Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[Tumbleweed]

Casey Tibbs "Maybe the American Cowboy represents The Last Of The Free Men."
world All Around Rodeo Champion (PRCA) 1951 and 1955
March 5,1929 - January 28, 1990


https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...fd&oe=58DF4B18

It's been quite a few years ago now but I've been along with his relatives when they were trailing a herd of bucking horses to and from rodeos. We had a lot of fun when we camped at night along a river.

[monty]

It's been quite a few years ago now but I've been along with his relatives when they were trailing a herd of bucking horses to and from rodeos. We had a lot of fun when we camped at night along a river.

I wondered if you might be aquainted with him or the family since he was from South Dakota.

Casey Tibbs was my hero when I was about 10

[monty]

Why Trump's new BLM director must fire Daniel P. Love

http://freerangereport.com/index.php...daniel-p-love/

Why Trump’s new BLM Director must fire Daniel P. Love

January 6, 2017 editor Leave a comment

What resulted was an unbelievable show of force, including over 200 agents, among whom were snipers whose weapons were trained on the protesters. Cliven Bundy’s civil disagreement with the BLM erupted into a government assault which violated the property and personal rights of numerous individuals. Citizens were confronted by BLM agents, tazed, brutalized, arrested and threatened with deadly weapons.

Commentary by Free Range Report

Daniel P. Love is hated in the West, and for good reason. Not only is his record of reprehensible behavior towards law-abiding Americans shocking to the conscience, but he embodies everything that is wrong with the Bureau of Land Management; arrogance, hostility, and contempt for property and human rights. His name is connected to several federal operations in which the lives of innocent citizens were lost or changed forever, and not only has he escaped the consequences of his thuggish, militaristic tactics, Daniel P. Love was promoted to become director of the BLM’s most militarized division, the Division of Security, Protection and Intelligence.

In recent decades, especially since the Clinton Era, the BLM has become less about land management than it is about controlling human activities, and punishing those citizens who threaten the agency’s power and agenda. With that in mind, Dan Love is perfect for his new job, but Americans who fear deadly government bullies are chilled by both the actual and symbolic messages his promotion transmits to all in the West under the thumb of the BLM.

Most infamous is Love’s role in a federal sting which ended in the suicide deaths of 3, one of whom was a beloved small town physician from San Juan County, Utah.

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=750%2C552
Dr. James Redd, victim of Operation Cerberus

In the beginning months of the Obama Administration, Love became involved in BLM’s investigation of illegal artifacts trading in the Four Corners area, known as Operation Cerberus Action. In June 2009, Love took the lead in the operation. Enlisting the help of undercover informants and the FBI, Love orchestrated a series of raids which involved dozens of purported suspects. Four individuals impacted by the case died as a result, including James Redd, 60, a respected doctor from Blanding who was so distraught over the possible implication of his wife and daughter, that he took his own life in an attempt to shield them from punishment.

Subsequently, Redd’s family sued Dan Love in Utah’s U.S. District Court, alleging he violated Redd’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to “make an example” of him. The presiding judge later dismissed the case, saying that Love’s conduct was ‘reasonable.’

Senior Senator, Orrin Hatch of Utah, confronted Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, about the case, asking why such an aggressive operation was necessary when the ‘suspects’ posed absolutely no threat to the agents.



Following the disastrous personal fallout of Operation Cerberus, Love was named BLM’s “agent of the year” and promoted to the job of agent in charge for Utah and Nevada.

But the raid, in which 150 agents wearing bulletproof vests searched houses and terrorized ‘suspects, their families and neighbors, bred a justified feeling of contempt for Dan Love and the BLM that smolders to this day.

The most visible of Love’s debacles was the Bundy Ranch ‘standoff’ in the spring of 2014, during which BLM and FBI agents in full military body armor and armed with automatic weapons, confronted ranchers and locals near the Cliven Bundy Ranch in Nevada who had gathered to protest the BLM’s confiscation of cattle.

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C574Daniel P. Love

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C574
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C574
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C574
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C574

Having gained a reputation for ego, aggression and narcissism, Love’s position of Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy Ranch controversy, undoubtedly took it from a land dispute into a full-blown military-style assault. Critics say Love’s dislike of then Clarke County Sheriff, Doug Gillespie, drove him to arrogantly go-it-alone, and ignore the authority of local law enforcement.

What resulted was an unbelievable show of force, including over federal 200 agents, among whom were snipers whose weapons were trained on the protesters. Cliven Bundy’s civil disagreement with the BLM erupted into a government assault which violated the property and personal rights of numerous individuals. Citizens were confronted by BLM agents, tazed, brutalized, arrested and threatened with deadly weapons.



BLM’s assault on the Bundy Ranch, along with numerous other instances of overwrought militarism by federal regulatory agents, lead Utah Congressmen to introduce legislationwhich would eliminate the various armed ‘law enforcement’ divisions within the federal agencies, and force them to recognize the authority of local law enforcement in disputes. Utah sheriffs joined their representatives in supporting the law that would de-militarize increasingly hostile federal bureaucracies.

Although Love was not directly involved in federal actions at the Malheur Refuge in Oregon last year, those operations were overseen by Greg Bretzing, with whom Love worked in coordinating and executing Operation Cerberus. Love is not alone in his extreme, militaristic approach to civil matters. What many conclude was an illegal road block and ambush, resulted in the killing by government agents of rancher, spokesman and father-figure to the Malheur Refuge protesters, LaVoy Finicum. Although FBI agents joined Oregon State Police in the ambush and killing of Finicum, federal operations at the Malheur Refuge, like those at the Bundy Ranch, were under the direction of the BLM.



Love and Bretzing are not accidental hires by a hapless bureaucracy. They hold powerful positions in the most controversial and disreputable federal agency west of the Continental Divide because they are willing to do what most civil servants find appalling; assaulting, arresting, and killing citizens who pose no threat to them, but whom the BLM find problematic in its insatiable drive to control lands, resources and lives in Western states.

Daniel P. Love should be immediately fired by whomever takes the helm in the Bureau of Land Management under the Trump Administration. If the BLM is to ever reestablish trust with rural Westerners, Love, Bretzing, and hundreds, possibly thousands of others in the BLM who have forgotten that The People are the masters of government, and not vise versa, should be fired with extreme prejudice.

Free Range Report

Related

BLM still harassing Jeanette Finicum a year following her husband's killing by government agentsDecember 28, 2016In "Bureau of Land Management"
Bundy defense calls BLM document shredding prior to Bunkerville standoff a "travesty"November 12, 2016In "Bureau of Land Management"
Could Utah's Mike Noel purge BLM of its bureaucratic rotDecember 7, 2016In "Bureau of Land Management"


Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Share

[monty]

An excellent video from Mrs. B Stacy's channel. Stacy is an exellent researcher. she spends a great deal of time looking into the Nevada Constitution and pulic land law, jurisdiction etc.. 30 minutes



https://youtu.be/PZMkpPM0gMI

[monty]

Gary Hunt opinion piece on Plea Withdrawal. Ryan Paine submitted a motion to withdraw his guilty plea . . .

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1908

Burns Chronicles No 53 – Plea Withdrawal – A Privilege or a Right?

January 5, 2017, 4:30 pm
Burns Chronicles N^o 53
Plea Withdrawal – A Privilege or a Right?

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...vt-300x300.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 2, 2017

On October 12, 2016, Ryan Payne submitted to the Court a Motion to Withdraw his Plea Agreement. This was filed over two weeks before the Jury verdict (October 27, 2016), finding the defendants “Not Guilty” of the charges that included Payne in the original Indictment.

Payne pled guilty, in a Plea Agreement, on July 19, 2016. In the hearing on the Plea Agreement, when asked how he pled, he stated, “In pursuing that effort [the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge], I understand I — I have come to understand that folks who were — who work for the Government, that that Constitution ordained, perceived my actions as threatening or intimidating. And, thereby, I – I understand myself to have been guilty of the charge that I’m charged with.”

Clearly, he did not say that he was guilty. He said that he understood himself “to have been guilty of the charges“. So, we have to wonder why the equivocation that was apparent in his statement to the Court. And, we will get to that. However, let’s continue from where we are.The Court (Queen Judge Anna Brown) gave her Order Denying Defendant Ryan Payne’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. From that document, we can get some dates with regard to the timing of Payne’s plea agreement and other contributing factors.

StandardJudge Brown sets out the “Standard” upon which the Court is to determine if a plea should be withdrawn. The citations she uses are all from the 9th Circuit, as they should be.“Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) provides that a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty prior to sentencing if he “‘can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.’” United States v. Mayweather, 634 F.3d 498, 504 (9th Cir. 2010). “The defendant has the burden of demonstrating a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a plea.” United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2005). “‘Fair and just reasons for withdrawal include inadequate Rule 11 plea colloquies, newly discovered evidence, intervening circumstances, or any other reason for withdrawing the plea that did not exist when the defendant entered his plea.’” Mayweather, 634 F.3d at 504 (quoting United States v. Ortega–Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir. 2004)). “‘While the defendant is not permitted to withdraw his plea ‘simply on a lark,’ the ‘fair and just standard’ is generous and must be applied liberally.’” Mayweather, 634 F.3d at 504 (quoting United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008)).

You will note that the standard is based upon “fair and just”, and that the burden is on the defendant. However, the last citation makes clear that the “‘fair and just standard’ is generous and must be liberally applied.”

As she continues, she draws from other 9th Circuit decisions:
A defendant “does not have to prove that his plea is invalid in order to establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal before sentencing.” United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Mayweather, 634 F.3d at 504. When a defendant’s reason for seeking to withdraw a guilty plea is newly-discovered evidence, “the generous ‘fair and just reason’ standard does not require that the defendant show that the new evidence exonerates him or that there is a reasonable probability he would not have been convicted had the case gone to trial.” United States v. Garcia, 401 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir. 2005). Even if newly-discovered evidence provides the basis for the withdrawal of a guilty plea, however, the defendant must still demonstrate the “evidence was relevant evidence in [the defendant’s] favor that could have at least plausibly motivated a reasonable person in [the defendant’s] position not to have pled guilty had he known about the evidence prior to pleading.”

So, the Defendant “does not have to prove that his plea is invalid in order to establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal before sentencing“, and it “does not require that the defendant show that the new evidence exonerates him or that there is a reasonable probability he would not have been convicted had the case gone to trial.”

Therefore, the Defendant does not have to prove that his plea was invalid, nor that any new evidence would exonerate him. It doesn’t even have to suggest that the new evidence would prove his innocence. It is based solely on the fact that evidence, whether physical or testimonial, was not available at the time that the plea was entered.

So, we must look at what the circumstances are so that we can use reason, instead of what appears to be a firm prejudice on the part of Judge Brown.Judge Brown then goes on to identify five areas that warrant discussion, to determine if the “fair and just” standard applies.

1. Intervening Circumstances in the District of Nevada 15

Payne pled Guilty on July 19, 2016. He had been set to go to trial on September 7, 2016, along with the Group 1 defendants that were found Not Guilty at the conclusion of that trial. During the hearing, the Prosecution stated that it “anticipated [Payne] would plead guilty in Nevada.” Surely, if both the Prosecution and the Defendant anticipated it, it should also be anticipated by Judge Brown. Is it not then an intervening circumstance? After all, the anticipation was as much a part of the hearing as Payne’s guilty plea.

1. Newly-Discovered Evidence 18

Payne conceded that on July 1, 2016 he had received the redacted CHS (informants) reports (1023 CHS Reporting Document). However, Payne did not know who each of the informants was. It was not until the trial that Mark McConnell was put out by the government, though not called to testify. It was a voluntary action on the part of Terri Linnell that provided some exculpatory (supportive of innocence), when she testified. And, it was diligence on the part of some of the defendants and defense attorneys that brought Fabio Minoggio (aka John Killman) to the stand that shed a completely new light to some of the events that the prosecution relied upon for their case that shifted those events to the responsibility of the government, not of the occupiers. If the other informants had been identified, is it possible that Payne, having access to those other informants, might not have pled guilty? It is probably just and fair that there is that likelihood.

Judge Brown “concludes [that] Payne’s personal involvement in all of the main events preceding and during the occupation of the MNWR consistently put him in a significantly superior position to the government in assessing what evidence existed to support the government’s charge and its theory of the conspiracy case against Payne.”

Now, consider this. Judge Brown has determined that Payne is guilty, and he should have known that he was guilty. However, let us look at what both the government had and what the occupiers had.

The initial FBI investigation began back in October 2015. Since that time, they began collecting information, recordings, interviews, secured informants to infiltrate (spy on) the occupiers, and begin putting together the elements for a criminal complaint that was finally officially produced after the murder of LaVoy Finicum. They had well over three months of clandestine activity, continuously compiled, as if pursuing a foreign enemy on American soil — perhaps even more so than they would that foreign enemy. The occupiers did not keep records, make notes, refuse entry to the Refuge, with the exception of those who were clearly troublemakers, nor begin preparing for their defense, as they, and the jury, felt that the had broken no laws.

Now, Brown dwelt upon the CHS reports. However, she did not mention the multitude of other “evidence”. Not counting numerous audio and video recordings, there are 48,000 pages in Discovery. Including audio and video, there are seven terabytes (A terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes) of data. I don’t doubt that there are many hundreds of hours of audio and video evidence. However, we will put aside all but the paperwork.

As a test, I read a number of the pages in the Discovery. Now, I am not a slow reader, nor am I a speed-reader. I am probably pretty much an average reader. However, in reading the documents to determine how long it took an average reader to read them, I simply read them. I did not stop to contemplate the content, which is often necessary to fully understand something, especially when much of it is legalese or government double-speak. It took between 1 and 1 1/2 minutes to read a full page. So, to err on the side of the government, we will use an estimated 1 minute to read a page of the Discovery.

If we were to read, uninterrupted, for an 8-hour day, we would be able to read an average of 480 pages per day. To read all 48,000 pages would take 100 days, or nearly four months.. And, with any spare time, one might be able to get in a few videos or audios.

Just for the heck of it, let’s compound the problem. Most of the Group 1 defendants were arrested on January 26, 2016. During that time, they were kept as isolated as possible. Those who were released from custody were admonished not to communicate with the militia, others, and co-defendants. It wasn’t until October 5, 2016, just over one month before trial, that the Court issued an Order Allowing Contact, removing the communication restrictions that had been imposed on them from the time of their arrest. Finally, they were able to “conspire” to prepare their common defense.

The government, on the other hand, was free to communicate with witnesses, FBI and US Attorneys, and anybody else they chose to communicate with. The investigation, as far as informants, begins in October 2015 and continued into February 2016. The Superseding Indictment was filed on March 8, 2016. That gave those hundreds of federal employees nearly four months to conspire, to review, to share, etc., to come up with the final charges against all of the defendants.

So, we must ask ourselves just what is “fair and just”, regardless of the bias of Judge Anna Brown, since ultimately, this country does belong to We, the People.

1. Adequacy of the Plea Colloquy 20

When the charges were read, the Court asked Payne if the statements that had been read were true. The following colloquy transpired:THE DEFENDANT: I would only bring up one contention, which I overlooked previously, and that would be the — the notion that all three — force, intimidation, and threats – were committed, given the — the word “and” there. And would say -

THE COURT: Would you be satisfied if “and” was replaced by “or”?THE DEFENDANT: I would.

THE COURT: And does that cause any concern to the Government?

GABRIEL: No objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, may I change “and” to “or,” as your client indicates?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL] MR. FEDERICO: Yes, your Honor, please do so.

Though this might be passed over as simply semantics, it gets to the heart of one of the elements that led Payne to plea as he did. If “and” is used, it is inclusive of all three elements, “force”, “intimidation”, and, “threats”. So, as was stated above, Payne “understood” that he was guilty, though this concern of the specific wording, when connect by “or” rather than “and”, means it could be only one element. Now, if that sole element is “intimidation”, and if there was no effort to force, threat, or intimidate, by Payne’s actions, the only element that could exist, absent the intent, would be intimidation.

So, did Payne intend to “intimidate”? Or, was the “intimidation” the subjective perception by any one of the employees, either real or contrived, that he failed to go to work because he was “intimidated” by the actions of the occupier?

To do so, let us revisit what we know of what the determination of the jury was when the delivered their verdict. All we have to determine this was provided by Juror #4 (See Burns Chronicles N^o 37 – Intent v. Effect).
He said that the jury had found that though there was that “effect”, the found that there was no “intent”. Hence, the Not Guilty verdict. Hence, also, the reason that Payne wanted the distinction between “and” and “or” included during the hearing — which was agreed to by the Court and the Prosecution.

Once again, just what is “fair and just”?

1. Subsequent Not-Guilty Verdicts for Co-Defendants 23

This element is simply thrown in as a handle to rationalize Judge Brown’s effort to divert from the real purpose (obfuscation) of the denial of Payne’s Plea Withdrawal. How could this even be a consideration when Payne Moved to Withdraw His Plea fully two weeks before the matter was handed over to the Jury for their deliberations?

Now, it is quite possible that the strength (or, should I saw weakness?) of the government’s case had begun to be exposed. However, very much of the Discovery that had been provided was not sufficient for the government to bring forth much of the “damning” evidence that was found in the first batches of Discovery.

So, what does Judge Brown have to say with regard to the verdict that is even on point to the subject at hand? Is it “fair and just” to rely on something that could have absolutely no effect on Payne’s decision?

1. Prejudice to the Government 27

My first thought on this subject, “Who cares that the government is subject to prejudice?” As discussed in “Words from the Poor Losers“, the government seems to have a personal stake in the outcome of this trial. When the verdict was given, they were “disappointed”. Why the heck should the members of the Department of Justice be “disappointed” over a verdict? It would seem that their pursuit, in any case, would be the goal of justice. Our system says that the jury decides what is just (Except in Judge Anna Brown’s courtroom). Why is the government “disappointed” in justice NOT being denied?

Now, that is slightly off point, but it still sticks in my craw to think that a personal vendetta can be waged by the government, against peaceful protestors.

However, we must also look at what sticks in Judge Brown’s craw. She brings us some citations from other cases.

The Court notes the Ninth Circuit has held the acquittal of co-defendants of the same conspiracy charge is a reason that a district court may consider in determining whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea to that charge. (United States v. Schwartz, 785 F.2d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 1986)).Well, that makes it pretty clear — that the acquittal of the co-defendants is a reason to be considered “in determining whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea.” But, heck, that’s not good enough for Anna Brown. Instead of sticking with the precedence of the Ninth Circuit, she desperately clings to a means of dismissing the Ninth Circuit precedence, in favor of the 2nd and 6th Circuits.The Second Circuit concluded that requiring a court to permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea in such circumstances “would allow defendants such as O’Hara to have it both ways” (United States v. O’Hara, 960 F.2d 11, 14-15 (2d Cir. 1992)).

But, wait, Payne moved to withdraw his plea during the trial. By so doing, if his motion had been granted, he would have to stand trial with Group 2. He would have no choice, and, as we have seen, the government has, in their desperation to circumvent justice, added some misdemeanor charges, in the hope of being able to get a conviction of some of the defendants in Group 2. Not quite “both ways”, after all, is it? This would create no prejudice on the government. Surely, after over a year, they have their cases against Payne all worked up. They just take what they can from the Group 1 trial, add some tidbits that are specific to Payne, and proceed.

So, what could be the cause for denial? Could it be that the scorecard looks really bad for this very expensive “pursuit of justice” and they want to keep as many “guilty pleas” as possible on the scorecard? So, it begins to look like the “fair and just” aspect is in favor of the prosecution, where it is intended to apply to the defendant.

Then, she briefly refers to United States v. Giorgio, 802 F.3d 845, 848-50 (6th Cir. 2015), stating only that in that case, “denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea despite acquittal of co-conspirators.” She doesn’t even provide any insight as to why it was denied. We have no idea if there was an equivocation on the part of that defendant, nor do we have any idea of any of the circumstances that led the 6th Circuit to rule as they did.

I believe that we can all look at what has happened over the past year, both in the courtroom and out, and see that the “fair and just” concept is absent any real merit, unless it is applied to the fairness and justness of the edict from the bench. And, we know that it has not been applied as was honestly intended.

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  43
• Google
• Pinterest

[monty]

Being a rancher in todays world is being a "Domestic Terrorist". Government produced it list of expert witnesses including domestic terrorism.

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/gove...-witness-list/

Government Reveals Expert Witness List

Includes “Domestic Terrorism” Experts…

The Government will call as many as 4 expert witnesses to substantiate their version of events at the Bundy Ranch Protest in April of 2014. These witnesses will testify about their credentials, their role(s) in the criminal investigation, and their findings.
FBI Special Agent Chad Simkins

FBI Certified Firearms and Tactical trainer. Formerly Las Vegas Metro SWAT, assigned to Domestic Terrorism Squad. Simkins will testify who had firearms based on photographic and video evidence and identify them.
FBI Special Agent Joel Willis

Willis is a 13 year veteran of the FBI and is currently assigned to the Domestic Terrorism Squad of the Las Vegas Joint Terrorism Task Force. From the notice:

This task force specializes in investigations targeting individuals and organizations who may pose a domestic threat to the United States.

Joel Willis was the author of the criminal complaint used to indict Cliven Bundy and 18 other co-defendants.
FBI Special Agent Mark Seyler

FBI Agent since 1995, from the notice

he has been assigned as a Case Agent on numerous investigations involving Acts of Terrorism, Material Support for Terrorism, Assault against Federal Officers, and other federal criminal violations.

Seyler will apparently explain what Facebook and YouTube are.
Mary Jo Rugwell

Former District Manager for Southern Nevada District Office, she will testify about public land around Gold Butte / Bunkerville Allotment.
Erich Smith

A firearms and ballistics expert who will testify about the weapons present and their effective range; presumably he will only testify with regard to defendants and not agents who needlessly escalated a protest into a tense standoff on Saturday, 12 April 2014.
The agenda is clear…

The Government will paint lawfully armed citizens as domestic terrorists.

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png

[monty]

Brand Thornton and John Lamb from the Pahrump, Nevada Nye County detention center



https://youtu.be/ka-mIK-voTU

[monty]

Lazaro Ecenarro travels ro Tucson, Arizona and confronts Kieran Suckilng, Center for Biodiversity over his 1.5 million dollar land grab Video posted by Leo Stratton

Journalist Questioning Kieran Suckling Accosted



https://youtu.be/lqMdWrV3_QM

[monty]

This Kieran Suckling Center ofr Biodiversity is the same guy Pete Santilli confronted at the Malheur Reserve last January

Lazaro Ecenarro is doing his best to expose him.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/237360...60204084104918

https://s19.postimg.org/q0qnxsn1f/IMG_1442.png

[monty]

The govt. just plows on ahead even though the US Constitution, the Nevada Constitution, the United States Code and the Nevada Revised Statues all say this case is under Nevada jurisdiction.

Government refuses to strike prejudicial statements from grand jury indictment

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/gove...ng-indictment/

Government Refuses To Strike Prejudicial Material From Superseding Indictment

Will instead instruct jury that “indictment is not evidence”…

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...nt-150x150.jpg

On 03 October 2016 the Federal Public Defenders Office filed a motion (ECF No. 718) on behalf of Ryan Payne requesting that large portions of the superseding indictment be stricken, or alternatively, that the indictment not be shown to the jury. Multiple defendants filed motions to joinder.

Payne asserts that using terms “followers”, “gunmen”, and “snipers” were tantamount to prejudicial language that could sway the opinion or objectivity of jurors. Further, Payne objected to the exhaustive inclusion of Cliven Bundy’s two-decade legal battle with the Bureau of Land Management, citing compelling reason for why that portion of the indictment is immaterial to the case against him. Finally, Payne claims that multiple section headings in the indictment promulgate criminal accusations as established fact. In addition to the content found in the indictment, Payne’s representation argued that the prejudicial language, if read to the jury by a judge, would reinforce the allegations as truth.

In the end, Payne requested the removal of 23 paragraphs, 4 headings, 3 subsections, and all references to “gunmen/gunman”, “follower(s)”, and “sniper(s)”.

The Government argued that the language was both appropriate and relevant…

In response to Payne’s motion (ECF No. 928) the Government argued that not only was the language appropriate, but that the supporting facts of Bundy’s legal issues with the BLM were pertinent to establishing the context for the allegations. From Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen’s order:

Citing United States v. Urso, 369 F. Supp. 2d 254, 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), the government argues that a motion to strike under Rule 7(d) is not appropriate if evidence of the allegations in the indictment is admissible regardless of how prejudicial the language is.

During oral arguments on 09 December 2016, the Court specifically asked the Government if it planned to have the presiding judge read the indictment during trial. US Attorney Nadia Ahmed responded that the Government would not.
Ruling: Strike 3 Items…

Leen ordered the removal of just 3 items out of the dozens requested. She insists that merely instructing a jury that an indictment contains no evidence is sufficient to prevent the tainting of objectivity. From her ruling:

[…] the jury will be instructed that an indictment is not evidence, and jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.

The following items will be stricken from what the jury sees:

• The word “Lie” from the heading of Paragraph VII;
• The words “Used Deceit and Deception to Recruit Followers” from the heading of VII(D)(1); and
• The words “and ill-gotten gains” shall be stricken from paragraph 146.

Court documents on Scribd https://bundyranchstandoff.info/gove...ng-indictment/
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png