Attorney Larry Klayman and Shari Dovale discuss the current Bunkerville trial “dismissal with prejudice”. There is also more information on those who accepted plea deals or were convicted in the first two trials. Everything that has happened in this series prosecutions is tainted by the same prosecutorial malfeasance that caused this third trial to collapse.
Interview by Shari Dovale of Redoubt News on 1-9-2018:
Exclusive interview with Larry Klayman.
Posted by Redoubt News on Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada Steven Myhre filed a brief outlining his reasons that he should be allowed to retry the defendants in the Bunkerville Standoff trial.
This is quite the masterful work of a desperate man. Clearly he believes that overwhelming the court with a brief so large that it requires a table of contents may hide the truth of the words themselves.
Not only does he repeatedly imply that did he not intend to violate the law, but, in his opinion, it really did not have a substantial impact on the defendants.
Let us not forget that the case that continues to be cited for prosecutorial misconduct, US v Chapman, is a case where Steven Myhre was also the lead prosecutor. This is his history. This is his strategy. Hiding evidence from the defense seems to be his well-established nature as a prosecutor.
To be sure, Myhre does not deny the violations made by him and his team. But, he does downplay them to the point of barely mistakes. Using terms like “simple inadvertence” suggests that the blatant lawlessness of these violations was merely… an oopsie.
“As the government understood its Brady/Giglio obligations, the information was not helpful to the defendants” is almost offensive to these men incarcerated for nearly two years. Does Mr. Myhre really mean to suggest that only he should determine what is relevant to the defense?
The original indictment clearly accuses the defendants of lies and deceit in their internet postings.
Claiming that the defendants made up tales about snipers and surveillance on their home which now, through the revelations of these Brady violations, prove to be absolutely true, Mr. Myhre still contends that this is not important enough to be sanctioned by the court.
It does make one wonder, if the tables were turned, how should Mr. Myhre’s deceit be judged? By the same standards as he applied to the common man (Cliven Bundy)? Or is he to be held to a different standard (above the law)?
What Myhre has not given much thought to is the fact that Judge Gloria Navarro has already ruled that his actions were “willful”.
The Court also finds that this information was willfully suppressed, despite representations by the Government that this report was an urban legend and a shiny object to distract the Court.
Does Mr. Myhre believe that Judge Navarro will backstep her ruling and give him another chance at his exercise in futility? Or is he just hoping that she doesn’t set aside the previous convictions and plea agreements in this case, as they were materially effected by his illegal acts?
After the abuse was made public, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation into the case. This puts another high profile spin to the case that is not so easily swept under the rug.
Myhre is not the only one that will be held liable for this government SNAFU. There will be an onslaught of employees in the prosecutors office that will do anything to save themselves. What will Myhre do to save himself? Who will he throw under the bus?
I am sure that Steven Myhre will do “Whatever It Takes.”
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
The recent mistrial in the case of US v CLIVEN D. BUNDY et al. Sets some issues on the table for Judge Gloria Navarro that she has avoided thus far.
The mistrial came on December 20th, weeks into the case that was the third try for the government. Prosecutors, including Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, AUSA Daniel Scheiss, AUSAA Nadia Ahmed, and AUSA Erin Creegan, have had extraordinary difficulty in getting juries to convict any of the 19 defendants.
There have been no convictions on the most serious charges of conspiracy, and the only convictions that have been handed down were admittedly based on the defendants statements after the fact, such as within the entrapment video by the FBI and there phony “Longbow Productions”.
The most significant achievements by the prosecution was the plea agreements that several of the defendants accepted, based on the false narrative the prosecution alleged. The men were told they would face a lifetime in prison, and they already knew that they would not receive a fair trial. They were bullied into accepting the plea agreements.
Yes, the defendants already knew they would not receive a fair trial. They had access to the discovery evidence and knew some of what had been left out They filed motions to get certain evidence placed into the record, yet Judge Gloria Navarro continued to rubber-stamp the prosecutions motions.
AUSA for the District of NV,Steven Myhre (right)
Navarro never seemed to consider that these men were innocent until proven guilty. The more she validated the prosecutions narrative, the more she denied the defendants their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. This should come as no surprise, however, considering she repeatedly refused to allowthe Constitution to be mentioned during the first two trials.
Things did change during the third trial, which brought Cliven Bundy to the defense table. The prosecution seemed to have lost their edge as the new team of defense lawyers, which includes a stellar performance by Ryan Bundy, challenged the rhetoric that Myhre and company continued ranting.
Evidence was finally allowed into the trial of the misdeeds of the government, and the prosecutions deliberate suppression of this evidence. Judge Navarro made it clear on December 20th that the Court, “does find that it was a willful disclosure/suppression of this potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information”.
Navarro finally came clean and smacked the prosecution for the “willful” Brady violations. This means that she recognizes that the Acting US Attorney for the entire District of Nevada, Steven Myhre, and his crew of miscreants, deliberately broke the law and tried to illegally railroad these men into prison for the rest of their life.
Still, Navarro has shown that she is not quite up to speed on the workings of the judicial system, a hard pill to swallow for a seated Chief Judge. She made a blanket declaration of a mistrial, instructing all parties to submit motions for and against a dismissal with prejudice, or whether the government should be allowed yet another bite at the proverbial apple.
What Navarro should have done is follow Rule 26.3 which states that “Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives.” Navarro bypassed this rule and did it her own way, which is exactly what the prosecutors have done all along, and she has allowed.
However, since the truth has begun to come out, Navarro has been put into a position to make some hard choices.
Cliven Bundy
The original indictment was against 19 men. Some of these men have already been sentenced, such as Jerry DeLemus and Greg Burleson. If Navarro dismisses the case against the current defendants, will it include the dismissal for all 19 men?
The general consensus seems to be that this is the only ethical answer to the problem. The previous trials were conducted under the same false premise and Brady violations. The plea agreements were based on the defendants not being allowed a fair trial.
But, how deep does this cover-up go? Did Steven Myhre design this farce on his own? This might seem the obvious response, as the case being cited for Brady violations is US v Chapman, a case that Myhre was intimately involved in.
Still, we must ask the next questions: Was Navarro complicit? Were they taking their orders from a higher entity, possibly from Washington DC?
With the announced investigation by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I am sure these questions will be answered in the coming weeks. For now, the defendants will continue to fight for their freedom.
Defendants that are scheduled for sentencing are requesting delays, so as to see the outcome of the January 8th hearing. This include Pete Santilli and Todd Engel. The remaining defendants are showing patience through this hearing, wherein they will decide their next move.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
A court date is set for Dec. 29 for a decision on whether or not Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and Ryan Payne will be re-tried. A tentative new trial date is February 26.
This video is by John Lamb, who was in the courtroom this morning and provides details of today’s court session.
Posted by John Lamb on Wednesday, December 20, 2017
A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the case of a Nevada rancher accused of leading an armed standoff against the government in 2014, blaming prosecutors for withholding key evidence from defense lawyers, including records about the conduct of FBI and Bureau of Land Management agents.
Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas dismissed a jury seated last month for the long-awaited trial of Cliven Bundy, his sons Ryan and Ammon Bundy and self-styled Montana militia leader Ryan Payne.
The decision is the latest in a string of failed prosecutions in Nevada and Oregon against those who have opposed federal control of vast swaths of land in Western states.
Jurors acquitted the two Bundy sons of taking over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon for more than a month in early 2016 and amid calls for the U.S. government to turn over public land to local control.
In the Nevada case, Navarro faulted federal prosecutors for failing to turn over all evidence to defense attorneys.
“The government is obligated to disclose all evidence that might be favorable” to the defense, the judge said.
The case stemmed from an armed confrontation that capped a decades long dispute over Cliven Bundy’s refusal to pay grazing fees. The 71-year-old rancher says his family has grazed cattle for more than a century in the area and insists public land belongs to states, not the U.S. government.
Government agents began rounding up his cattle. The four on trial were accused of enlisting armed gunmen to force government agents to abandon the effort.
The judge had hinted last week that trouble was afoot. She sent the jury home to review sealed documents following closed-door hearings over complaints about the conduct of FBI and Bureau of Land Management agents during the standoff.
Jurors got a glimpse of the claims when Ryan Bundy, who represented himself, spoke at opening statements about seeing government snipers and surveillance cameras positioned on hilltops surrounding his family home in the days before armed supporters answered his family’s calls for help.
A whistleblower memo by a lead U.S. Bureau of Land Management investigator that was released last week alleges widespread bad judgment, bias and misconduct, as well as “likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff” in the days leading up to the standoff.
The memo said agents who planned and oversaw the cattle roundup mocked and displayed clear prejudice against the Bundys, their supporters and Mormons.
The investigator, Larry Wooten, said he was removed from the investigation last February after he complained to the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada.
The judge freed the Bundy sons and Payne to house arrest during the trial after nearly two years in jail. Cliven Bundy refused the judge’s offer, with his lawyer saying the patriarch was holding out for acquittal.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
The Bundy Ranch Protest leaders are now on trial in Las Vegas, Nevada. It has been another busy week for the lawyers. Judge Navarro excused the jurors from December 11th – 20th because more time was needed to deal with motions by the defense concerning the failure of the prosecution to hand over exculpatory evidence. Because of this failure, the prosecution has committed at least seven Brady or Giglio violations. These are Fifth Amendment, Due Process violations. The defense team has filed several motions for a dismissal of the case as a remedy.
Late Sunday night and early Monday morning on December 10th-11th, Ammon’s defense team, Dan Hill, Morgan Philpot and Rick Koerber, along with Cliven’s attorney, Bret Whipple, filed a sealed motion to dismiss, to disqualify prosecutors, to unseal materials, and to cease further prosecution. These were not ruled on during any of the hearings this week and the Government was given until Friday, December 15th to file a supplemental response. The defense team was given until Monday, December 18th at 12 noon to file their supplemental reply.
On Wednesday, December 13th, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and a group of Nevada newspapers filed a motion to unseal trial documents and hearings. Lawyer Maggie McLetchie, who represents the Review-Journal and Battle Born Media, has spoken-up on the issue of the courts sealed proceedings; “The Bundy case is an important one to the people of Nevada, and the public has a right to know what is happening in the case, and why,” Review-Journal Managing Editor Glenn Cook said; “Secret justice is no justice at all…The federal system’s preference for closed doors and sealed documents has eroded public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts. Openness is the only way taxpayers can be sure they’re not funding a rigged game.”
Ryan Payne
There is a drastic change in the way the third USA v. Cliven Bundy et al trial is being conducted. The defense team is fighting extremely hard to get evidence from the prosecution that should have been handed over to the defense over a year ago, before the first two trials. The defense team is trying very hard to get this evidence in front of the present jury. There has been little courtroom time with the jury in attendance because Judge Navarro does not want the jury to witness this struggle.
The leadership of the Ammon Bundy Defense Team accounts for much of this steadfast determination for a fair trial. Morgan Philpot from Utah, who had to acquire temporary admission to the Nevada Federal Bar to represent Ammon Bundy in this case, is an important part of this team. A few weeks ago, Judge Navarro filed an Order to Show Cause, under seal, threatening to revoke Morgan Philpot’s temporary admission.
The defense team stated that; “The judge cited two issues. First, a filing made by Mr. Philpot, a motion to dismiss the case, that was not made under seal. Second, a comment made by Mr. Philpot in the cross-examination of the former head of the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district office in southern Nevada, Mary Jo Rugwell.”
The defense team explains; “The motion to dismiss did not actually include any sealed material or discovery documents covered by the Court’s broad protective order and was subsequently ordered sealed by the Court because it referenced facts that come from discovery documents and sealed proceedings. Philpot responded to the judge on this point that the protective order in place did not forbid the public filing, and demonstrated several other instances of other defense attorneys and even the Court taking the same approach as Philpot had in referencing facts, but not quoting from or attaching sealed or protected material.”
Morgan Philpot
“The second issue complained about by the judge came from Philpot’s cross-examination of Rugwell. It was Philpot who got Rugwell to earlier admit that she had obtained, reviewed and relied upon an FBI threat assessment that concluded Cliven Bundy was not a threat and was not likely to respond with physical force or violence. The defense had not been provided with this report, despite previous requests for all threat assessments. The information was important because it undercut the credibility of Ms. Rugwell and of other BLM agents who later used the “threat” posed by Cliven Bundy to justify the paramilitary build up.”
The misrepresentation of this threat assessment by the prosecution was also used to help the prosecution keep the Bundy’s and their supporters incarcerated for nearly two years. That lengthy incarceration influenced several defendants to accept plea agreements.
The defense team explains further that; “At one point, during open court, the trial transcript shows Philpot stated, ‘Your Honor, first and foremost, I’d actually like to move for a recess. We’d like to have the Government produce the behavioral assessment document that she has referenced that was produced by the FBI. It actually appears to be, from her testimony, that it is a real document. We do not have it. We’ve requested it in the past. We would like to have a recess.’ At this point, Philpot was interrupted and told his remark was inappropriate. Judge Navarro specifically stated, ‘Mr. Philpot, do you want me to declare a mistrial? That is completely inappropriate for you to bring that up in front of the jury.’”
“Philpot did not accuse the government directly of withholding information. He referenced the testimony of the government’s witness, a document she discussed, and simply said ‘We do not have it. We’ve requested it in the past.’ He doesn’t say who it was requested from, or why. No argument was made, nothing more was said.”
At the hearing on December 15th, Philpot submitted a detailed response to Judge Navarro’s Order to Show Cause. Morgan Philpot was not removed from Ammon Bundy’s defense team. Despite Navarro’s superficially improved show of neutrality in this trial, the attempt to remove Philpot for no legitimate reason shows a deep underlying bias against the Bundy’s and their defense team. Federal prosecutors have lied directly to the judge, and repeatedly been found to have withheld exculpatory evidence and other required information from the defense, yet the judge has not subjected any of the government attorneys to this kind of threat and possible punishment.
Rep. Matt Shea
Also during the December 15th hearing, Federal Defender Brenda Weksler raised the ‘Wooten material’ in the context of the ongoing and repeated discovery abuses. Weksler was referring to an email from the BLM agent who was the lead investigator for the Cliven Bundy cattle impoundment of 2014 for almost three years. A copy of Wooten’s email was made public by Washington State Representative, Matt Shea, in an interview conducted by Shari Dovale of Redoubt News. Wooten is now regarded as a whistle blower.
Special Agent Wooten had originally sent this email to an Associate Deputy Attorney General, the National Criminal Discovery Coordinator on November 27, 2017. The email is an 18 page description of the governmental abuses and subsequent cover-ups in the Bundy case.
Wooten stated; “I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct, failure to correct and report, and cover-ups by BLM OLES supervision. My supervisor told me that AUSA Steven Myhre “furiously demanded”, that I be removed from the case and mentioned something about us (the BLM, specifically my supervisor) not turning over (or disclosing) discovery related material issues I had with the BLM not following its own enabling statute, and a personal issue they thought I had with former BLM SAC Dan Love.”
Wooten also told of evidence that was removed from his office and safe when he was not present, just before he was removed from the case on February 18th, 2017 and two days after Myhre’s demand.
Since the December 15th hearing was sealed for the portion of the proceeding dealing withthe Wooten email, no one but the prosecution, defense, and court officials can know what was discussed, but no action was taken on the ‘Wooten materials’.
In his email, Wooten accused Dan Love, the former special agent-in-charge at Bundy Ranch, of intentionally ignoring direction from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and his superiors “in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.” Daniel Love was described as immune from discipline, though Love was eventually fired from BLM for misconduct in an unrelated case.
Wooten said he learned from other agency supervisors that Special Agent in Charge, Daniel Love had a “Kill Book” as a “trophy,” in which he essentially bragged about “getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide,” following a joint FBI-BLM investigation into the alleged trafficking of stolen artifacts. (see Operation Cerberus Action out of Blanding, Utah and the death of Dr. Redd).
Tuesday, December 19th is open for a possible hearing for the judge’s ruling on the prosecution’s Brady and Giglio issues. There is a possibility of the defense teams motions for dismissal to be granted, which could put an end to the trial.
Prior to Ammon Bundy’s defense team showing up in Las Vegas, there had not been a single victory in the form of a granted motion. That situation has changed dramatically. Morgan Philpot and Rick Koerber, are relying 100% on donated funds. They have an informational website at AmmonBundyDefense.com that includes videos and written information on the case, plus a place to donate. The web site sends email updates of their progress to supporters that register.
This article is offered to all other media under the Creative Commons License when proper credit is given to Terry Noonkester, The Roseburg Beacon and Redoubt News.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
IF AMMON BUNDY AND OTHERS HAD NOT CALLED ATTENTION TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON BY THEIR SACRIFICE, THEN WHO WOULD?
“Though the publication of such proceedings may be to the disadvantage of the particular individual concerned, yet it is of vast importance to the public that the proceedings of Courts of Justice should be universally known. The general advantage to the country in having these proceedings made public, more than counterbalances the inconveniences to the private persons whose conduct may be the subject of such proceedings.” King v. Wright, 8 D. & E. 293, 298, 101 Eng.Rep. 1396, 1399 (K.B. 1799)
We have spoken previously about the constant, unrelenting erosion of our constitutional rights including but not limited to: a right to bail and pretrial freedom, a right to a speedy trial, a right to call witnesses and give testimony (e.g., Eric Parker being suppressed by Navarro), and now, the blatant crushing of the public’s right to observe ALL of the court proceedings.
The Run Away Power Of A Federal Judge
Navarro has often referred to the legal term, “in camera” which literally means “in chamber” but has come to mean secret hearings, controlled by her, out of sight and out of the mind and consciousness of the public. So much power has Navarro, that she is not required to justify or give a reason for all of these secret and sealed meetings.
Currently, the Bundy et al case is a victim of numerous sealed and secret meetings, not open to the public. The defendants are sworn to keep the subject matter of the meetings secret, the violation of which would result in penalties to the defendants, up to and including being tossed back into prison for those who are now enjoying conditional release.
Furthermore, these secret and sealed meetings are not for any good reason. They are to protect the government actors (including the judge) from public scrutiny of previous and ongoing misconduct.
Is The Sealing Of Meetings And Evidence Ever Justified?
For the author, the short answer is a resounding “no”. The right of the accused and the right of the public, who may be accused someday, are superior to any privacy issues or even issues involving safety and security of witnesses or the parties, and these issues are subordinate to the overwhelming benefits of public observation.
“[I]t is one of the essential qualities of a court of justice that its proceedings should be public, and that all parties who may be desirous of hearing what is going on, if there be room in the place for that purpose, — provided they do not interrupt the proceedings, and provided there is no specific reason why they should be removed, — have a right to be present for the purpose of hearing what is going on.” Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417, 438-439
The courts have found that members of the public have a strong interest in observing criminal proceedings, inasmuch as they involve crimes against society. And have added that, since courthouses, prosecutors, judges, and often defense attorneys are paid for with public funds, the public “has every right to ascertain by personal observation whether its officials are properly carrying out their duties in responsibly and capably administering justice” Commercial Printing Co. v. Lee, 262 Ark. 87, 553 S.W.2d 270 (1977)
“In publicity, we ‘have one tradition, at any rate, which has persisted through all changes’ from Anglo-Saxon times through the development of the modern common law. Pollock 31-32. See E. Jenks, The Book of English Law 73-74 (6th ed.1967). There is no evidence that criminal trials of any sort ever were conducted in private at common law, whether at the request of the defendant or over his objection. And there is strong evidence that the public trial, which developed before other procedural rights now routinely afforded the accused, widely was perceived as serving important social interests, relating to the integrity of the trial process, that exist apart from, and conceivably in opposition to, the interests of the individual defendant. Accordingly, I find no support in the common law antecedents of the Sixth Amendment public trial provision for the view that the guarantee of a public trial carries with it a correlative right to compel a private proceeding.” Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979)
“a witness may frequently depose that in private which he will be ashamed to testify in a public and solemn tribunal.” 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. See M. Hale, The History of the Common Law of England 343, 345 (6th ed. 1820).Page 443 U. S. 422
It was recognized that publicity was an effective check on judicial abuse, since publicity made it certain that “if the judge be PARTIAL, his partiality and injustice will be evident to all by-standers.” Id. at 344. See 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *372.
Star Chamber
So fundamental were public trials to English common law, and later to the founders of the USA, that even Star Chambers were mostly public:
“Apparently, not even the Court of Star Chamber, the name of which has been linked with secrecy, conducted hearings in private. 5 Holdsworth 156, and nn. 5 and 7, and 163; Radin, The Right to a Public Trial, 6 Temp.L.Q. 381, 386-387 (1932). Rather, the unbroken tradition of the English common law was that criminal trials were conducted ‘openlie in the presence of the Judges, the Justices, the enquest, the prisoner, and so manie as will or can come so neare as to heare it, and all depositions and witnesses given aloude, that all men may heare from the mouth of the depositors and witnesses what is saide.’” T. Smith, De Republica Anglorum 101 (Alston ed.1972).
The Right Of The Public To Know Is Even Greater Than The Rights
Of The Accused Or Any Other Party In A Judicial Proceeding
Because prosecutorial and judicial abuses can reach out and touch any citizen, it is the right of all citizens to observe what is going on in the courtrooms across America. What has happened to Bundy et al, Schaeffer Cox, and many others… CAN HAPPEN TO YOU AND ME!
The prosecution, in a display of its many abuses, has threatened any person who was present at the Bunkerville protest, or even before and after the protest, as being an unindicted co-conspirator and as such, is subject to prosecution and the same treatment of the current defendants, i.e., two years of pretrial prison and its attendant hell. This could extend to any person who has submitted any kind of article or post in support of the Bundy et al defendants. In the previous trials, we have seen the lengths to which the prosecution will go in using Facebook posts and other information to obtain convictions, or at least indictments, and the resulting imprisonment pending trial.
Given full rein to work their injustices, including the leverage to get plea deals, there is no limit to how far the government can go, if not subject to scrutiny by the public.
Therefore, it is absolutely indispensable that we, the people, are able to observe all proceedings of the court and that, we, the people, have a way to protest and find remedies to the erosion of our rights.
Is The Sacrifice By The Bundys And Others Worth It?
Ammon, and the rest of the defendants, have paid an incomprehensible price at all levels in dealing with these erosions of constitutional rights, but a price that must be paid to stem the destructive erosion by powerful persons who seek to overthrow our freedoms, who seek to destroy our constitutional rights.
If Ammon Bundy and others had not called attention to what is really going on by their sacrifice, then who would?
“I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil.” — Ben Franklin
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
The Las Vegas trial of Cliven Bundy, and others, began this morning after a long break of over a week. However, only about an hour and half into the hearing saw Judge Gloria Navarro release the jury for the remainder of today and tomorrow, later extending the time. She made comments indicating the jury may not be coming back at all. “The jury won’t be called back before [December 20th], if they are needed,” Judge Navarro said.
What brought this on?
Judge Navarro discussed in open court the numerous violations made by the prosecution and the agents of the BLM and FBI in relation to this case.
Multiple Brady violations topped the list, with many exculpatory items not being turned over to the defense teams. Items such as the Threat Assessment reports, names of potential witnesses, reports from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reprimanding the BLM for not enforcing the court orders for years, and many more.
There are at least seven Brady violations the judge referred to in court today. Additionally, there were violations of evidence not being turned over in a timely manner, which are referred to as ‘Giglio’ violations, pointing to the court decisions of Giglio v. United States .
After the jury was sent home, the courtroom was cleared of spectators so the principle players could immediately go into another of the now infamous super-secret sealed hearings.
This court trial has become known for their overuse of the sealed hearing rules. A majority of the evidence has been sealed from the public view, bringing questions as to why the government is hiding so much information from the citizens. Our Constitution guarantees public trials, yet the government does not hold themselves accountable to the US Constitution, as their representative so testified.
They seem to only believe in transparency when it suits their agenda, and the Bundy Ranch Protest trial is quickly falling far from their agenda.
Before long, several defendants and defense attorneys exited the courthouse with news that the court is in recess until December 20th. The sealed hearings are over for the day and the prosecution has been given over a week to prepare their responses to the plethora of motions filed by the defense.
Many of these motions have been sealed, as they refer to bad acts by the government, and this judge continues to try to hide those facts from the public. She has made it her mission to not allow the government to look bad in front of the jury, and she hopes, in the public perception.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
“THIS IS WHO I AM, A MAN WITH A FAMILY AND I’LL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PROVIDE FOR THEM. “
November 15, 2017.
Thanks to the jurors for being here. I told you a little about myself at voir dire, but I’d like to introduce myself a little more, and tell you about my heritage and how that affects my case. (Projects a picture of his family – AND leaves it up throughout his statement!)
This is my ID! Not my driver’s license. This is who I am, a man with a family and I’ll do whatever it takes to provide for them. I want you to picture in your minds…you’re out on the land… I’ll take you to our ranch, you can see all the beauty of the land, the fresh air, sunsets and sunrises, the brush, you’re on a horse in front of the cattle – place yourself there – feel the freedom – out of the congestion of the cars – that’s how I was raised, playing in the river, we were called river-rats and that is where my life began and I hope ends.
My family has been on that land 141 years, my pioneer ancestors settled there in 1877 – there was nothing there. They carved out a living… they brought a horse and wagon and some provisions… this case, the government mentioned is “not about rights”, but it is – those rights do mean something – rights are created through beneficial use.
When my ancestors arrived, undoubtedly the horse would need a drink, so they led him to the water and that is beneficial use. The horse and perhaps a cow that had been led behind the wagon need to eat some brush in the hills, that is beneficial use. That established rights. The water rights are real! So real, the State of Nevada has a water rights registry including livestock watering rights. A law was created to protect those rights. The water rights that my father owns were first registered in 1891 by the State of Nevada – the State of Nevada is important, a sovereign state, its own unit, which entered the union in 1864. It entered equal to the original states, it is its own entity and state laws are important.
Cliven Bundy
My family and I are charged with some grievous things and they are not true and evidence will show they are not; force, manipulation, extortion, violent—my family is not a violent family and I am not a violent man. For 20+ years we turned to local law enforcement. Rights are real property. The fact is that we create government to protect rights.
To have rights you must claim, use and defend… man only has rights he is willing to claim, use and defend. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Rights you own. Privilege is afforded. Like renting or owning a house. Government asserts there are no rights, only privileges and unless we pay, we can’t be there. The State of Nevada says differently. These are my father’s rights. Everything we have comes from the land. That is wealth, not the dollar bill. The things we use all come from the land. Who controls the land, controls the wealth?
We create government to preserve and serve us. These are some of the beliefs of my family. That we have said we will do whatever it takes to defend is not a threat, it is a statement. Being right here before you today is part of doing whatever it takes. The Founding Fathers pledged whatever it would take… their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to defend rights. With the evidence you will see that is what we were doing; there was no conspiracy to impede, to harm… but, to protect our heritage that our pioneer ancestors established. We were attacked, surrounded by what appeared to be mercenaries, snipers pointed directly at me. You will hear a report from a sniper that he was keeping watch of me in my van, with my wife and two of my daughters with me.
Our ranch – children are always welcome – it is a place to play, play in the river, the pond, chase or hunt rabbits, burn your toes in the hot sand in summer—always free. Never before did we feel like someone was always watching. In early spring of 2014 we felt like someone was always watching… the dogs were watching the hills, when you are always with a dog you get to know what they are saying with their bark… you can tell by their bark what they are seeing… surveillance cameras on one hill, but the dog looking at another and growling… (tearfully) This is not what America is supposed to be. Supposed to be a land of liberty. The Founding Fathers fought and bled so we wouldn’t have to and now we find ourselves in a similar situation.
They say this issue is over grazing fees… it’s terrible, terrible, he must be a freeloader – it’s only rhetoric – I’ll tell you why – You don’t pay rent when you own your home! We own those rights! Not the land, I know we don’t own the land, but access…you and others have rights on that land. We own water and grazing rights. We don’t pay rent for something we own.
The BLM was formed in 1960. Our rights were established in 1877, long before BLM. The original states own 100% of their land and all states were to come in on equal footing. The crux of the issue is, are we a state or not? They say grazing is a privilege they can revoke and charge fees. If it is only a matter of money it is no problem. In fact, Mr. Whipple showed a copy of a check made out to Clark County. If the whole purpose is to show we owe a fee, then we’ll pay to the proper owner of the land. That was not the only check written to Clark County, we sent several.
Also, in Clark County, there were 53 ranchers who owned rights. There is only a single one still out on the range. The BLM is not gaining revenue, it’s not important to them. My father could see they were there to manage him out of business. It’s not about grazing fees. In the BLM office there were signs that read: No more Moo by ‘92 and Cattle Free by ‘93! If it were only about the grazing fees, the fees would have been under $100,000 over 25 years. It is rumored, it may not be seen in evidence, but it is rumored that they spent $6 million on the operation. Who spends that and court costs rumored to be over $100 million to collect $100,000?
What is this about? The court orders. They say my father had an opportunity in the courts. The court wouldn’t consider state’s rights. They have forgotten they are servants of the people. We the people are the sovereign and ultimately, we the people are the government formed to meet needs that are better met by a group than by individuals. We are not slaves. We need to remember that. I think that’s forgotten. The definition of freedom is lost in America. When we have to have a license or ask permission to do everything, we are subjects.
(Photo: Shannon Bushman, used with permission)
Back to the charges – they claimed I went to Richfield and that the sheriff had to be called because we were causing such a ruckus—evidence will show otherwise—we boycott to influence to change ways – we protest to cause a change – these are first amendment rights – we do not get rights from the Bill of Rights – we have rights to begin with – it should be called the Prohibition of Government – we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, we can petition for a redress of grievances—rights we don’t want the government to mess with.
A redress is to find an answer, find a solution – one way to protest. The BLM put up first amendment zones – not much bigger than this courtroom – we called them pig pens – by creating that area, they were denying our right everywhere else – that’s what they used to arrest my brother – he was outside the pig pens. The first amendment has been protected over and over again in our history.
Davey Bundy
There’s lots of media in the gallery today, they wouldn’t be happy to have their right to free speech taken. First amendment was put in the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution – they shall make no law restricting these things… as you saw in the video yesterday, my brother was not impeding, not blocking, he was on a state road, on its right-of-way, simply to take pictures with his iPad of them stealing our cattle – they attacked him, threw him to the ground, rubbed his face in the ground. (emotional)
The American public saw this and came not to impede or do harm. They came because they felt the spirit of the Lord, spirit of freedom and felt “we the people are not going to put up with that behavior”. It was not pointed out there were snipers on the hill, I witnessed that through binoculars and the evidence will show this.
Back to Richfield, Utah, evidence and witness testimony will show there was not a ruckus there that disrupted or shut down that auction. I called the sheriff – that’s the pattern – the local law enforcement and state brand inspectors in Nevada, Arizona and Utah and I had contact with the highway patrol, county commissioners in several counties and state officials – not all face to face, but some through phone calls. Is this what a criminal does? No. We were there protecting life, liberty, property.
Margaret Houston thrown to the ground, 2014
You saw the video of them hip chucking my Aunt Margaret, 50+ years of and just finished with cancer treatments, the mother of 11 children. They call these BLM guys law enforcement, but they are just BLM employees.
All authority comes from we the people, we delegate authority to the county sheriff who we elect and he hires deputies and we then have a sheriff’s department to protect our life, our liberty, our property. Choosing for yourself is freedom and we have no right to impede or harm others. That’s God’s law. Man-made law is to follow that.You saw the video of them hip chucking my Aunt Margaret, 50+ years of and just finished with cancer treatments, the mother of 11 children. They call these BLM guys law enforcement, but they are just BLM employees.
Man is supposed to be free, not controlled, serfs or slaves. Government is to be our servant. The government went in and shut down 600,000 acres – not one of us ever went into their enclosed area and never impeded them.
Even my brother driving into the dump truck… isn’t that impediment? The court order did not allow destruction of water infrastructure. What was a dump truck doing out there? Since that was beyond the scope of the supposed court order, we had a right to know. They could have stopped and answered our questions, but no, they set out attack dogs and Tasers and threw Aunt Margaret to the ground.
Every incident they are charging us with happened on property that belonged to the State of Nevada. Even if BLM had authority to close public land, they have no authority to close State of Nevada public land. The fence was on the State of Nevada land. Except by invitation, you will not see one of us breach that fence or impede the gather. We did not violate the court order. Dave went over the fence by the invitation of Dan Love and then the sheriff took over and asked for our help to take down the fence and then the cowboys, led by sheriff’s squad cars went to release the cattle. The sheriff honored his oath and did his job. He should have done it sooner.
I love my family. I love them. I love this land. I love freedom. I am from the State of Nevada. I’m a true Nevadan. I mentioned before that Nevada became a state on Oct. 31st and we always got out of school on that day… I always thought we got out because it was my birthday. I’m a true Nevadan. I believe you are, too, and love freedom as much as I do. Freedom’s not being lost overseas – it’s lost right here at home in our back yards, our front yards.
Until we are willing to do whatever it takes, liberty will be, is being lost. We are not anti-government! Government has its proper place and duties to perform. I want government to do its job. Nothing more. Nothing less. When government does more or less than its job, it becomes the criminal. When government damages our rights, it becomes the criminal. When someone harms or damages another’s life, liberty or property that is the definition of a criminal.
Extortion, violence, pointing guns – everything we are charged with, they were doing and thousands of people came running – the world knew about this – China, Ireland (they sent us a flag), New Zealand and other countries – why? Because America stood for freedom and has for years and the world is interested in seeing how America (emotional) will deal with freedom. The world wants to know. The American people said, “yes, we will stand for freedom. Government, you’ve gone too far and we will put a stop to it.”
The courts have a place. It is said that We the People are the fourth branch of government. I say we are the first. The legislature to make laws, the executive to execute laws and the judicial to judge. All three branches are to protect your rights, our rights, freedom, liberty. Government does not have the authority in and of itself – man creates government to fulfill and protect rights. We the people give government the authority through the Constitution. The tenth amendment insures state’s rights.
Evidence will show my father and my brothers are innocent men. We need you to put on that paper that we are not guilty. You are the twelve to represent us, peers, equals, people…we the People.
Guns…lots of guns…scary…camo…freedom of speech…also, the right to bear arms, the second amendment…a militia was necessary. What is a militia? It is defined in the law. U.S. Code defines militia: “all able-bodied men 17-45 years of age”. How many of you are a member of the militia? State of Nevada extended that and includes men up to the age of 64. How many of you now are a member of the Nevada militia? There is the organized militia, the National Guard and the unorganized militia – everyone else.
Why did the Founding Fathers include the second amendment? Was it for duck hunting? No…no! Militia is mentioned six times in the Constitution. Such a small document and few things are mentioned more than the militia; the central government of this union and yet media or whatever wants to put a bad face on militia. Why did militia come to Bundy Ranch? To peacefully assemble, redress of grievances.
No one was harmed except Davey, Ammon and Margaret. You will not see in evidence that we ever harmed anyone! They attack and we turned the other cheek. We were peaceful—insistent? Yes! And, Yes! Demanding. These men, these people did not come to seek an opportunity to point guns at the government. Hundreds, even thousands of people we didn’t know. That’s exemplary. These people came to do good. To protect me, to save my life.
Ryan Payne
I had a sniper pointing at me, 200 armed men surrounding my home, my family (tearfully) Ryan Payne has been portrayed as a bad man. Evidence will show otherwise. He saved my life. He saved my life. Others came. I didn’t even meet most of them until I was in jail with them, may have seen them in passing, but I didn’t know them until jail. I honor and thank them now! I thank all who came. We only have rights we are willing to fight for. You’ll see evidence that I was nearly always with the sheriff or a deputy – always in communication with them – I was side-by-side with Lombardo.
Thank you for coming, for being here. I will still do whatever it takes. This is not a threat, it is determination. I love my freedom. Listen to the still small voice to discern between truth and error. The indictment and grand jury testimony is full of lies. Truth has been blocked in previous trials. Listen closely – we will try to get you the truth. The truth will set me free and I’m counting on you to help me see that.
I invite you to our ranch. I recognize your right to use the land. We want you to come and enjoy it. I thank you for this time. Please find me not guilty and these other men not guilty. Stand up for freedom.
Thank you. Ryan Bundy
Bunkerville Standoff, 2014 (photo by Shannon Bushman, used with permission)
Photo credit, featured image: Ryan Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, leaves the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse with his wife, Angela, in downtown Las Vegas on Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017. (Photo: reviewjournal.com)
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
The mainstream press is waking up to the reality that they no longer control the narrative in reporting on the Bundys. Here’s why that is a good thing.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
Federal Prosecutors are being exposed for their underhanded tactics and entrapment setup of the Bunkerville defendants.
During a recent evidentiary hearing, Daniel Love (the Special Agent in Charge of the 2014 Bundy cattle roundup operation) called out Daniel Bogden, then-US Attorney for Nevada, as being the decision maker for the release of the cattle. Love has no problem naming names these days as he is visibly angry over being fired this past summer due to his misconduct identified by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Inspector General.
The jury in the Bundy case was selected more than a week ago, but the courtroom has been occupied with evidentiary and detention issues. On Monday, November 13, the audience spent most of the day in the hallway as Judge Navarro held “sealed” hearings with the defendants, their lawyers, and the prosecutors.
Such secret motions and proceedings have taken up an increasing proportion of the Bundy case in the past weeks. There are more questions than answers regarding these secret motions and hearings, including: are they even legal?
Every day brings new startling revelations. It has recently come to light that there are photos in the discovery which show the prosecutors in the case near the scene of the 2014 standoff, prior to the first escalation of events.
The photos were apparently taken on April 3, 2014. This was 3 days before Dave Bundy’s arrest and well before any protesters arrived. The photos show Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed (now one of the prosecutors of the Bundys) as well as U.S. Magistrate Judge Ferenbach at the impound site. Also present, apparently, are other members of the U.S. Attorneys office, including possibly even then-US Attorney Daniel Bogden.
The fact that this photo is part of the sealed discovery goes to show the importance the government places on their back-door dealings which led up to the prosecutions. Why must everything be hidden from the citizens?
This photo was buried in a massive amount of discovery. It has been estimated that the size of the discovery in this case exceeds 4 terabytes, and includes 2 full novels and multiple unrelated medical records.
Although the pictures seem to have been in the discovery for months, their importance was lost on the defendants who were not able to identify their prosecutors until recently.
The prosecution is required by law to turn over the documents, but it is a common tactic to hide them among tens of thousands of unrelated papers. This makes it overwhelming to a defense that has little-to-no budget to hire someone dedicated to itemizing the evidence.
This is why there are bombshells being dropped at the last minute just before trial, such as the multiple cameras that were overlooking the Bundy home prior to the standoff.
Why would the federal prosecutors be at a BLM operation at all? We have already heard that Bogden was calling the shots. How far in advance did the prosecutors start setting everything into motion?
It would seem that it was all designed to entrap Cliven Bundy and his supporters. The government was desperate to gain the ranch and the property, and to shut Bundy up about the injustices being committed.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
After a day filled with closed hearings, Ryan Bundy was released to a halfway house in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The day began with a hearing on evidence that was recently discovered. The prosecution has been trying to minimize the cameras that were placed overlooking the Bundy home, but even Judge Gloria Navarro could not discount the weight of this discovery.
It was testified to, in recent hearings, that up to 4 cameras may have been live streaming, and likely recording, the Bundy Ranch and their home prior to the protest om April 12, 2014. These cameras were being viewed in the Command Center, where Dan Love had his office, during the cattle rustling operation by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
AUSA Steven Myhre tried to lessen the impact of this evidence, but all indications were that he was caught not being completely forthright.
Additionally, the prosecution, just this weekend, released another 1,000 pages of discovery. Ryan Bundy made another argument for his release, as he has yet to be given this additional evidence. Tomorrow begins the opening arguments, and this man representing himself has not yet received all of the evidence.
Judge Navarro has made statements recently that she wanted Bundy on an equal footing with the other attorneys, yet could not get around the fact that Bundy was not receiving this vital information while he was incarcerated.
Navarro decided that today was the day. In order for Bundy to better prepare for his trial, he has been allowed release to a halfway house. After nearly 2 years, he was finally able to hug his wife and family.
His brother, Ammon Bundy, was given a release hearing later this afternoon. The prosecution argued that the younger Bundy brother was guilty of multiple violations from the detention center since he has been incarcerated. The violations include being in possession of evidence for his own case.
Navarro ruled that he was a danger to society and a flight risk, therefore he was denied release.
Opening arguments are scheduled for tomorrow morning, right after a change of plea hearing for fellow defendant Micah McGuire.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, you can make a donation to support our work. Please donate HERE.
EVEN THOUGH THE FEDERAL WITNESSES HAD SEVERE MEMORY LAPSES, CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER AND ONE POSSIBLY IMPEACHED HERSELF, THE JUDGE SEEMED TO ACCEPT THEIR CREDIBILITY WITHOUT QUESTION.
Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Bundy, and co-defendant Ryan Payne are accused of conspiring to block federal agents from enforcing court orders when the BLM tried to confiscate Cliven Bundy’s cattle. The cattle were on public land where the ranch had grazing and water rights since the late 1800’s. The government’s actions resulted in the deaths of approximately 100 head of cattle and the destruction of the Bundy’s livestock watering system built throughout the last century.
The four defendants have been incarcerated since January of 2016. They were each charged with 10 felonies. Each man could be sentenced to more than a hundred years in prison for their involvement while resisting the confiscation. The men are brought to court in shackles and each man has had a significant weight loss since their incarceration. All their motions for pretrial releases have been denied.
The twelve jurors chosen for this trial consist of six women and six men. The four alternates consists of three men and one woman. The group is very diverse racially. All prospective jurors with any apparent bias to either side seem to be eliminated.
Also eliminated was a juror who stated on a juror questionnaire that the protest was somehow related to Uranium One. Both the prosecution and Judge Navarro where very concerned that he would not be able to put that idea aside to make an unbiased decision. The judge was not concerned about a woman jury who said on her questionnaire that she thought the Bundy’s were guilty. The defense had to use a peremptory strike on that juror.
A continuation of a prior evidentiary hearing was held on November 3rd.
The hearing focused on the shredded documents found after the protest in 2014. The defendants think the documents could have contained evidence that would aid the defense and therefore be “discoverable”, which means the government had a legal obligation to share the information with the defendants.
In the prior hearing, Kent Kleman, investigator for BLM, testified that Acting US Attorney in Nevada, and lead prosecutor in this trial, Steven Myhre, not only asked him to investigate this issue, but set the parameters and directed the course of the investigation. Myhre repeatedly objected to this testimony, calling it ‘privileged’. Klemen also testified that he learned of a “hurried shredding event”. He did not pursue investigation diligently by questioning all the people involved, nor did he ask why the shredding was done. Prosecutor Steven Myhre was conveniently absent for the November 3rd hearing.
Klemen also may have breached proper protocol when he called each of the witnesses within a week of this testimony on November 3rd. The four witnesses claimed that they did not talk about anything pertaining to the case except that they would probably be called to testify on the 3rd. During the November 3rd hearing, these four witnesses from the Unified Command staff that had been at the ranch, testified repeatedly that they could not recall any shredding. A shredder was on site according to testimony from Randy Lavasseur.
The November 3rd witnesses were (1) BLM Deputy Special Agent in Charge of Nevada and Utah, Zachary Oper, who served directly under Special Agent Daniel Love, (2) U.S. Park Service Chief Investigator Mary Hinson, (3) Captain of United States Park Police, Pamela Smith and (4) Chief Ranger of U.S Park Service, Randy Lavasseur.
All these witnesses could remember taking a part in the conference call to Washington D.C. that supposedly lead to the release of the cattle and their own evacuation of the Bunkerville Standoff; but none of the four could recall the name of the person in Washington D.C. that gave the order. None of the four could recall the name of the man that took the notes on the conference call using a laptop computer, nor which agency he was with. Mary Hinson insisted several times that she did not take any notes of what happened on April 14th. When presented with a five page memorandum she had written about the event by defense attorney Morgan Philpot, prosecutor Nadia Ahmed asked if the defense was going to impeach Hinson.
In a prior hearing, BLM Special Agent Daniel Love testified that the Department of Justice had overridden his authority as the Incident Commander. Daniel Love implicated former US Attorney Daniel Bogden for making the decision to release the cattle that brought an end to the protest. He stated that the order to surrender and release the cows was given immediately after he spoke to Bogden.
During the November 3rd hearing, there was repeated and detailed testimony by witness Mary Hinson about a camera set on the hill overlooking the Bundy home and possibly another camera six miles down the road. This equipment was setup and monitored by the FBI within the Command Trailer. The existence of any camera’s had always been denied until this hearing when Ryan Bundy questioned the witnesses. Randy Lavasseur also testified that he saw the video stream from the cameras. It is expected that the defense will make another motion for evidence from the one or two camera’s in the near future.
Even though the federal witnesses had severe memory lapses, contradicted each other and one possibly impeached herself, the judge seemed to accept their credibility without question. Furthermore, Judge Navarro stated that “just because a piece of paper or video exists doesn’t mean it’s discoverable. It needs to have a particular type of value”. She therefore denied the defendant’s motion for dismissal of the case and she also denied remedial jury instructions.
The press and court observers crowded the courtroom to hear opening statements on November 7th. After a few hours of discussing evidence the prosecution has not provided, the court date has again been delayed. The first day of the trial with the jury present for opening statements has been changed to November 14th, 8:30 am at 333 Las Vegas Blvd S., Las Vegas, Nevada. It is estimated the trial will be three to four months long. Many trial protesters will be on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse, and many more will be watching the proceedings in the courtroom.
Photo credit: Protester sign in front of the Las Vegas Federal Courthouse. (Redoubt News)
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
Todd Engel is one of the Bunkerville defendants that will face Judge Gloria Navarro in a sentencing hearing.
Out of a 16-count indictment, Engel was charged with 10 counts and convicted of 2 counts after his trial earlier this year.
These are the least serious of all the charges, and do not carry enhancements or mandatory minimum sentencing.
Greg Burleson was also convicted during the same trial, though he was convicted of 8 of 10 charges, including enhancements.
To keep it in perspective, let’s start by showing the actual results:
Charge
Burleson
Engel
Count 1 –
Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States
NOT Guilty
NOT Guilty
Count 2 –
Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer
NOT Guilty
NOT Guilty
Count 5- Assault on Federal Officer
Guilty
NOT Guilty
Count 6- Use and Carry of a firearm
Guilty and jury found in addition Guilty of brandishing his weapon.
NOT Guilty
Count 8- Threatening a Federal Officer
Guilty
NOT Guilty
Count 9-Use & Carry of a Firearm during a Crime of Violence
Guilty and jury found in addition Guilty of brandishing his weapon.
NOT Guilty
Count 12- Obstruction of Justice
Guilty
Guilty
Count 4- Interference of Commerce & Extortion
Guilty
NOT Guilty
Count 15- Use & Carry of a Firearm
Guilty and jury found in addition Guilty of brandishing his weapon.
NOT Guilty
Count 16- Interstate Travel & aide to Extortion
Guilty
Guilty
Engel was convicted of:
Count 12- Obstruction of Justice
Count 16- Interstate Travel & aide to Extortion
Neither of these charges are firearms related, nor do they have enhancements attached. Let me explain why this is important.
The government powers-that-be are preparing for Engel’s sentencing. However, they are acting as if they are targeting Engel in a possibly unethical, and questionably legal, pre-sentencing report.
Burleson’s mandatory minimums total 57 years, which leaves 11 years for his remaining charges. Engel has only 2 charges, yet they want to make him serve over 20 years for them. Does that really add up?
Engel explains below in his own words, what the guidelines are versus what they should be. There is always some leeway for the judge’s discretion, but this has gone way beyond that.
Engel should be nearing his release date, yet the prosecutors, that have been showing a very poor record at conviction for this protest, seem to be trying to make up for it in one fell swoop.
Are they are trying to sidestep the actual trial, and sentence him to serve time for crimes for which he was not convicted?
The people are on his side, as well as our elected officials:
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
Our ranch – children are always welcome – it is a place to play, play in the river, the pond, chase or hunt rabbits, burn your toes in the hot sand in summer—always free. Never before did we feel like someone was always watching. In early spring of 2014 we felt like someone was always watching… the dogs were watching the hills, when you are always with a dog you get to know what they are saying with their bark… you can tell by their bark what they are seeing… surveillance cameras on one hill, but the dog looking at another and growling… (tearfully) This is not what America is supposed to be. Supposed to be a land of liberty. The Founding Fathers fought and bled so we wouldn’t have to and now we find ourselves in a similar situation.
Extortion, violence, pointing guns – everything we are charged with, they were doing and thousands of people came running – the world knew about this – China, Ireland (they sent us a flag), New Zealand and other countries – why? Because America stood for freedom and has for years and the world is interested in seeing how America (emotional) will deal with freedom. The world wants to know. The American people said, “yes, we will stand for freedom. Government, you’ve gone too far and we will put a stop to it.”
