism and dedication of our 10,000 employees doing essential work for America’s public lands each and every day.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas also declined comment. Spokeswoman Trisha Young said Friday the witness list in the Bundy Ranch trials has been sealed and is not open to the public, and she declined to speak about Love’s role in the case.
Individual federal prosecutors assigned to the cases did not return calls.
A potential credibility issue, law professor says
The inspector general’s report could damage the credibility of the government’s case if Love is identified as the agent, said Sara Gordon, associate professor of law at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
“It’s in an ethics report. I think everything is up for grabs — misuse of the vehicles, using intimidation,” Gordon said. “This stuff, it suggests that he’s willing to cheat and lie for his job.”
She said defense attorneys involved in the Bundy Ranch trials might not be able to show juries the inspector general’s report but could question Love about specific incidents raised in it.
“I wouldn’t be happy if this was my star witness, but I don’t think this will kill the case.”“Anytime a witness is on the stand, you can cross-examine them and … try to impeach him,” she said. “They can ask him about things that (could) show that he’s dishonest.”
Sara Gordon, associate professor of law at the Boyd School of Law at UNLV
Gordon said any damage defense lawyers could inflict upon Love’s credibility would not affect the credibility of other witnesses testifying for the prosecution.
“They don’t have anything to show that he (Love) did any of this at the Bundy standoff,” she said. “I wouldn’t be happy if this was my star witness, but I don’t think this will kill the case.”
The 17 defendants are charged with conspiracy, assault on a federal officer, using a firearm in a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, interference of commerce by extortion and aiding and abetting a crime. If convicted, they could spend the rest of their lives in a federal prison.
Trials could go on for months. The defendants will be prosecuted in groups before three different juries based on their alleged levels of culpability.
The first trial, beginning Monday, primarily involves militia members. The second trial includes Cliven Bundy, two of his sons and two key figures in the standoff. The third includes two Bundy relatives and four others.
Report details special privileges for agent
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=540%2C405Federal officials said the BLM agent’s name was withheld from the Burning Man report because he is not a top official within the agency.
Burning Man participants walk through dust at the annual Burning Man event on the Black Rock Desert of Gerlach, Nev., on Friday, Aug. 29, 2014. (Photo: Andy Barron/The Reno Gazette-Journal)
But an analysis by the Reno Gazette-Journal and The Arizona Republic found many details in the report coincide with Love’s career, including the agent’s former title, his base of operation, his past assignments and his on-site supervisor. In addition, the report cited a June 2015 Gazette-Journal story about complaints against Love over his conduct before Burning Man began.
The Inspector General’s Office adopted language in its report identical to the Gazette-Journal article naming Love as a person behind a series of official requests that would have required Burning Man organizers to build a $1 million luxury compound for BLM officials at the event.
Burning Man takes place during Labor Day weekend when as many as 70,000 people erect a temporary city on a remote desert playa miles away from any kind of services. The event culminates with the burning of a giant wooden effigy of a man.
Among Love’s requests were flushing toilets, laundry facilities and 24-hour access to ice cream, documents show.
The inspector general’s report said the unnamed agent used his official position to buy three sold-out tickets to Burning Man; had five on-duty BLM officers escorting his father, family friend and girlfriend during the event; and also changed the hiring process so an unqualified applicant, a personal friend of his, would be hired.
During the burning of the effigy, the agent was on duty and he claimed 24 hours of official work time. He also claimed 24 hours of work time the next day, and the day after that.
Investigators said when they began looking into the complaints, the agent called other employees and encouraged them not to cooperate. He told them “I don’t recall” was a valid answer to investigators’ questions, the report said.
Investigators said the agent used intimidation to discourage his co-workers from speaking with investigators, telling one: “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”
A history of conflict, controversy
Love’s conduct was being called into question years before the Bundy Ranch standoff.
Love, formerly with the Federal Air Marshal Service, became the BLM’s Nevada and Utah special agent in charge in 2012 and has often captured headlines for actions that exacerbated an already strained relationship between the federal agency and landowners.
Utah Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox called for Love’s ouster from the state in 2014, saying the agent had so many conflicts with local officials that it was becoming a barrier to law enforcement, according to reports published in The Salt Lake Tribune.
Four Utah counties passed resolutions alleging the BLM posed a threat to public safety.
“This is untenable,” Cox told The Tribune. “There comes a time when personalities get in the way of productivity.”
Cox said he and other state officials were unable to negotiate with Love, and he publicly told a state commission that he didn’t want Love “instigating a war,” according to The Tribune.
Cox could not be reached for comment Friday. A spokeswoman for Utah Gov. Gary Herbert confirmed the statements made by Cox in 2014 and said they accurately reflected the state’s position.
In 2009, Love was one of the agents in charge of a massive raid of the home of Utah doctor James Redd, who had been busted for trading Native American artifacts out of the Four Corners region.
Redd, 60, committed suicide the day after his arrest, and the artifacts dealer committed suicide thereafter. Four others connected to the case, including the undercover artifacts dealer who got Redd arrested, also committed suicide.
Redd’s widow, Jeanne Redd, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against two of the BLM agents, including Love. A federal judge dismissed the suit but questioned the agents’ tactics.
On websites and social-media posts dedicated to the Bundy Ranch standoff, Love is accused of ratcheting up the conflict.
Recorded exchanges purportedly between Love and right-wing internet radio host Peter Santilli during the standoff show just how quickly events escalated as each man threatened the other with arrest.
Love maintained he had the federal courts on his side and wanted to end the standoff peacefully. Then he told Santilli that the protesters didn’t have enough people to hold off law enforcement, saying, “You better hope that 10,000 show up,” according to one website.
Santilli is one of the 17 facing charges.
Bundy’s fight with the federal government dates back to the early 1990s, when he refused to pay the BLM for allowing his cattle to graze on public lands near his ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., about 80 miles north of Las Vegas on Interstate 15.
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=640%2C426Cliven Bundy with cattle Conservative Treehouse PhotoFor two decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 the agency obtained a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle as payment for more than $1 million in back fees. In April, the BLM, led by Love, implemented a roundup of 1,000 head of Bundy’s cattle ranging on public land.
Bundy fought back, issuing a social-media battle cry to help defend his land rights against federal agents. Supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana. They showed up with rifles and handguns, determined to keep government agents at bay.
Pictures of prone figures on overpasses sighting long rifles at BLM agents in a dusty wash below galvanized the public and brought international awareness to the feud over public lands and the potential consequences.
For six days, tension escalated as the standoff played out with demonstrations, speeches and attempted negotiations before the BLM abandoned the round-up and withdrew from the area without a single arrest. Cliven Bundy went back to grazing his cattle on the disputed public land.
The standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Cliven Bundy’s sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, cited their success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. They said they could make the federal government stand down.
Federal authorities answered the siege at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which ended in the shooting death of Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum and with other arrests and indictments. But the Oregon case ended in embarrassment for federal prosecutors last year when a federal jury acquitted Ryan and Ammon Bundy and five other defendants.
Cliven Bundy was not directly involved in the Oregon siege. He was arrested last year in connection with his role in the 2014 Nevada standoff, which is referred to in militia circles as the Battle of Bunkerville. His sons and 14 others also were charged. All are being held without bail at a detention facility in Nevada.
Cliven Bundy’s attorney said Thursday it “will be very interesting” to see how the case plays out with Dan Love as the government’s key witness.
“Between you and me,” Whipple said, “We’re lucky we’re at trial and not at a memorial service.”
Free Range Report
Vickey Gray makes a good point
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/
Vickey Gray
I do wish when these reporters would stop omitting the facts about the "grazing fees".
In 1993 Theban managed 1.7 million acres and these were ruled by law called The Taylor Grazing act which divided the property allotments and sold these rights to grazing "appropriated land".
Then congress set up FLMPA this also had strict laws that protected the property owner.
Then came Bill Clinton the fool and Bruce Babbitt the sociopath, who explained that congress would never change the law so he went through the Courts he set up his own nonprofit called "Public Lands Council" to bring lawsuits against the department of interior when ever he wanted a change to the law.
This worked so great that the U. S. Forest Service Michael Dowbeck did the same he set up "friends of the Clearwater" and the legacy of corruption and moral turpitude and years of nightmares for the citizens of the 11 Western states, sadly our elected officials took over for Bruce Babbitt in 2002 House Hearing Serial No. 107-124. Possibly treason.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...roperty-owners
TNA: Some of the reports circulated by your opposition after the court ruled in its Final Opinion and Finding of Fact in 2002 for Hage v. United States suggested that the only forage the court found you owned on these lands was a strip 50 feet on each side of your irrigation ditches. Can you explain that?
Hage: Yes. The government agencies started that rumor shortly after they realized they had lost their claim to water and forage on Pine Creek Ranch. Unfortunately, several erstwhile lawyers in the West parroted that same disinformation.
TNA: But, how did that disinformation, as you call it, develop?
Hage: At a hearing held in the court, June 30, 1993, the U.S. stipulated on the record that we do own the range and water rights we claimed under Nevada law. The United States wanted to argue that there was some federal law which superseded our rights. The court, in that same hearing, confirmed that Nevada law controlled and there was no federal law of property which could supersede the state law. Since June 30, 1993, the issue of whether I owned the range and water rights I claimed was not an issue before the court. It was no longer a point in contention. Both sides stipulated, on the record, that I did own those rights and the court affirmed the issue of law.
TNA: Where did the issue of the forage on 50 feet on each side of an irrigation ditch come from?
Hage: About four months after I had first filed my taking claim with the court, the United States brought criminal charges against me for cleaning vegetation out of my irrigation ditches. In June of 1993, the issue of whether I owned the vegetation on my ditch right-of-ways had been appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which eventually ruled in my favor. The issue of who owned the forage on the ditch right-of-ways was then not covered by the 1993 stipulation. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims devoted considerable dicta in the Final Opinion holding that I also owned the forage on the ditch right of ways. Some reviewers who have never read all three published opinions of the court and who have relied on the Final Opinion and Finding of Fact only fail to realize that the issue of forage on the ranch as a whole was settled in my favor in 1993.
TNA: Why are ranchers required to have a grazing permit if, as you say, they already own the water and forage on these lands?
Hage: The truth is that a rancher is not required to have a grazing permit. The grazing permit should more accurately be called a grazing management permit. It is a cooperative permit whereby the rancher permits the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management to manage his private range rights in return for the rancher being permitted to participate in the range improvement fund for capital expenditures. When the federal agency cancels a grazing permit, as they did in my case, they cancelled my ability to participate in the range improvement fund, but they also cancelled any authority to manage my private range and water rights.
Defendants denied access to attorneys before trial
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/atto...-before-trial/
Attorneys Denied Access Before Trial
Prison refuses to grant group meeting…
Tier 3 defendants now reside at the Henderson Detention Center in Henderson, NV. Henderson is closer to the Courthouse which makes for a substantially reduced commute to and from trial. Henderson also has individual cells, (as opposed to Pahrump’s 50 bunk bed per pod layout); the men should get better sleep. There are issues though.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...ed-300x150.jpg
First, and foremost, the prison prevented a group meeting between defendants, attorneys, and private investigators. Two attorneys and four private investigators waited for hours until the prison informed them that only visits permitted would be one-on-one. Six defendants in Tier 3 each face (now) 15 criminal counts capable of amounting to more than 100 years in prison. Three of the four defendants from Idaho traveled to and from the Bundy Ranch Protest together. Their cases are inseparably relevant one to the other ; they need to have as pre-trial meeting.
Stewart’s attorney motioned for this accommodation. The Court, so far, fails to acknowledge the request. Defendants and attorneys will try again Sunday for a meeting.
No access to discovery either…
Further, nearly all of the evidence in discovery is in electronic format. The prison does not have a PC accessible to prisoners that can review the material. Late developments related to the Bundy Ranch Tyrant and motions to preclude certain evidence mandate a need for access to technology.
Parker’s attorney notified the US Marshals the day defendants transferred in to Pahrump. The US Marshals, thus far, refuse to accommodate the request.
Shoes or Soda?
Finally, commissary is the only connection defendants have to normality. Funds on commissary are good for anything from “comfort food” to essentials. In this case, prisoners had to leave their shoes at Pahrump. Ordering shoes through commissary uses most of the weekly allowable limit.
Parker’s spouse, Andrea, had to go shopping for shoes in order to allow defendants to be able to spend commissary on other items. the prison did allow the items in.
Attorneys Denied Access Before Trial
With just one day to go before trial, much is up in the air. The Court has not yet ruled on:
- Ethics violations of SAC D. Love (The Bundy Ranch Tyrant)
- Motions to preclude evidence (from both sides)
These outstanding items will greatly impact what the jury hears and sees. Defendants need to be prepared for any possible outcome; this doesn’t seem to be a priority for the “justice” system.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b...?s=49&d=mm&r=g
Author anthony-dephue Posted on February 4, 2017 Catagoties Uncategorized
Leave a Reply
Since the passage of the unconstitutional "Patriot" Act Americans can be held indefinitely without trial or bail . . .
Or is it because of the unconstitutional enforecement of the "Patriot" Act against Americans?
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...9f&oe=590F0561