Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[monty]

Here is exhibit F
http://i63.tinypic.com/1kmxi.jpg

Thanks!

Now consider this:
https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/07/...ahm/#more-7674


MIchael
July 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM

0

0

Rate This

Dennis seems to believe what I posted above is all BS and let me know in an email. The Constitution for The United States of America at Article 1 Section 7 cls 2&3 state the following:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Notice in the above quote it states “if he approve he shall sign it [the bill], but if not he shall return it.” If he signs a bill it is NOT returned but it becomes law. Read the Pocket Veto case.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/279/655/case.html that discusses how bills are returned.

Dennis has misread the Pocket Veto case and the Constitution believing Truman had to return the bill signed before Congress adjourned in order for it to be law; not true. If he signed a bill within ten days of receiving it, whether Congress is adjourned or not, it becomes law. The only reason for returning a bill is so that Congress can reconsider it, the president having objected to it. In the case of a bill being returned Congress must be in session, but in the case of him signing and approving the bill Congress does not have to be in session for it to become law.
What is happening here is, in my opinion, Dennis is stating in his documents that if the president had signed the bill into law, as he believed it should have been done, with Congress in session, it would have become law. Does this mean Dennis would have recognized it as law? Since it was not signed the way Dennis believes, it did not become law. Unfortunately, Dennis’ belief is not supported in the Constitution or the Pocket Veto case linked above.

This whole argument is moot anyway. The laws in question only pertain to the appearance of reality. It is my opinion the issue should never be given the light of day in Dennis docs or anywhere else. They are enacted in the United States for the United States only, not The United States of America. If I am in error, I welcome any corrections that can be brought to my attention.

[monty]

Defense objection to prosecution's motion to hide BLM misconduct

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/defe...rnment-motion/

Defendants Promptly Oppose Government Motion

Government misconduct is of paramount relevance…

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...nt-150x150.jpgAttorneys for Tier 3 defendants wasted little time responding to the Government’s motion to suppress evidence. Todd Leventhal, counsel for Scott Drexler, and also on behalf of Eric Parker and Steven Stewart, filed a blistering rebuke of the Government’s attempt to persuade the Court to suppress certain relevant evidence. The defendants promptly oppose government motion and assert that they will nevertheless abide by Federal Rules of Evidence.

The Government abjectly fails to make a plausible case…

Leventhal points out that the Government’s request is far too vague for serious consideration. At no point does the motion specify what should be subject to exclusion. Absent these details, there is no quantifiable way to determine what the Government asserts is inadmissible.

Digging deeper, Leventhal exposes the abject absurdity of the Government’s request. Specifically, the Government wishes to block testimony regarding Cliven Bundy’s dispute with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Leventhal states:

“Indeed, one must wonder how the government would explain their case to the jury without referencing a dispute over cattle.”

The Malheur Refuge case…

Leventhal’s motion exposes obvious hypocrisy. The Government would move to block testimony about the Malheur Refuge Trial, but would, with near certainty, reference Bundy’s ongoing legal dispute. By their own standard, quoted as:

“facts and circumstances, of a prior case and it’s disposition has no relevance to the case at hand” – Gov’t: ECF No. 1390

the Government would not be able to disclose any of Bundy’s prior legal history. The proposition is patently absurd.

“Perceived” Government misconduct…

This is probably the most egregious request of all. Defendants perception of Government misconduct is especially relevant. It is paramount to understanding their state of mind. As a result, it is a key element of their defense.

Appropriately, Leventhal references evidence that delineates how the defendants came to the conclusion that they should travel to Bunkerville in the first place. The answer is: Government misconduct. Consequently, if all evidence related to Government misconduct is inadmissible, there is no way for either side to build a case.

Finally, Leventhal points out that precedent in the 9th Circuit and Supreme Court allow self-defense as an assertion against a charge of assault. All three defendants took defensive postures due to the reasonable threat of grave bodily injury or death to themselves and unarmed protesters.

Defendants promptly oppose government motion…

The Government sought to completely deflate several avenues of defense for Tier 3 defendants. Their attorneys wasted no time in filing a scathing response. From the Malhuer Trial, to the conduct of Federal Agents, to statements made by elected officials… defendants attorneys demonstrate how all of it is not only relevant, but necessary for each defendant to receive a fair trial.

9 page document on Scribd click link, scroll to bottom of page: https://bundyranchstandoff.info/defe...rnment-motion/

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

[palani]

Now consider this:...they are enacted in the United States for the United States only, not The United States of America. If I am in error, I welcome any corrections that can be brought to my attention.

Go back again and consider the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM. Out of many ONE!

Many is plural. One is singular.

What is the motto for the United States of America?

[monty]

Go back again and consider the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM. Out of many ONE!

Many is plural. One is singular.

What is the motto for the United States of America?

I found the discussion of Dennis Craig's documents to be quite interesting. Who is right and who is wrong?

[monty]

Pete Santilli calls out misconduct of BLM at Bundy Ranch. Note: The Las Vegas Metro Police and the Clark County Sheriff are combined into one department.

http://thewashingtonstandard.com/bun...m-bundy-ranch/

Bundy Ranch Political Prisoner Calls Out Misconduct of BLM at Bundy Ranch

January 26, 2017
http://thewashingtonstandard.com/wp-...ard-728x90.jpg

We are literal days away from the trials of the political prisoners in the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege. With that said, reporter and talk show host Pete Santilli has called on Bureau of Land Management agents to out their fellow agents where misconduct took place and put not only the lives of patriots at Bundy Ranch at risk, but also their own.

On Sunday, I had the privilege of visiting with Pete Santilli at the Southern Nevada Detention Center.

At that time, he told me that the evidence found in the discovery, if allowed to be presented, would completely result in the men held there being acquitted. Among the evidence obtained in the discovery are both audio and video footage of BLM agents talking and joking about which heads of cattle they were going to kill first, as well as those protesting their illegal occupation of the area and threats against the Bundy family. This only confirms the claims of former Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore.



He then joined me on The Sons of Liberty Radio Show on Thursday to comment more on what has taken place, and called on BLM agents to speak out about the misconduct that took place among BLM agents under the direction of Daniel P. Love. Santilli said that Love’s authoritarian tactics not only put the lives of innocent American men, women and children at risk, but his leadership also risked the lives of his own men. Santilli said that lives were threatened to the point that the FBI pulled out realizing what was taking place.

Santilli said that this is day 365 of his imprisonment, which he termed “365 Days of Punishment.” One year ago today, I heard about the murder of Lavoy Finicum and arrest of Santilli and several others moments after it happened as I boarded a plane in Denver for my flight back home. During this time, Santilli and the Bundys have all been denied bail, pretrial release and even representation of their choosing. Yet, similar charges against Santilli and these men, along with others, are what they face in Nevada. In Oregon, all of Santilli’s charges were dismissed and the other men were acquitted of all charges.

While Pete says that he never advocated violence, which is true, he did strongly advocate that people defend themselves against heavily armed BLM or FBI agents. We’ve shown you previously how aggressive the BLM was against the people at Bundy Ranch and what they did to Cliven Bundy’s cattle. This is well documented with video and pictures and some of this is what the central government was to be kept out of the public eye.

In disclosing something he had never before said, Santilli told The Sons of Liberty Radio, “Under the direction of Daniel P. Love, I never understood the extent they [the BLM]would put so many lives in jeopardy, including their own.”

“The FBI opted out, and didn’t want to participate in Bundy Ranch,” he added. “This is the truth that needs to come out because Daniel P. Lover was pushing things too hard.”

The FBI were not the only ones who decided to abandon the BLM because of how things were being handled. The Las Vegas metro police, as well as the sheriff and the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) said they would not participate because it was dangerous.

In fact, the NHP told the BLM they would not shut down highways because of people exercising their right to protest peacefully.

Santilli calls what is currently going on to conceal the misconduct of the BLM a “coverup.” However, he believes it will come out in the trial. Instead of protecting the people and their rights, the corrupt central government prosecutors, according to Santilli, are seeking to protect “rogue agents in the Department of Interior.”

Santilli went on to plead with BLM agents, who knew what sort of misconduct was going on that endangered their lives too, to speak out against the misconduct. Here is just a small taste of what they illegally engaged in.



While there were some at Bundy Ranch who were armed, they were not brandishing weapons at the agents. Yet, the Obama administration allowed the BLM agents to point guns at those who were not armed, but simply protesting in the open. These included men, women and children.

Santilli would like to demand an Inspector General investigation into the Department of the Interior and the BLM, but due to his current circumstances, it makes it difficult for him to do. So, he asks that you contact your representativesand demand that they launch an investigation into the misconduct and hold these people accountable to the law.

To listen to the interview, please click here.

If you would like to help Pete with defense expenses or aid in the house being set up to accommodate wives and children of those facing trial in Nevada, please click here to donate.

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

[palani]

Who is right and who is wrong?

Doesn't matter. What matters is due process. That phrase is synonymous with the law of the land. Due process is notice and opportunity to inquire. When public notice is involved estoppel and laches also enter the picture.

Your beliefs are your own. That does not mean you can force your beliefs on others but you might present the reasons for your belief and when such a notice is given you have granted others an opportunity to inquire further. When they do so they ask questions rather than make statements. If they fail to ask then they lose the right to do so in the future (estoppel).

[palani]

Modern science is confounded by quantum physics. Things that don't exist are represented by waves. Waves present a diffraction pattern that is unique when they pass through a double slit. When an observer is added these waves get converted through some process to the characteristic of particles. Particles are reality. They exist. They exist because they were observed (created?). A wave is an alternative universe that has the possibility or probability of existing at some future or past time.

Now you take Harry Truman's actions in 1948. If they existed then they did so before I came on earth. In a sense nothing that happened before I was born ever existed or the details of that existence might be other than the history books report. When I observe something I make it concrete. The manner in which I observe and record are what brings these observation into present day reality.

Just a little background. If you look at history through this lens there is less chance of being influenced by other people who try to control your observations (and beliefs) for their own ends (and their own creations). You will also understand how important it is to notice things or not to take notice of things.

Not taking notice is something you always have an interest in. If someone presents you with a notice in a non-official manner you don't have to accept that notice. Or you might consider the notice to be a new contract offer and either accept that offer, refuse it (in the nature of a dishonor) or perform a counter-offer. The counter-offer is an honorable way to cancel a notice/offer. An example of this is the bailiff stating "all rise". If you don't feel like agreeing with this notice/offer you raise your hand and ask "Is it ok if I stand on one leg?" in the manner of a counter-offer. You give him a second to consider and then state "nevermind" and keep your seat. By this statement you cancel your counteroffer. Your first statement (the counter-offer) cancelled his notice/offer.

[monty]

This video isn't Bundy Ranch standoff/trial related. Nevada beats D. C.by turning off their water.



https://youtu.be/gQeWS2GvqJ8

Nullify Chapter 15: Nevada Beats D.C. by Turning off their Water

Tenth Amendment Center 372 views

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-4vZFjdEt88I/A...ffff/photo.jpg

SUBSCRIBE
6,156

52

0
Published on Jan 26, 2017Can states legally - and successfully - shut off water to a federal agency? Absolutely, it’s already been done.

“The validity of Western states’ groundwater rights and the right to regulate water in the public interest is not a right to be taken lightly, nor is it a right that can cavalierly be ignored or violated by a federal agency.”

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

[monty]

Defense objects to presecutions untimely discovery evidence

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/unti...ts-objections/

Untimely Discovery Evidence Draws Defendants Objections

Stewart, Drexler, and Parker challenge Government’s last minute submission.

On January 25th, 2017, less than two weeks before trial, the Government submitted an extra 5+ gigabytes of discovery evidence. Appropriately, Stewart, Parker, and Drexler motioned to preclude this evidence for trial for several reasons. First, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) mandate timely dissemination of discovery evidence. Second, the Government routinely vocalizes opposition to any motion made by defendants if it does not follow strict rules of timeliness. It follows that untimely discovery evidence draws defendants objections.

Deadlines set in April, 2016

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...12-150x150.pngOn April 26th, 2017 Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen ordered (ECF No. 321) the submission of general discovery evidence to happen no later than May 6th, 2017; a full nine months before trial. This deadline did not apply to special evidence known as Jenks and Giglio material. Discovery evidence provides defendants an opportunity to know, understand, and prepare for what the Government intends to assert before a jury. It took the Government almost 700 days to get around to indicting and arresting Bundy Ranch Protest defendants. In addition, the deadline for discovery evidence gave the Government an additional two months time. Essentially, the Government had over two years to build this case; one has to wonder what could possibly surface 12 days before trial.

What’s good for the goose…

Given the Government’s persistent opposition to any motion filed outside of deadlines set by the court, this latest dissemination of evidence further manifests the Government’s near-predictable wanton disregard for the fair and equitable metering of justice. Technically, according to FRCP, prompt disclosure of discovery evidence is the standing requirement. However, the Court retains broad discretion when it comes to discovery evidence. As an example, the strict protective order on all evidence is a direct result of the Court’s broad discretion in matters of discovery. Consequently, the Court has the ability to preclude this evidence and thereby block its admissibility. Such an action would be consistent with the Government’s track record of opposing everything that falls outside of strict deadlines set by the court.

Untimely Discovery Evidence Draws Defendants Objections

The fruit of the tree of justice is putrid and poisonous to the blessings of liberty. It is rotten from the tip of the longest root to the end of the longest branch. It is doubtful that defendants expect any motion to gain traction with plausible efficacy as it relates to the first Bundy Ranch Protest trial. At this point, motions serve only as hedge bets in the event that the outcome has to go to the 9th Circuit for appeal. The Court will allow the Government to submit whatever it wants as evidence, even if untimely discovery evidence draws defendants objections. Conversely, we can expect the Court to limit and restrict defendants; this was a HUGE issue in Oregon at the Malheur Refuge Occupation trial.

Documents aee on Scribd at bottom of page: https://bundyranchstandoff.info/unti...ts-objections/

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=gAuthor anthony-dephuePosted on January 28, 2017Categories Trial UpdatesLeave a Reply

[monty]

Bundy Ranch standoff defendents seek undercover agent's identity


Defendants Seek Undercover Agent’s Identity

File opposition to Government’s motion to seal…

The Government filed a motion (ECF No. 1440) on January 27th, 2017 requesting a protective order on the identity of an undercover employee (UCE). The Government wishes to call the witness to testify, but expresses concern that revealing the identity of the UCE could jeopardize other ongoing investigations. The UCE’s investigation apparently led to the arrest of the defendants in Tier 3. Further, the Government asked the court to preclude any cross-examination that might shed light on the UCE’s identity. The defendants seek undercover agent’s identity in order to investigate the UCE’s history and strength of character for cross-examination. According to the Government, the UCE could play conversations they recorded with the defendants.

Not so fast…

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...g_-150x150.pngDefendants Drexler, Parker, and Stewart argue that sealing a UCE’s identity from their investigators is both a violation of their rights and fatal to due process. First, two landmark Supreme Court decisions (Bradyand Giglio) directly address this type of evidence. Second, any evidence this UCE might produce did not appear in discovery evident before the January 6th, 2017 deadline set in ECF No. 1017. As such, they oppose the motion and ask the Court to preclude this UCE’s testimony.

The Brady watershed…

In Brady vs. Maryland (1963), defendant Brady received a murder conviction even though a co-defendant confessed to the crime. Brady’s defense counsel never saw this evidence. Subsequently, certain information has to be available to a defense team. The Supreme Court ruled:

[…] that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.

Translation: it doesn’t matter whether the withholding of evidence is negligent or intentional. The failure of the Government to produce evidence favorable to a defendant is fatal to due process.

The Giglio extension…

In Giglio vs United States (1972), defendant Giglio fell under indictment because of cooperation between a co-defendant and the US Attorneys Office. A grand jury issued an indictment and two years later, a different US Attorney prosecuted the case. A discrepancy over the cooperating defendant did not factor into the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Giglio a new trial. The Supreme Court thus extended Brady, ruling that:

When the “reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,” nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within (the Brady) rule.

Prosecutors now have a mandate to disclose information about witnesses if that information could affect the credibility of the witness. Courts routinely set a deadline for the dissemination of “Giglio Material”.

Defendants Seek Undercover Agent’s Identity

Drexler doesn’t challenge the Government’s motion with regard to keeping the UCE’s identity secret to the public. He does however object to the Government’s motion with regard to keeping the UCE’s identity secret to his defense counsel and investigative team. Without the ability to run background checks and look for other incidents that might impact the character or integrity of the UCE, Drexler (and the others) will be denied the right to due process under Brady and Giglio.

Beyond the obvious violation of due process, the Government did not disseminate the information in a timely manner. Drexler argues that failure to do so should preclude the witness from testifying.

Failure to release this information could result in a mistrial. As such, the defendants seek undercover agent’s identity.

Documents on Scribd Scroll to bottom of page

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