In April 2014, hundreds of armed protesters gathered at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada to take a stand against the federal government.
The post Four Years Ago, Hundreds of Armed Protesters Stood Up to Tyrannical US Gov’t Overreach—And Won appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has long claimed he was wronged by the Obama administration’s overly aggressive prosecution of him and his family in 2014 over his refusal to pay bogus grazing fees he said he never owed.
Turns out he was exactly right.
As reported by The Daily Caller, court documents unsealed last week provide details about how a team of prosecutors assigned to convict Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan, along with family friend Ryan W. Payne, following an armed standoff near their Nevada ranch failed to hand over exculpatory evidence to a federal court.
As such, their case ended in a mistrial Dec. 20 after U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ruled that the prosecutors violated the defendants’ civil rights after withholding evidence that would have supported their case.
Now, Navarro is considering tossing the case out altogether “with prejudice,” a ruling which would block prosecutors from retrying the case. A decision is expected Jan. 8, The New York Times reported.
Two earlier trials against other defendants ended in hung juries, the Times noted further.
Among the exculpatory evidence the prosecution failed to turn over was a video taken from within the Bundy range during the standoff by a federal informant, evidence that the FBI had agents involved in the standoff, and a threat assessment of the Bundys that the government drafted.
“There were approximately 3,000 pages that were provided to us only after we started trial,” Bret D. Whipple, one of Cliven Bundy’s lawyers, told the Times. “I personally have never seen anything like this, especially in a case of such importance.”
“We’ve told everyone all along, ‘the truth will set us free,’” said Angie Bundy, the wife of Ryan Bundy. “It was the lies we’re worried about.”
Other evidence withheld from the court was an assessment by government officials that the Bundys were not violent people. “She cited all of that,” Angie Bundy said of Navarro. “At this point, I don’t know what kind of case they have against us.”
The Oregonian reported that attorneys for Ryan Payne requested in a July 5 email that prosecutors turn over all threat assessments prepared before the 2014 standoff, but prosecutors characterized the defendants’ frequent push for the assessments as one in a “long list of frivolous and vexatious pleadings.” As such, prosecutors withheld those assessments until the defendants were actually in court and in the midst of their trial. The existence of the assessments was confirmed by a government witness under cross-examination.
Failure to hand over the assessments was “just one example of the prosecution team’s callous disregard of its constitutional obligations to share with the defense any potentially favorable evidence, according to Payne’s lawyers,” The Oregonian reported.
(Related: REPORT: BLM used ‘incredible bias’ during overly aggressive RAID of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.)
For more than 20 years Cliven Bundy has grazed his cattle on federal land in Nevada but refused to pay grazing fees, insisting he was not obligated to do so because he had inherited water rights on the land. In response, the BLM, during a heavily-armed raid, seized his cattle, killing some of them, in an attempt to force him to pay. The Bundys were supported immediately by dozens of armed neighbors who showed up to help protect and defend them.
In April 2014, Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, wrote a column that was critical of the BLM for the way its agents handled the standoff with Bundy, noting prophetically that “the federal government is out of control yet again.”
A subsequent report in December substantiated Adams’ claims. BLM special agent Larry Wooten issued a report indicating that government agents very likely broke federal laws and used “incredible bias” against Bundy and his family during the incident while engaging in tactics of intimidation during the operation.
Via Natural News
The post Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy vindicated after federal judge declares mistrial appeared first on Intellihub.
[image: The Sleuth Journal]
.
While Ryan did not say it, he demonstrated something — there is no signature on the Constitution representing the federal government. I do not know that I’ve ever heard it put more clearly than Ryan Bundy revealed it on January 20 2018. It’s foolish for me to try to approximate in words the spirit which filled that building in Paradise, so I’ll let it go after meekly saying that an uplifting momentum is growing around the Bundy movement and all of their family members and friends are like solid gold nuggets in the American lands; a gold of the human soul which shines brightly around their faces like a blessed aura, a radiance of innocent beauty.
The Mental Militia salutes the Bundy family and their friends like Shawna Cox the Hammonds, Jeanette Finicum, Dan and Roxsanna Ryan, et al. Their faith is indomitable and is inspiring.
Speakers at the rally Included:
Cliven Bundy
Ryan Bundy
Andrea Parker
Billy Hill
Chris Briels
Sen. Jennifer Fielder
Shawna Cox
Dan Ryan
Roxsanna Ryan
Videos by Elias Alias, Founder of The Mental Militia.
The Bundy’s Arrive in Paradise, MT.
Senator Fielder and Roxsanna Ryan Opening
Ryan Bundy in Paradise Pt. 1
Ryan Bundy in Paradise Pt. 2
Ex-Fire Chief from Oregon Chris Briels
Senator Fielder
Shawna Cox
Cliven Bundy Pt. 1
Cliven Bundy Pt. 2
The post Freedom and Property Rally: The Cliven Bundy Story (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.
IS IT SOMETHING MUCH MORE SINISTER THAT DRIVES THE FEDERAL TEAM TO DOUBLE DOWN, TRIPLE DOWN AND DO “WHATEVER IT TAKES” TO WIN THIS CASE?
by Loren Edward Pearce 1-2-2018
Krisanne Hall, former prosecutor and well known expert on the US Constitution, spoke for all of us when she said in a recent post,
“Federal prosecutors are seeking a new trial against #BundyRanch?!?! Are you freaking kidding me?!?”
She went on to say, “As a former prosecutor, I can tell you the actions of Myre and these federal prosecutors are unforgivable.
Hey #Myre… YOU are a complete disgrace and evidence of the putrefaction of American Due Process. Sincerely, KrisAnne Hall, JD.”
Larry Klayman, also a former prosecutor, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and against the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, for prosecutorial misconduct. Klayman explains,
“The complaint details how the the U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada – Obama Deep State holdovers who should have been removed by now by Attorney General Jeff Sessions – working in concert with the FBI and BLM under the Obama administration, systematically violated the constitutional rights of Cliven Bundy and the other defendants in the criminal prosecution, denying them due process, equal protection and other rights under the Constitution and the law in general.
Key exculpatory evidence proving Cliven’s innocence in engaging in what the Obama Justice Department called a conspiracy to threaten federal agents was shredded; material FBI 302 investigative reports were not disclosed and hidden; and the existence of three surveillance cameras showing that the Bundys surrounded government snipers positioned to possibly kill the family as they were at home were kept from defense lawyers for years. In short, the Obama Justice Department, along with its corrupt FBI then run by, you guessed it, Director James Comey, hid and/or destroyed material evidence until this obstruction of justice was discovered mostly by accident during an evidentiary hearing in the criminal prosecution just the last week.”
What Is Motivating The Federal Team To Continue The Prosecution Of The Bundy Et Al Case?
Is it ego, is it pride or is it something much deeper, much more sinister, that drives the federal team to double down, triple down and do “whatever it takes” to win this case?
Why is the federal team refusing to give up? Why is the federal team continuing to spend many millions of dollars, tying up court resources, imposing on and severely harming the lives of not only the defendants and their families, but the many dozens of jurors, juror candidates and their families?
The Stakes For The Federal Team Are Incomprehensible
Some may ask, “Why can’t the federal team just dismiss the case with prejudice against the Bundy et al defendants, and everybody go back to their lives and pick up where they left off and be happy that the trials are over?”
There are a lot of reasons why life will never be the same for any of the parties and that theslate cannot be wiped clean, that the issues are so huge and remain that way, that the parties simply cannot afford to “forgive and forget”.
As noted under the title of this article, the land owned by the federal government, not counting Alaska and Hawaii, is estimated to be worth in excess of $1.8 trillion by 2009 values. That is $1,800 billion. Throw Alaska into the equation and it far exceeds $2 trillion.
That federal land ownership, and its accompanying power, is at risk because the Bundys and others have raised the issue of the constitutionality of federal ownership of over 640 million acres of land which includes 85% of Nevada. Navarro tried to keep the constitution out of “her” courtroom, and only focus on the charges by the prosecution. However, those many constitutional issues remain unresolved.
One article, states that, “Few minds will stir when they learn that the US federal government owns a grand total of 640 million acres of land: that figure is so vast that it becomes meaningless.” Meaningless because the average person can’t get their mind around it.
The BLM created to manage that land, has over 12,000 employees whose livelihood and lifestyle depend on the continued viability and constitutionality of their agency.
Staring Down Stare Decisis
While many will argue that the issue of federal ownership of over 640 million acres has been well settled through numerous court cases and that it is a “dead horse” that can no longer be kicked, many will disagree, that the previous courts, based on the constitution destroying “stare decisis”, have made rulings that do not comport with the constitution or the original intent of the founders.
Stare decisis, the drifting away from the original constitution through a process of piggy backing precedent on top of precedent, is like the telephone game, where a message is relayed through a chain of people until it comes out at the other end totally different than the original intended message because each person puts their own biases and spin on the message.
The subject of land ownership by the federal government as it relates to the enumerated powers granted to the federal government as opposed to those reserved to the states and the people, was very clear at one time and needs to be revisited and the dead horse revived.
In addition to the raw subject of federal land ownership are many other tangential subjects that have to be resolved such as the constitutionality of BLM law enforcement, BLM administrative law judges, denial of bail and pretrial prison, denial of a speedy trial because the federal team declares it has a complex case, federal jurisdiction over criminal matters outside the boundaries of a territory, double jeopardy of multiple retrials, and many, many issues that have been warped and distorted over the decades by the imbalance between federal and state powers.
“THIS Is What The Feds Are Fighting To Keep –
Control Over Public Lands And The Very Existence Of The BLM Itself.” ~Bill Goode
In an excellent article by Bill Goode, he states,
“When the Bundys are finally declared innocent in the Las Vegas trial, that will only conclude the legal status of individuals involved in the Bunkerville standoff. Then there is Cliven’s suit and the suits of other standoff defendants against the DOJ that must be decided in court.
However, the most significant issue after the current Las Vegas trial will be the legal status of the Bundy Ranch itself. The legal status of the Bundy Ranch is now held in abeyance, despite the return of the Bundy cattle. The Bunkerville grazing allotment was officially closed by the BLM after the standoff, though the Bundy cattle do still graze on that land. So that’s a conflict that must be resolved.”
An Injustice Against One, Is An Injustice Against All
Morgan Philpot, attorney for Ammon Bundy, in one of his meetings with the media, made the comment, “An injustice against one, is an injustice against all”
The stakes really are incomprehensible, not only for the Deep State and the federal team, but for all of us. The injustices against the Bundys et al, are injustices against all of us, and they need to be resolved
Because losing is not an option, for either side, we can expect to see many more legal battlesto come. The outcome of the legal war will determine the future of America and its rising generations.
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 post For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option appeared first on Oath Keepers.
by Elias Alias . December 11 2017
In following the Bundy trial in Las Vegas, I have revisited a story I first read in 2002. That story is about a trial which happened in 1973. That trial gained world-wide press coverage and shocked the powerful elite in the Nixon Administration. That trial seems to me today to be the perfect precedent to bring to the attention of Judge Navarro, who is presiding over the Bundy trial(s).
I noticed this past week, early in December 2017, that the defendants were finally allowed pre-trial release so they could be with their families during the remainder of the trial. The defendants were granted pre-trial release only after it was revealed in court in early December 2017, that the FBI report on the defendants from well over a year ago had indicated that the defendants were not dangerous and were not a “threat”. That report had not been provided to Judge Navarro until just now.
The defendants had been held in prison for almost two years without bail, deprived of a speedy trial, and in some cases tormented while incarcerated. The prosecution had assured the court that these defendants were a threat to society and should not be allowed bail. But that became exposed as false once the initial FBI report was ‘discovered’. In and of itself, that circumstance poses the question – why would the prosecution knowingly deceive the courts? To answer that question I must ask the reader to indulge me as I lay in a bit more background.
It is my estimation that the prosecution is hell-bent on persecuting, as well as prosecuting, the defendants because the prosecution works for the government, and because the government is still reeling from its resounding defeat at Bundy Ranch in southern Nevada on April 12, 2014. The prosecution’s bias is obvious and abundant. I’ll show below why I say that here.
The prosecution is under tremendous pressure to win convictions and long-term prison sentences for our cowboys – because if the cowboys “get away with” standing up to “authority”, the U.S. government itself will be embarrassed by its tardiness in making available to global banking elite agendas the assets inherent in public lands which the States themselves should be managing as State assets, as opposed to being “international assets”.
And that is what causes me to recall that old trial I mentioned above, the 1973 trial which should be seen as a precedent in this current court trial. The Bundy trial is destined to go down in history as a peak marker regarding State sovereignty the way the Constitution set it up to be, or the forfeiture by our States of ultimate sovereignty to the centralized Federal government, which now is in the service of international banking moguls, such as those who engineered (from behind the scenes) the creation of the United Nations.
Let us now take a contemporaneous yet parallel walk through both trials.
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 post A Tale of Two Trials: Bundy Ranch and Pentagon Papers appeared first on Oath Keepers.
The lead BLM investigator in the Bundy Ranch case has blown the whistle exposing "far-reaching misconduct, recklessness and unrestrained antipathy toward the family."
Longtime GOP strategist Roger Stone will petition his former boss, President Donald Trump, to pardon the ringleader of a 2014 armed standoff with federal agents.
Stone announced on Twitter Friday night that he would appeal to Trump on behalf of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who will stand trial Oct. 10 for incitinga rebellion against Bureau of Land Management officials that attempted to stop Bundy from illegally grazing his cattle on federal land.
I will return to Las Vegas on Sept 15 to call on @realDonaldTrump to pardon the Bundys and their supporters
— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) September 8, 2017
Bundy was arrested in February 2016 on weapons charges and a conspiracy charge to interfere with a federal officer.
Via Daily Caller
In an exclusive interview with The Free Thought Project, a self-proclaimed constitutional rights activist is speaking out about his ordeal with Nevada police after he refused to tell an officer his date of birth. He said that in addition to being arrested, he has been harassed ever since.
Joshua Martinez said he became interested in Cliven Bundy’s ongoing conflict with the Bureau of Land Management back in April 2014. He said Bundy’s problems led him to become a student of the Constitution.
In December 2015, in a show of support for the Bundy family and their involvement with a stand-off with the FBI in Oregon that led to the death of LaVoy Finicum, Martinez raised LaVoy Finicum’s cattle brand, AKA the “LaVoy Finicum” flag on the Nevada federal courthouse steps.
Then in January, Martinez said he began passing out pocket copies of the U.S. Constitution and jury notification pamphlets. It was his way of being a good citizen, “but in the eyes of the government we rattle their cage and they don’t appreciate that,” he told TFTP.
Martinez did not get arrested for passing out the Constitution, but somehow he became a person of interest to courthouse officials and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The FBI and the U.S. Marshalls took notice as well. Martinez said it all started in February when he attempted to be a spectator at some of the court proceedings involving defendants who were being tried for their role in the now-infamous occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.
But Martinez was more interested in being able to attend the proceedings without having to identify himself. His current contention is with forced identification. He went to the courthouse on Feb. 6, but was not allowed entry on the basis that he did not have a valid form of identification.
Advertisment
First, the courthouse security, on behalf of the U.S. Marshalls, informed Martinez that he was not allowed to enter and observe the court proceedings without a valid identification. Asking to speak with a Marshall directly, he was met with several unidentified U.S. Marshalls who promptly informed Martinez he couldn’t come in without an ID.
Martinez wanted to sue the U.S. Marshalls for discriminating against him on the basis that he did not have identification and disallowing him from observing the court’s proceedings. But he said he had a problem. He had no idea who the Marshalls were who would not let him come inside.
READ MORE: This is What"s Wrong Police: Cop Says He has "No Choice but to F**king Pull Over Black People"
Martinez said he decided to go back on Feb. 7 in an attempt to identify the very people who told him he couldn’t come inside without an ID.
Instead of obtaining the named of the Marshalls, Martinez was arrested. He said he passed through the metal detector and was in possession of a valid state-issued ID just in case, but after presenting his ID, they ran his ID and then informed him the “U.S. Marshalls don’t want you in the courtroom.” He and his friends left the building and sat on one of the courthouse benches outside.
“It’s all about conditioning us to live as slaves,” Martinez said. “when an officer gives us a command we have to do it. That’s all it’s about!”
Martinez, along with a few of his friends, were sitting outside the courthouse on public property when police arrived and swarmed him. Apparently, someone inside the courthouse called police about his attempts to get information on the U.S. Marshalls.
Metro PD was called and when they arrived, they began to question Martinez, who had already identified himself. They pressed him for more information, demanding his date of birth, a detail he was not willing to offer them.
Martinez said his rationale was that since he had committed no crime, he was not suspected of having committed a crime, and since he was not being detained, he was therefore under no obligation to cooperate with police.
Patriots such as Martinez seem to understand that if the so-called authority police possess is not challenged, more individuals will have their civil rights violated, such as attempting to go about their lives without having to carry an ID.
“Hiibel vs. Nevada states first and last name is required and nothing more. It doesn’t say anything about giving a date of birth or anything else,” Martinez said, as justification for why he refused to tell the officers his date-of-birth.
As can be heard in the video, one of the officers told another that Martinez was not under investigation, and was not trespassing. However, even though no crime was committed, Metro PD continued to ‘investigate’ further, eventually deciding to arrest Martinez.
READ MORE: This Guy Has Been Stopped 14 Times By Cops, For Nothing. He Finally Had Enough.
Martinez was charged with “obstruction of justice,” even though no crime had been committed. He simply did not want to cooperate with police by providing any further identification and was arrested for it.
“Body cam footage of my arrest in front of the federal courthouse in Las Vegas Nevada on February 7, 2017. In the video, you can hear one officer inform the officer who made contact with me that I was not trespassed and that I was on public property. Reasonable suspicion was met when they learned I was not breaking any laws.”
Police often charge individuals with “obstruction” when all other attempts to criminalize an otherwise innocent individual are made. The charges lead to innocent people being arrested, fined, jailed (sometimes for months), and when they go to court, those charges are then often dropped.
If citizens truly have civil liberty, they should be allowed to come and go as they please without arousing the suspicions of police or government workers. But when everyone is seen as a suspect, it is easy for police to infringe on citizens’ rights to film in public, walk where they please, or even enjoy a sitting on a bench on public property.
A new documentary titled “What Happened In Vegas” was born out of such infringements. Director Ramsey Denison was assaulted and arrested after he called 911 to report an out-of-control police officer. Instead of being hailed as a concerned citizen looking out for the civil rights of others, he was quickly marked as a suspect and taken to jail.
It was only after that experience that Denison realized there was a systemic problem with Metro PD infringing on citizens’ rights and decided to detail what he sess as an out of control police department.
Since Martinez’s arrest he says he has been further harassed, not only by the FBI, but also by the counter-terrorism unit inside Metro PD. When asked why the government thinks he is a threat, Martinez said he feels it is because he has refused to get a driver’s license, and has produced many YouTube videos encouraging others to follow his example.
Martinez also said he gets targeted because he uses court case law in his videos, and encourages citizens to know their rights and to get educated. Even with being an advocate for the Constitution, he has been labeled a “sovereign citizen,” but says nothing could be further from the truth. Martinez told TFTP he was born on an Air Force base to a very patriotic family, and his dad was a member of the Air Force.
READ MORE: Thanks to the Feds, 2017 Cannabis Cup Has No Cannabis — Despite Being 100% Legal
“My main objection is government overreach and officials operating outside the confines of the Constitution…I believe we should keep our government in check,” Martinez said, adding the harassment he’s received has even followed him to his workplace.
Martinez described the second time he has been arrested in the last few months:
“They arrested me for possession of a concealed firearm. I was at the door. I’m a door host at a nightclub. I was checking ID’s at the door and was approached by three plains clothes men who came to me and asked me for a Sheriff’s Card (another permit he objects to…something Martinez calls an “adult work permit”). At first, I didn’t know who they were…”
Martinez said one of the officers pretended to be interested in his plainly visible gun—he carries openly per Nevada law—but then asked if he had a concealed carry permit. Martinez said he was carrying openly and he didn’t need one. At that point, he was arrested for “possession of a concealed firearm,” which is a felony in Nevada.
This is the type of treatment Martinez said he now has to live with, for speaking out and attempting to enter a courthouse without a valid ID. He said because he has been labeled as a “sovereign citizen,” he is now now one of the government’s targets, and he is facing felony charges as a result.
Martinez said that in his mind, the state of Nevada has a serious problem with permitting. “To be a cashier at a 7-Eleven you need four different forms of identification—a Sheriff’s Card, a TAM card (alcohol education certification), a health card (food handler’s card), and a regular form of identification,” He said.
“Permits, licensing, that’s my beef with the system,” Martinez said. Now he has to go to court to prove he is no danger to society and that because he was legally open-carrying his firearm, he should not be convicted of as a felon who would not longer have the right to keep and bear arms.
LAS VEGAS — Law-enforcement officers were ordered by the federal special agent in charge to cease “all operations” hours before an armed standoff at a Nevada ranch reached its tension-filled zenith in 2014.
But they did not. Three law-enforcement officers testified in federal court Thursday that they maintained their positions throughout the night and into the next day, anticipating a bloody gunfight at Bundy Ranch.
The officers told jurors they feared for their lives, prayed to God and thought they would see their partners get shot as cattle ranchers and militia members squared off against federal authorities.
None of the officers explained in court why they were ordered to engage anti-government protesters — and open fire with less than lethal weapons — after being told at least twice to stand down, abandon their efforts to round up private cattle on federal land and leave.
“We were still under threat,” U.S. Parks Police Officer Tara McBride said. “My understanding was we were ceasing gathering cattle and we were to remain in place to provide security for the (incident command post).”
This was one of the first times law-enforcement officials have publicly acknowledged the government orders to back down, drawing attention to a little-known detail about the high-profile confrontation.
Defense attorneys for the men accused of taking up arms against federal agents said the contradictory orders made no sense and escalated the potential for violence.
The six-day standoff reached a climax on April 12, 2014, as hundreds of protesters formed a line across a wash near Interstate 15 about 80 miles north of Las Vegas. Armed men took up positions on the overpass, sighting their rifles at federal agents below.
“All operations had ceased? All operations were done?” Las Vegas lawyer Richard Tanasi asked McBride on cross-examination. “Despite that operations were over, despite your requests to fall back, your requests were being denied?”
Tanasi represents Steven Stewart, one of six defendants charged with conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction for taking up arms to stop the Bureau of Land Management from seizing cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy.
The six men, from Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma, are the first of 17 defendants to go on trial on charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch standoff. Although federal prosecutors designated them as the “least culpable,” the defendants face identical charges and could spend the rest of their lives in prison if convicted.
Tanasi said if federal agents had followed the order to cease operations the day before, the standoff could have been defused.
“(Witnesses) testified that they were ceasing all operations,” he said after court Thursday. “It’s either all or it’s not … it makes no sense to me.”
(INTELLIHUB) — Shepard Ambellas takes a few minutes to explain what is going on with last week’s land grab of over 300,000 acres in Nevada and Utah.
Patriots and militia are not happy and it looks like there may possibly be another standoff brewing against the federal government.
Furthermore Hillary Clinton has sold out one-third of America’s uranium ore to the Russians in a blatant backdoor deal.
